Sometimes you can get enough mailings of the credit card check offers to move a legitimate loan (i.e., for an appreciating asset, e.g., a house) to a place normally not legitimate, i.e., a credit card.
This one from Capital One is a good example.
To thank you for your loyalty as our customer, we’re offering you a special transfer rate. When you transfer balances to your Capital One® account, you’ll enjoy this great 6.99% APR to start with until July 29, 2009. And then your rate actually falls to an even lower fixed 4.99%.
More good news is that you won’t pay a penny of transaction fees with this offer. That’s right—no transaction fee with this offer.
Note that there is no transaction fee with most offers from Capital One. This makes an incredible deal, a refinancing without a refinancing fee.
As long as you make the minimum payment each month (and you should put this kind of payment on AUTOPAY, so you never miss it when you happen to be traveling, etc.), this loan is great. If your current car note or house note is at 7% or higher, you may want to consider this deal. You have to earn a good credit rating to get this kind of offer, and get your credit limit on the card up pretty high to make it worthwhile, but dropping 2% after one year (without refinance charges) is way cool!
Saturday, August 23, 2008
transaction fees
Getting best deals from credit card checks. One of the important things that you can get with a credit card is a loan, by using the checks they send you from time to time. One way you test whether it's a good loan or not is by its initial cost, the transaction fee. Then you have to compare whether the initial cost and the APR together are less than other ways that you could get money.
Assume you are going to get a zero percent APR loan and your transaction fee is 3%. That 0% APR looks enticing, doesn't it? Did you know this is the same as getting a 6% APR loan with no transaction fee? Your zero percent APR just went to 6%. How?
Assume you borrow $1200.00 and you pay twelve payments of $100 each to pay off the zero percent loan. Your total finance charge is your 3% transaction fee times $1200, or $36.00.
Now, assume you pay 0% transaction fee and 3% APR. Each month you pay 0.03/12 times the current balance (dividing by 12 changes an APR to a monthly interest amount). You can put it into a spreadsheet and figure it to the penny, but let's assume your monthly payment is $100 plus the current interest. Your average balance for the year is one half the original amount, or $600. Multiplying the average balance by the APR gives the approximate interest for the entire year, $600 * 0.03 = $18.00.
When you paid a fee plus 0%, your total finance charge was $36. When you paid 3% APR, you paid $18. Which was the better deal?
Paying a percentage fee at the front of a loan effectively doubles the finance charge, assuming a one year payout.
listen
Powered by Jott
Assume you are going to get a zero percent APR loan and your transaction fee is 3%. That 0% APR looks enticing, doesn't it? Did you know this is the same as getting a 6% APR loan with no transaction fee? Your zero percent APR just went to 6%. How?
Assume you borrow $1200.00 and you pay twelve payments of $100 each to pay off the zero percent loan. Your total finance charge is your 3% transaction fee times $1200, or $36.00.
Now, assume you pay 0% transaction fee and 3% APR. Each month you pay 0.03/12 times the current balance (dividing by 12 changes an APR to a monthly interest amount). You can put it into a spreadsheet and figure it to the penny, but let's assume your monthly payment is $100 plus the current interest. Your average balance for the year is one half the original amount, or $600. Multiplying the average balance by the APR gives the approximate interest for the entire year, $600 * 0.03 = $18.00.
When you paid a fee plus 0%, your total finance charge was $36. When you paid 3% APR, you paid $18. Which was the better deal?
Paying a percentage fee at the front of a loan effectively doubles the finance charge, assuming a one year payout.
listen
Powered by Jott
Friday, August 15, 2008
Saving Bank Charges and Fees
I learned something the hard way a long way back and paid the price of bank fees and embarrassment. Recently, it happened to a friend who is old enough to know better, so I thought I should share it, since some of you are old enough to know better, too.
It is just a little feature called linking. You link your checking account with another funds source, and the bank automatically takes the money from that source, rather than bouncing a check or adding fees to your account when you use your cash card or checking account and get into an overdraft situation.
It is easy to write a bad check without intending to. I wrote one to the sheriff of Carnesville, GA when I happened to be the driver of a speeding car that was returning three college students from a Christmas break road trip. The check was good, at the time, but when I got back to Emory and wrote a check for my books the next week, I made a subtraction error. The check for the books hit the bank before the check to the sheriff, so that one bounced. The Georgia State Patrol was notified to pick me up. It seems the sheriff had been killed in a car wreck with my check in his pocket, so this was a sensitive matter to the law enforcement officials. Fortunately for me, my Mama was home when the State Patrol arrived, and she wrote them one of her good-as-gold checks, and they didn't wait to take me to jail.
I did get a talking-to by both Mama and Larry, about applied mathmatics. :)
The result was I added $200 to my checking account, but didn't put it in my check register. So I had that buffer for the errors I might make. And when I balanced my checkbook, I would always balance to $200, instead of zero. It worked and saved me from many bad checks, but not from all, since checks have gotten bigger over time.
If you do get into a bounce situation, rush to the bank and ask to speak to an officer. He or she can remove those charges if you convince them it was a mistake and you will never let it happen, again. Or, you can bargain with them. If several checks bounced, for example, it may be that most of them wouldn't have bounced if the bank had processed them before the big one. Since they processed the big one, first, there were not enough funds for four little checks. Why should you be charged five times $39 when their processing order could have been reversed and they would have only bounced the big one? (Because they make more money!)
But, you can avoid the whole scenario by account linking.
If you open a savings account at the bank (and I don't generally do this because they pay such low interest), they can link to that account. If an overdraft situation occurs, they automatically take the money from savings.
If you are buying your home, you can get the bank to give you a home equity line of credit. It is like a loan, but you don't take the money or pay interest, until you actually use it. It can be used for short-term cash needs, like replacing an air conditioner or buying tires, or some other unexpected expense. When you overdraft your checking account, the bank automatically increases the loan amount, and the check doesn't bounce.
If you get a credit card from the bank, they can link the checking account to the credit card, and use it to keep from bouncing a check. Just make sure of two things: 1. pay the entire balance due, plus about 5%, when you get a bill, because a cash transaction on a credit card gives them the highest interest and starts compounding the day the cash is taken and keeps compounding until it is paid off. 2. Be careful that the check to pay the credit card will not create an overdraft. That can get you into late fees, higher interest rates and perhaps, charges of kiting.
Ask about fees related to account linking. Bancorp South does not charge for this service. Our credit union charges $1 per instance. Shop around, if necessary, because it is worth changing banks to get this protection.
A stitch in time saves nine.
It is just a little feature called linking. You link your checking account with another funds source, and the bank automatically takes the money from that source, rather than bouncing a check or adding fees to your account when you use your cash card or checking account and get into an overdraft situation.
It is easy to write a bad check without intending to. I wrote one to the sheriff of Carnesville, GA when I happened to be the driver of a speeding car that was returning three college students from a Christmas break road trip. The check was good, at the time, but when I got back to Emory and wrote a check for my books the next week, I made a subtraction error. The check for the books hit the bank before the check to the sheriff, so that one bounced. The Georgia State Patrol was notified to pick me up. It seems the sheriff had been killed in a car wreck with my check in his pocket, so this was a sensitive matter to the law enforcement officials. Fortunately for me, my Mama was home when the State Patrol arrived, and she wrote them one of her good-as-gold checks, and they didn't wait to take me to jail.
I did get a talking-to by both Mama and Larry, about applied mathmatics. :)
The result was I added $200 to my checking account, but didn't put it in my check register. So I had that buffer for the errors I might make. And when I balanced my checkbook, I would always balance to $200, instead of zero. It worked and saved me from many bad checks, but not from all, since checks have gotten bigger over time.
If you do get into a bounce situation, rush to the bank and ask to speak to an officer. He or she can remove those charges if you convince them it was a mistake and you will never let it happen, again. Or, you can bargain with them. If several checks bounced, for example, it may be that most of them wouldn't have bounced if the bank had processed them before the big one. Since they processed the big one, first, there were not enough funds for four little checks. Why should you be charged five times $39 when their processing order could have been reversed and they would have only bounced the big one? (Because they make more money!)
But, you can avoid the whole scenario by account linking.
If you open a savings account at the bank (and I don't generally do this because they pay such low interest), they can link to that account. If an overdraft situation occurs, they automatically take the money from savings.
If you are buying your home, you can get the bank to give you a home equity line of credit. It is like a loan, but you don't take the money or pay interest, until you actually use it. It can be used for short-term cash needs, like replacing an air conditioner or buying tires, or some other unexpected expense. When you overdraft your checking account, the bank automatically increases the loan amount, and the check doesn't bounce.
If you get a credit card from the bank, they can link the checking account to the credit card, and use it to keep from bouncing a check. Just make sure of two things: 1. pay the entire balance due, plus about 5%, when you get a bill, because a cash transaction on a credit card gives them the highest interest and starts compounding the day the cash is taken and keeps compounding until it is paid off. 2. Be careful that the check to pay the credit card will not create an overdraft. That can get you into late fees, higher interest rates and perhaps, charges of kiting.
Ask about fees related to account linking. Bancorp South does not charge for this service. Our credit union charges $1 per instance. Shop around, if necessary, because it is worth changing banks to get this protection.
A stitch in time saves nine.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Using Jott.com
This is a wonderful thing using Jott.com. You can talk directly into your telephone and as long as you keep you thoughts coherent and in order so that your words keep flowing, you can dictate a blog right from your telephone into your blog page. Isn't technology wonderful?
The above message was dictated via Jott. Unfortunately, Jott has discontinued its free services and is not priced competitively for me. I prefer to use reQall.com.
The above message was dictated via Jott. Unfortunately, Jott has discontinued its free services and is not priced competitively for me. I prefer to use reQall.com.
Purpose in Life.
Today I was thinking about those things that make me into a better person, helpful of other people. I think if a person helps other people enough, he will either forget about being self-centered (e.g., asking who he is and what his life purpose is) because he's been doing something for others, or else he'll see how much better off he is than everybody he's trying to help, and his stated task (life purpose) is starting to take care of itself.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Communication is key to healthy relationships.
Communication is key to healthy relationships.
However, one of the hardest things for me to do is to tell somebody
something when I feel like they are not going to like it, or it is
going to hurt them.
So, when I have had these times when something was important, but I
was afraid it would hurt somebody or they wouldn't like it, then I
wouldn't say it.
I need to learn how to do that, because it's important to communicate.
And not saying it is (by definition) not communicating. Or, more
likely, it is communicating something to them, but you are clueless to
know what you said.
This is probably another right-brain thing. You are communicating
some emotional content without a corresponding logical content to
reinforce the value, or minimize the damage, the wordless
communication causes.
Suppose you accidentally ran over the cat and reverently buried the
remains in an out of the way place.
You don't want to tell someone who loved the cat, "Not only is Kitty
dead, but I was the perpetrator of the demise!" It is bad news that
the cat is dead. It is terrible news that you killed the cat!
You can bury the truth like you buried the cat, and just not mention
the issue. You don't hurt the person, and you don't receive the wrath
for doing the evil deed.
In a few days, you can help make signs to post in the neighborhood, or
you can 'fess up. Confessing not only gets a magnified form of the
first confrontation you were trying to avoid, it also gets the
additional wrath related to why you would do such a thing and hide it!
You can keep putting "lost kitty" signs up, raising the reward,
calling all the neighbors, etc., and you still avoid the anger, hurt,
and resentment. But you build a wall, making it ever harder to get
that communication channel opened in the future. And you bear the
emotional damage that comes with the supression of your own feelings,
i.e., the guilt.
And the spiral continues to go on, and on, and on.
At some point, the relationship may suffer so much that it gets
sacrificed, along with the cat and the truth.
How would you handle the situation?
However, one of the hardest things for me to do is to tell somebody
something when I feel like they are not going to like it, or it is
going to hurt them.
So, when I have had these times when something was important, but I
was afraid it would hurt somebody or they wouldn't like it, then I
wouldn't say it.
I need to learn how to do that, because it's important to communicate.
And not saying it is (by definition) not communicating. Or, more
likely, it is communicating something to them, but you are clueless to
know what you said.
This is probably another right-brain thing. You are communicating
some emotional content without a corresponding logical content to
reinforce the value, or minimize the damage, the wordless
communication causes.
Suppose you accidentally ran over the cat and reverently buried the
remains in an out of the way place.
You don't want to tell someone who loved the cat, "Not only is Kitty
dead, but I was the perpetrator of the demise!" It is bad news that
the cat is dead. It is terrible news that you killed the cat!
You can bury the truth like you buried the cat, and just not mention
the issue. You don't hurt the person, and you don't receive the wrath
for doing the evil deed.
In a few days, you can help make signs to post in the neighborhood, or
you can 'fess up. Confessing not only gets a magnified form of the
first confrontation you were trying to avoid, it also gets the
additional wrath related to why you would do such a thing and hide it!
You can keep putting "lost kitty" signs up, raising the reward,
calling all the neighbors, etc., and you still avoid the anger, hurt,
and resentment. But you build a wall, making it ever harder to get
that communication channel opened in the future. And you bear the
emotional damage that comes with the supression of your own feelings,
i.e., the guilt.
And the spiral continues to go on, and on, and on.
At some point, the relationship may suffer so much that it gets
sacrificed, along with the cat and the truth.
How would you handle the situation?
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
sanctification is hard
The bottom line is that my own marriage is not strong enough to withstand the schemes of the devil that would surely come our way if we followed that path. You know what a great spiritual challenge being a pastor who wants to follow God is in today's world. Even as an Associate Minister, I face the very real battle of trying to act like a Christian in front of my own wife.
It is not only that she knows what a Christian husband is supposed to do. She wants to test the limits of my love and patience. Satan is reinforcing her and trying to make us think that she is the problem, not him. The same temptations that happened in the Garden of Eden and in the wilderness, when Adam and Jesus were tempted, are happening, now.
We (speaking for myself) don't have the strength to say "Get behind me!" to Satan. Jesus did. We are told to "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you," and we only have the knowledge and strength to say, "It is written!" and "Help mine unbelief!" May the Lord give us the wisdom to know which of his words have the power for this situation.
Joshua said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." The problem is that "my house" gives me doubts every day. And that means that I am not living in front of her in such a way that she will be led and compelled by that spark of the spirit I know is there. It would be so much easier if I could just say, "As for me, I will serve the Lord," but, just as the promise was made to the Philippian Jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" so I do things that result in benefit for my house.
"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." We sanctify each other when one of us is not acting consistent with what we say we believe. For her sake, and the children's, I must be faithful. Or, if you think it is bad, now, wait until you remove your sanctifying influence.
It is not only that she knows what a Christian husband is supposed to do. She wants to test the limits of my love and patience. Satan is reinforcing her and trying to make us think that she is the problem, not him. The same temptations that happened in the Garden of Eden and in the wilderness, when Adam and Jesus were tempted, are happening, now.
We (speaking for myself) don't have the strength to say "Get behind me!" to Satan. Jesus did. We are told to "Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you," and we only have the knowledge and strength to say, "It is written!" and "Help mine unbelief!" May the Lord give us the wisdom to know which of his words have the power for this situation.
Joshua said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." The problem is that "my house" gives me doubts every day. And that means that I am not living in front of her in such a way that she will be led and compelled by that spark of the spirit I know is there. It would be so much easier if I could just say, "As for me, I will serve the Lord," but, just as the promise was made to the Philippian Jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" so I do things that result in benefit for my house.
"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." We sanctify each other when one of us is not acting consistent with what we say we believe. For her sake, and the children's, I must be faithful. Or, if you think it is bad, now, wait until you remove your sanctifying influence.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Predestination and Preaching
So what is the big deal about Predestination and Preaching? If people are predestined, why should we preach? Why should evangelism be needed, at all?
I revisited something similar with my baby this week. I am so excited that she is going to become an intern with the Reformed University Ministries.
She is doing what is called itineration, going from place to place, teaching people about what she is expecting the spirit to do with her in the coming year. I and several other family members have been lining up opportunities for her and barraging her with names of individuals and churches she should contact.
One of the results of itineration is that some people's hearts will have been prepared by God to hear her message and they will be moved to offer financial and prayer support for her.
The situation promotes an existential crisis, because she knows that God can gather her support without any means, whatever. He can move a person with $10,000 to walk up to her and say that the spirit moved him to give this money for her support without her ever saying anything. And she is hesitant to manipulate people or play the "numbers game," i.e., talking to as many people as possible until the magic number of support has been reached. She wants to trust the Lord, but her family keeps calling with more names for her to contact.
Go back to the original title. If predestination is true, a preacher can be in this same quandary. Why should he preach, if the Lord has predestined who will come to himself and has the power to miraculously move hearts? Why should he preach an evangelistic message at all? Why not be content just to equip the saints?
The answer is that God uses the foolishness of preaching to bring the elect to himself. Preaching the good news is the means God uses to save his elect. See the sequence in Roman 10. Preachers and preaching are listed as links in the chain that leads to salvation. God has in his infinite wisdom chosen to use people sharing the gospel to be the means of bringing the elect to himself.
It is a matter of obedience. If God says, "preach the gospel," we must preach the gospel. Some of the elect might well be in today's audience. That is God's business. Ours is to preach the gospel to all.
If RUF has chosen the means of itineration to raise support for its staff members, they should, in like manner, tell everyone their story. God has been preparing some of them to hear the message and their hearts will be touched by that sharing.
One of the Chinese students who heard her message told her, "You are so brave." That was interesting to me. My heart was not prepared to see this step in her life as bravery. But I understood what he was saying. His heart was prepared for that.
We may never know which conversation the Lord used to touch someone. But the Lord knows, and he uses every word for his own predestined purposes.
Keep sharing the good news!
I revisited something similar with my baby this week. I am so excited that she is going to become an intern with the Reformed University Ministries.
She is doing what is called itineration, going from place to place, teaching people about what she is expecting the spirit to do with her in the coming year. I and several other family members have been lining up opportunities for her and barraging her with names of individuals and churches she should contact.
One of the results of itineration is that some people's hearts will have been prepared by God to hear her message and they will be moved to offer financial and prayer support for her.
The situation promotes an existential crisis, because she knows that God can gather her support without any means, whatever. He can move a person with $10,000 to walk up to her and say that the spirit moved him to give this money for her support without her ever saying anything. And she is hesitant to manipulate people or play the "numbers game," i.e., talking to as many people as possible until the magic number of support has been reached. She wants to trust the Lord, but her family keeps calling with more names for her to contact.
Go back to the original title. If predestination is true, a preacher can be in this same quandary. Why should he preach, if the Lord has predestined who will come to himself and has the power to miraculously move hearts? Why should he preach an evangelistic message at all? Why not be content just to equip the saints?
The answer is that God uses the foolishness of preaching to bring the elect to himself. Preaching the good news is the means God uses to save his elect. See the sequence in Roman 10. Preachers and preaching are listed as links in the chain that leads to salvation. God has in his infinite wisdom chosen to use people sharing the gospel to be the means of bringing the elect to himself.
It is a matter of obedience. If God says, "preach the gospel," we must preach the gospel. Some of the elect might well be in today's audience. That is God's business. Ours is to preach the gospel to all.
If RUF has chosen the means of itineration to raise support for its staff members, they should, in like manner, tell everyone their story. God has been preparing some of them to hear the message and their hearts will be touched by that sharing.
One of the Chinese students who heard her message told her, "You are so brave." That was interesting to me. My heart was not prepared to see this step in her life as bravery. But I understood what he was saying. His heart was prepared for that.
We may never know which conversation the Lord used to touch someone. But the Lord knows, and he uses every word for his own predestined purposes.
Keep sharing the good news!
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Monday, April 07, 2008
buying a first home
Some advice written almost ten years ago.
Suggestions for house-buying.
Two things to decide at the start.
1. Is this house a beginning house, from which we can step up to the dream house, or is this the dream house? --If you start with a modest house, you get all the learning experience of loan-getting, plumbing and airconditioning things I should have learned, neighbors I can do without, etc., while at the same time, growing equity in the first home, which makes for a better down payment on the dream home.
2. Should the payment be totally from the husband's income, or should the wife's income also be part of the monthly payment? --If the wife becomes pregnant, can you still afford the home? On the other hand, if you get a payment based solely on the husband's income, AND the wife's income is applied monthly while she is employed and not having children, her part of the payment goes all towards principal, reducing the term of the loan significantly. (Be sure no pre-payment penalty and that additional payments go directly against principal when dealing with the lending agency.)
Another thing I find important is Location. You want to have good neighbors. You want to be near your church and your job. When you go to work, you don't want to travel east in the morning and west in the evening--you will be looking into the sun and have greater opportunity for wrecks. This means don't live West of the job. Live North, South, or East. East is my first choice.) You want to be convenient to your friends, and not too remote.
Remember that you will be buying a house, but it will own you. It will make you keep the grass cut, the wooden surfaces painted, the roof shingled, etc. Get a yard that both gives you garden space, yet also is not too large to subdue.
Suggestions for house-buying.
Two things to decide at the start.
1. Is this house a beginning house, from which we can step up to the dream house, or is this the dream house? --If you start with a modest house, you get all the learning experience of loan-getting, plumbing and airconditioning things I should have learned, neighbors I can do without, etc., while at the same time, growing equity in the first home, which makes for a better down payment on the dream home.
2. Should the payment be totally from the husband's income, or should the wife's income also be part of the monthly payment? --If the wife becomes pregnant, can you still afford the home? On the other hand, if you get a payment based solely on the husband's income, AND the wife's income is applied monthly while she is employed and not having children, her part of the payment goes all towards principal, reducing the term of the loan significantly. (Be sure no pre-payment penalty and that additional payments go directly against principal when dealing with the lending agency.)
Another thing I find important is Location. You want to have good neighbors. You want to be near your church and your job. When you go to work, you don't want to travel east in the morning and west in the evening--you will be looking into the sun and have greater opportunity for wrecks. This means don't live West of the job. Live North, South, or East. East is my first choice.) You want to be convenient to your friends, and not too remote.
Remember that you will be buying a house, but it will own you. It will make you keep the grass cut, the wooden surfaces painted, the roof shingled, etc. Get a yard that both gives you garden space, yet also is not too large to subdue.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Thoughts for the new year.
The new year message for the Chinese Church came from Philippians 3:13-14.
Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
The outline of the points was
1. Forget past failures.
2. Keep the goal ahead of you.
3. Work hard to reach the goal.
Although Paul's focus is on our heavenly goal, these are good ideas to ponder at a time of new year's resolutions.
Paul called this list "this one thing," and then listed three ideas. The grammar indicates that the "one thing" is to strive hard, and the other two verbs are participles, indicating the sub-parts of working hard to reach the goal.
I was reading a personal development website which talked about goals. The author said what we think about is what we bring about. In Paul's terms, if we keep thinking about the past failure, we won't be able to reach the goal. If we constantly talk about or think about bad things, we can't be thinking about the goal ahead, and our past becomes our future.
Forgetting is not easy, because real electrochemical things happen when we experience (and when we think about) anything. Dendrites are formed in our brains, and they never go away. But they grow stronger by rehearsing them, re-thinking about them. The only way to forget is to replace the thought with one more vivid and more well-rehearsed. Every day, we need to place the goal in front of us. The more time we spend looking ahead, the less time we will look back.
Learn from it; then put it aside. Focus on the goal of the upward calling of God in Christ Jesus. And then strive to reach the goal.
May we all have a blessed 2008.
Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
The outline of the points was
1. Forget past failures.
2. Keep the goal ahead of you.
3. Work hard to reach the goal.
Although Paul's focus is on our heavenly goal, these are good ideas to ponder at a time of new year's resolutions.
Paul called this list "this one thing," and then listed three ideas. The grammar indicates that the "one thing" is to strive hard, and the other two verbs are participles, indicating the sub-parts of working hard to reach the goal.
I was reading a personal development website which talked about goals. The author said what we think about is what we bring about. In Paul's terms, if we keep thinking about the past failure, we won't be able to reach the goal. If we constantly talk about or think about bad things, we can't be thinking about the goal ahead, and our past becomes our future.
Forgetting is not easy, because real electrochemical things happen when we experience (and when we think about) anything. Dendrites are formed in our brains, and they never go away. But they grow stronger by rehearsing them, re-thinking about them. The only way to forget is to replace the thought with one more vivid and more well-rehearsed. Every day, we need to place the goal in front of us. The more time we spend looking ahead, the less time we will look back.
Learn from it; then put it aside. Focus on the goal of the upward calling of God in Christ Jesus. And then strive to reach the goal.
May we all have a blessed 2008.
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Rachel and Leah
All of us have experienced Rachel and Leah. We thought we were getting Rachel, but we actually got weak-eyed Leah.
What we need to focus on is God's purpose in giving us Leah.
Leah was, after all, the mother of Judah.
And it was the genetic material of Leah and Judah from which the Messiah was derived.
Jacob also got his Rachel, later.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
thanksgiving for little things
I received the two DVDs and dictionary to help me learn Chinese. They are way cool! Thank you.
The DVDs include vignettes of life situations of young people in a college and city setting. They are glimpses into their culture as well as the language.
Here's hoping my Chinese improves. :)
The DVDs include vignettes of life situations of young people in a college and city setting. They are glimpses into their culture as well as the language.
Here's hoping my Chinese improves. :)
Monday, October 01, 2007
fasting
Our pastor called for a time of prayer and fasting last week. Since some evils only come out by prayer and fasting, it is a good thing to do.
One of the things I noticed was that my body continued to produce solid output even though I only had liquid input, and this continued the entire week.
My conclusion: I am full of crap. Maybe that is one of the best things I could have learned from this time of doing without.
I think that what I say is good and helpful to people because it is my gift from the Lord. But I need to temper that emotion with the reality that I am full of crap.
When you read my words remember that I am so full of crap. The Bible word for crap is dung.
Philippians iii. 7–10
“Howbeit what things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ. Yea verily, and I counted all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of mine own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is of God.”
Psalm 113
1Hallelujah! Praise, ye servants of Jehovah, praise the name of Jehovah. 2Blessed be the name of Jehovah, from this time forth and for evermore! 3From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, let Jehovah`s name be praised. 4Jehovah is high above all nations, his glory above the heavens. 5Who is like unto Jehovah our God, who hath placed his dwelling on high; 6Who humbleth himself to look on the heavens and on the earth? 7He raiseth up the poor out of the dust; from the dung-hill he lifteth up the needy, 8To set [him] among nobles, among the nobles of his people. 9He maketh the barren woman to keep house, [as] a joyful mother of sons. Hallelujah!
One of the things I noticed was that my body continued to produce solid output even though I only had liquid input, and this continued the entire week.
My conclusion: I am full of crap. Maybe that is one of the best things I could have learned from this time of doing without.
I think that what I say is good and helpful to people because it is my gift from the Lord. But I need to temper that emotion with the reality that I am full of crap.
When you read my words remember that I am so full of crap. The Bible word for crap is dung.
Philippians iii. 7–10
“Howbeit what things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ. Yea verily, and I counted all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having a righteousness of mine own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is of God.”
Psalm 113
1Hallelujah! Praise, ye servants of Jehovah, praise the name of Jehovah. 2Blessed be the name of Jehovah, from this time forth and for evermore! 3From the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, let Jehovah`s name be praised. 4Jehovah is high above all nations, his glory above the heavens. 5Who is like unto Jehovah our God, who hath placed his dwelling on high; 6Who humbleth himself to look on the heavens and on the earth? 7He raiseth up the poor out of the dust; from the dung-hill he lifteth up the needy, 8To set [him] among nobles, among the nobles of his people. 9He maketh the barren woman to keep house, [as] a joyful mother of sons. Hallelujah!
Thursday, September 06, 2007
by what standard?
Last night's Bible study included the sections from Proverbs describing punishment with a rod and discipline of children, etc. (Proverbs 13:24, Proverbs 22:15, Proverbs 23:13-14, Proverbs 29:15,17).
One woman was having trouble with the teaching. She said, "I never spanked my children and they turned out just fine."
Can we judge the word by the outcome of disobedience to it? God is free to bring about results without our obedience, but we are not free to disobey.
Is the word to be judged by our lives, or are our lives to be judged by the word?
The good news was that she acknowledged that the scripture did, indeed, say that parents should use corporal punishment if they love their children.
One woman was having trouble with the teaching. She said, "I never spanked my children and they turned out just fine."
Can we judge the word by the outcome of disobedience to it? God is free to bring about results without our obedience, but we are not free to disobey.
Is the word to be judged by our lives, or are our lives to be judged by the word?
The good news was that she acknowledged that the scripture did, indeed, say that parents should use corporal punishment if they love their children.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Eliminating the toxic parts of thoughts.
Ask A Life Purpose Coach said...
Great insight! What are some of the things we can do to eliminate the toxic parts of the thoughts?
August 19, 2007 1:51 PM
Since the thought is real (both the emotional content and the information content), it cannot be eliminated. Instead, it has to be re-linked to more positive content, or negatively reinforced.
To re-link a thought, you must take the bad emotional experience and separate the informational content from the emotional content. You can only do this in your left brain, where you can logically think about the thought. As you think about the thought, visualize the bad emotions as bad, and bad for you. Then, (still in the left brain), think about something positive that has good emotional chemistry and resolve to link the old thought with the new feeling. After some time, the old information will bring the new emotion, automatically. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
For example, I knew a toxic person who would always say negative things and always make me feel bad when we were together. But this was a friend, someone I benefited from in many ways. And I wanted to save the relationship. But the toxic personality was more than I could take.
So I backed away from the situation and reviewed it in my left brain. I took the perspective that there was something cosmic in the relationship, and there were forces outside us that didn't want us to succeed in the relationship. I also knew that my goal was to be full of the Holy Spirit in this situation.
After some time, I was able to do the spirit-filled things (singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, count self lower than other, love, etc.) when the events that formerly caused the bad feelings happened. I re-associated the bad event with new spiritual content, and saw it was just one more battle in the spiritual war. Now, I (almost) look forward to those times, because they link me to the higher plane.
The new associations must be practiced over and over, so those real thoughts overpower the original ones, by sheer numbers of the new emotions that have been linked to the old events.
Great insight! What are some of the things we can do to eliminate the toxic parts of the thoughts?
August 19, 2007 1:51 PM
Since the thought is real (both the emotional content and the information content), it cannot be eliminated. Instead, it has to be re-linked to more positive content, or negatively reinforced.
To re-link a thought, you must take the bad emotional experience and separate the informational content from the emotional content. You can only do this in your left brain, where you can logically think about the thought. As you think about the thought, visualize the bad emotions as bad, and bad for you. Then, (still in the left brain), think about something positive that has good emotional chemistry and resolve to link the old thought with the new feeling. After some time, the old information will bring the new emotion, automatically. Repeat, repeat, repeat.
For example, I knew a toxic person who would always say negative things and always make me feel bad when we were together. But this was a friend, someone I benefited from in many ways. And I wanted to save the relationship. But the toxic personality was more than I could take.
So I backed away from the situation and reviewed it in my left brain. I took the perspective that there was something cosmic in the relationship, and there were forces outside us that didn't want us to succeed in the relationship. I also knew that my goal was to be full of the Holy Spirit in this situation.
After some time, I was able to do the spirit-filled things (singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord, count self lower than other, love, etc.) when the events that formerly caused the bad feelings happened. I re-associated the bad event with new spiritual content, and saw it was just one more battle in the spiritual war. Now, I (almost) look forward to those times, because they link me to the higher plane.
The new associations must be practiced over and over, so those real thoughts overpower the original ones, by sheer numbers of the new emotions that have been linked to the old events.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
thoughts are real
I am reading a book: WHO SWITCHED OFF MY BRAIN? by Caroline Leaf. The subtitle of her book is "controlling toxic thoughts and emotions."
Something that is getting through to me is that thoughts are real. I.e., they make measurable, actual changes in the chemistry and electronics in our brains. Dendrons (dendrites) grow. Peptides flow. Connections are made.
In the past, I have observed that, when reading a book multiple times, we get more out of it in each successive reading. All I have said before is that "we have been changed by what we read, so that the person viewing it the next time is not the same person who read it the previous time."
Leaf's book has added some quantitative information to my model, by describing the biochemical changes that take place when we experience events, and when we think thoughts.
Thoughts are real. When we think, connections are made in our brain and other organs. Along with the physical growth of neural connections, the stress-related chemicals (peptides, etc.) are stored and associated with the memory of the event.
A memory consists of both the information content and the emotional content of the event, and both sets of associated information are stored together in our brains. I.e., the thought is something real.
When we remember (have a thought about--retrace the neurons that make up the memory of) the event, we remember (and re-experience) the emotion, as well.
Sometimes, the emotional content is so strong that we repress the memory, to avoid re-experiencing the negative emotions mixed in with the thought.
This is how we cope with bad experiences.
Leaf's book ends with a list of things we can do to eliminate the toxic parts of the thoughts.
Something that is getting through to me is that thoughts are real. I.e., they make measurable, actual changes in the chemistry and electronics in our brains. Dendrons (dendrites) grow. Peptides flow. Connections are made.
In the past, I have observed that, when reading a book multiple times, we get more out of it in each successive reading. All I have said before is that "we have been changed by what we read, so that the person viewing it the next time is not the same person who read it the previous time."
Leaf's book has added some quantitative information to my model, by describing the biochemical changes that take place when we experience events, and when we think thoughts.
Thoughts are real. When we think, connections are made in our brain and other organs. Along with the physical growth of neural connections, the stress-related chemicals (peptides, etc.) are stored and associated with the memory of the event.
A memory consists of both the information content and the emotional content of the event, and both sets of associated information are stored together in our brains. I.e., the thought is something real.
When we remember (have a thought about--retrace the neurons that make up the memory of) the event, we remember (and re-experience) the emotion, as well.
Sometimes, the emotional content is so strong that we repress the memory, to avoid re-experiencing the negative emotions mixed in with the thought.
This is how we cope with bad experiences.
Leaf's book ends with a list of things we can do to eliminate the toxic parts of the thoughts.
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
consistency
There was a recent video blog about abortions and the penalty for them if they are illegal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo
It pointed out the inconsistency of the thought patterns of people "on the right."
The question asker is asking the right question pair. Should abortion be illegal? and If so, what punishment should be appropriate for the crime of abortion?
There are a pair of meta-questions that should also be asked. Who should determine whether abortion should be legal? and Who should determine what punishment is suitable for the crime?
There are three possible answers, which are really two.
First, we can say, I should determine it. Then we can say, WE (society) should determine it. Finally, we can say, GOD should determine it.
The first two are equivalent to saying a person or group of persons should determine laws. Having a person or people make the determination is simply Humanism. The alternative is Theism.
Unfortunately, right-wing conservatives are largely humanists. At least, those who were interviewed in the blog, above are humanists. They are probably not self-conscious humanists, and they would probably be offended if you called them humanists, but they are not consistent Christians.
A consistent, Christian, theistic point of view is that only God can determine what should be legal, and only God can determine what punishment is suitable for which crimes.
In this case, the crime is murder. The punishment is life given for life taken. It fits the crime.
Fortunately for us, God allows mitigating circumstances to mitigate the punishment. Those who unintentionally take a life have an opportunity for mercy.
But how many right-wing conservatives know their Biblical Law?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo
It pointed out the inconsistency of the thought patterns of people "on the right."
The question asker is asking the right question pair. Should abortion be illegal? and If so, what punishment should be appropriate for the crime of abortion?
There are a pair of meta-questions that should also be asked. Who should determine whether abortion should be legal? and Who should determine what punishment is suitable for the crime?
There are three possible answers, which are really two.
First, we can say, I should determine it. Then we can say, WE (society) should determine it. Finally, we can say, GOD should determine it.
The first two are equivalent to saying a person or group of persons should determine laws. Having a person or people make the determination is simply Humanism. The alternative is Theism.
Unfortunately, right-wing conservatives are largely humanists. At least, those who were interviewed in the blog, above are humanists. They are probably not self-conscious humanists, and they would probably be offended if you called them humanists, but they are not consistent Christians.
A consistent, Christian, theistic point of view is that only God can determine what should be legal, and only God can determine what punishment is suitable for which crimes.
In this case, the crime is murder. The punishment is life given for life taken. It fits the crime.
Fortunately for us, God allows mitigating circumstances to mitigate the punishment. Those who unintentionally take a life have an opportunity for mercy.
But how many right-wing conservatives know their Biblical Law?
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Providence and Obedience
We were looking at the law of gleaning in Leviticus and considering its application in other scriptures.
The main place we see the application is in the book of Ruth. Naomi, Ruth's mother in law, had gone with her son to Moab where he had married two Moabite women. When Naomi's son had died, Ruth determined to stay a part of Naomi's family when they had no way to provide for themselves in Moab.
Naomi knew the details of the scripture and the law of gleaning. They went back to Israel and found the field of Boaz and depended on God and the law of gleaning for their provisions.
There were other laws that came into play: the kinsman/redeemer and the jubilee year.
Though their obedience to these seemingly meaningless, miniscule details in the law, God brought about the union of Ruth and Boaz.
Where do we next hear of Boaz? In Matthew 1, in the geneology of Jesus.
God's providence and their obedience were used by God to add Ruth's genetic material and maternal heritage into the constitution of the baby Jesus, the savior of the world.
How do we regard the details of Leviticus 19? Jesus used several of these details in his teachings. Perhaps, we should pay them more attention.
The main place we see the application is in the book of Ruth. Naomi, Ruth's mother in law, had gone with her son to Moab where he had married two Moabite women. When Naomi's son had died, Ruth determined to stay a part of Naomi's family when they had no way to provide for themselves in Moab.
Naomi knew the details of the scripture and the law of gleaning. They went back to Israel and found the field of Boaz and depended on God and the law of gleaning for their provisions.
There were other laws that came into play: the kinsman/redeemer and the jubilee year.
Though their obedience to these seemingly meaningless, miniscule details in the law, God brought about the union of Ruth and Boaz.
Where do we next hear of Boaz? In Matthew 1, in the geneology of Jesus.
God's providence and their obedience were used by God to add Ruth's genetic material and maternal heritage into the constitution of the baby Jesus, the savior of the world.
How do we regard the details of Leviticus 19? Jesus used several of these details in his teachings. Perhaps, we should pay them more attention.
The law of gleaning: Christian welfare
This week, we looked in Leviticus 19:9-10 at the law of gleaning. It is an interesting section of "little" detailed laws, but important, because Jesus characterized one of them, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," (v. 18) as one of the greatest of all the laws in Scripture.
The law of gleaning describes the Bible's form of welfare: give the poor an opportunity to work; leave your excess for them; don't take everything that is rightfully yours, but leave something for the poor and the aliens. The only reason given is because God is the Lord, i.e., it is his nature to give graciously of his bounty to others who do not deserve it.
Giving an opportunity to work also enables the recipient to maintain his dignity. He labors just as hard for his food as the landowner and his hired workers.
Many of us don't have fields and vineyards, today, so we must find other ways to implement this law. On a personal level, we can share what we have with everyone in need. For example, share that smile and your "How are you?" with the clerk who serves you. Leave a nice TIP for the waitress who serves you.
Collectively, we may be able to form Co-ops where the poor can trade their time for products. For example, the cooperative may arrange for pickups from local groceries or bakeries of their out of date products. The poor could glean through the products in exchange for making pickups or serving the other customers, pulling off the outer leaves and brown spots, etc.
You may be able to think of other ways to leave gleanings so others can have some work and some income.
The law of gleaning describes the Bible's form of welfare: give the poor an opportunity to work; leave your excess for them; don't take everything that is rightfully yours, but leave something for the poor and the aliens. The only reason given is because God is the Lord, i.e., it is his nature to give graciously of his bounty to others who do not deserve it.
Giving an opportunity to work also enables the recipient to maintain his dignity. He labors just as hard for his food as the landowner and his hired workers.
Many of us don't have fields and vineyards, today, so we must find other ways to implement this law. On a personal level, we can share what we have with everyone in need. For example, share that smile and your "How are you?" with the clerk who serves you. Leave a nice TIP for the waitress who serves you.
Collectively, we may be able to form Co-ops where the poor can trade their time for products. For example, the cooperative may arrange for pickups from local groceries or bakeries of their out of date products. The poor could glean through the products in exchange for making pickups or serving the other customers, pulling off the outer leaves and brown spots, etc.
You may be able to think of other ways to leave gleanings so others can have some work and some income.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)