I didn’t mean to be rude.
I didn’t mean to butt in.
I didn’t mean to overhear.
I didn’t mean to…
I didn’t mean….
But did you mean not to?
I didn’t mean to cut you off.
I didn’t mean to step on your toes.
I didn’t mean to break it.
I didn’t mean to be careless.
I didn’t mean to… It was an accident. Not my fault, out of my control. It just happened, you see; so I couldn’t be to blame. I’m innocent - don’t hold it against me. I didn’t mean to.
You didn’t mean to…. But did you mean not to?
I don’t mean to be ungrateful, God.
I don’t meant to doubt.
I don’t meant to look at porn.
I don’t mean to be unfaithful.
I don’t mean to be a bad witness.
I don’t mean to give in to temptation.
I don’t mean to be a gossip, a slanderer, a hypocrit.
But do I mean not to? Do I intentionally set my sights on what I want to be? Do I purposefully emulate the qualities you want me to possess; fostering them, nurturing them, strengthening them? Do I make it a point to avoid temptation, speak truth, turn away from deceit, act in love?
I don’t mean to. But do I mean not to?
"A related problem is our culture’s utter foolishness in considering teens “children.” I’m sorry, but a 16 year old girl isn’t a child anymore. The problems we’re having with teen sexting and resulting “child pornography” charges reflect the absurdity of our standards. We wonder why adolescence extends indefinitely now, but we’re telling our teens, who are biologically adults, that they’re children. All the while, they learn not to function as adults but as those with some adult freedoms but no adult responsibilities. This extension of childhood and adolescence needs to be challenged within the Evangelical world, which because of its abstinence stance has boxed itself in and therefore has to take a leadership role on the matter. American culture needs to face the facts: 16 year old “kids” are young adults, not children, and they should be treated as such."
The Holy Spirit is not a TomTom for your life.
Anonymous said: I felt as though your comment did imply that, could you maybe explain further? To me it sounded as though there are certain things you are not able to find in Jesus. Thank you in advance for your explanation!
I appreciate the question :-)
And yes - I am saying that there are certain things we cannot find in Jesus.
Jesus will never be a man’s wife. He will never be a husband to a woman. He will never give a woman a child through the direct act of intercourse. These are roles he created for humans to fill.
I think one of the amazing things about God is that he created us with free will so that we could choose to love him, and yet he created us also with a need for relationship with others of our own kind, not just himself. “It is not good for man to be alone” God said, though man existed in perfect harmonious relationship with God. So God made man a wife, to fill the needs and desires in man that God had placed in him that He intended to not fill. It follows then that He placed needs and desires in the woman’s heart that He also intended the man to fill, not Himself.
But none of this is to imply that Christ should not be the center of a relationship :-)
Anonymous said: "Girls, please stop trying to find in Jesus the relationship that he created you to find in men." -- Can you explain what you mean by this? Shouldn't Jesus be the first and foremost in a relationship?
Certainly he should be first and foremost! Did I imply he shouldn’t?