Judge Not...

A few things have come to a head this week to inspire this post.

It started on Monday, when my friend Mitch and I had some interesting conversations over coffee (well, tea) on a variety of topics, including being judgmental of others, and how we ought to refrain from it. We didn't delve into this topic deeply, but I feel like even that brief discussion opened my eyes and ears to picking up that same message elsewhere.  

On Tuesday, I read a blog post from Dan Pearce, of Single Dad Laughing fame, that summed up, quite humorously, the various ways people not only butt into your business, but judge you for the things you do and the decisions you make. I saw myself in quite a few of these, both as having been a recipient of said judgment, and in being guilty of judging others:

http://www.danoah.com/2013/02/20-things-that-aint-none-of-your-business.html/

I'm currently in the midst of reading "The Grace Awakening" by Chuck Swindoll, and yesterday I got to a chapter about letting go. The main point was that God's grace allows you the freedom to either choose to follow him or succumb to the same sinful temptations you were unable to fight off without his help. This freedom, however, also extends to others and how you deal with them. If they are to have true freedom to pursue grace, then you must let them go, and that means refraining from interfering with their decisions. It's up to God to work through those decisions and work in their lives, and it's not up to you to decide what constitutes a poor decision or a good one. In other words: butt out, don't judge, and just continue to show them love and compassion.

Then today I came across this graphic posted on Believe Out Loud's page:

I liked it because, as I've stated in previous blog posts, the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" adage has never sat well with me. And today it occurred to me that the "hate the sin" portion is actually a form of judgment. And judgment, by its very nature, is unloving. So how can you love yet hate at the same time? You can't.

Some might interpret this to mean that loving the person without hating the sin means condoning his sin, but I don't believe that's the case. A person's sin should not be within our realm to pass judgment on-- that is solely God's domain. It's not even our business to decide what is and what isn't sin. Again, that's entirely between God and the "sinner". All we can do, all we should do, is take our fellow, fallible human being and love them.

And how best to love someone than by refraining from passing judgment on them?

Of Maids and Muscle

This past weekend, in between meeting up with friends, both old and new, I got a chance to partake of two things that are pretty much on opposite ends of the "edifying" spectrum.

On Saturday, I had a chunk of downtime between brunch with the old UCSB Geeks and dinner/karaoke with my SB friends. So after cleaning the house, I settled into my chaise and promptly got lost in what is now one of my favorite books: "The Help"

I got the hardcover version, so it was a pretty sizeable tome. And one of the reasons I can zip through books like that so quickly is that I tend to skip over the long, rambling paragraphs that describe a setting or a character. Impatient as always, I prefer to go straight for the action and dialog. So for most fiction books like that, I really end up reading only about 80% of the entire book.

Not so with this one. This is one of those rare books where I slowly savor every single word. The writing is so good that the characters come vividly alive-- I can picture them and hear their voices in my mind. Of course, since I'd never seen the movie, the characters ended up looking a lot like characters from Downton Abbey, which I'm currently in the midst of watching ;-)

Moreso than an enjoyable read, however, it offered a good glimpse into what life was like in the South in the 1960's-- a time when racial tensions ran rampant. Not unlike "To Kill a Mockingbird", another perennial favorite. And I particularly enjoy books that are fiction at the core, but deal with real historical events.

When I got home from karaoke at around midnight, I couldn't resist picking the book back up-- and promptly stayed up till past 2:00am, finishing it. It was that good! Now I can't wait to see the movie-- it's next up in my Netflix DVD queue :-)

So after that edifying Saturday, I took a turn in the opposite direction on Sunday, when my friend Leah and I got together at my place to watch "Magic Mike".

I came into this movie with extremely low expectations. Which, of course, meant that it exceeded them :-) The plot was thin, but the acting was actually pretty decent. And I did like how they portrayed how the tables were turned-- how the men were used and objectified and seen as nothing more than a piece of meat, much like many women in today's society still are. I'm not entirely sure if the social commentary was intentional or not, but I definitely caught it.

The actual dance scenes, which comprised about half the movie, were okay. I confess that the main draw for me was Matt Bomer (whom I love as Neal Caffrey on "White Collar"), so I was a bit bummed that I didn't get to see much of him (hooray for deleted scenes, at least!)
Channing Tatum is not really my idea of eye candy. He's too overbuilt for my taste, and I don't find his face pretty in the least. What I was impressed by, however, were his dance moves. You wouldn't think that a big guy like that would be able to move so fluidly, but he did!
And Matthew McConaughey gyrating in a G-string? Not a scene I'd like to relive again, thank you very much. He's a little too old for that, and I just felt sort of sad and full of pity when I watched him do that last dance scene at the end.

"Magic Mike" was an enjoyable way to waste a couple of hours, especially since I got to hang out with Leah, whom I haven't seen since before her now-2-year-old began talking! But it further reinforced the notion that this is how I prefer my men: neat, fit, clean-shaven (for the most part, anyway), and dressed smartly:

Friday Five: Attraction Edition

Haven't done a Friday Five in ages, and lately Blogthings has been hosting their own Friday Five, so I thought I'd draw from them. Plus it gives me a chance to take one of their quizzes-- the answers of which are usually quite obvious, but are fun little time-wasters nevertheless :-)

Today's Friday Five is about attraction:

1. How accurate are your first impressions of people?
2. In your view, what sort of vibe do you give off?
3. If you’re in a crowd of strangers, what sort of people do you gravitate towards?
4. What is more likely to attract you to someone – their voice or their scent?
5. What Type Do You Fall For? Take the quiz and share your result. Is it true?

1. I've never been known for being an accurate judge of character, especially not with first impressions. But I think I get it right more than half the time. Maybe it's because I've gotten older and have had more experience dealing with different types of people, and can more easily detect the same patterns?

2. I like to think I give off a happy, carefree, approachable vibe. I feel like I'm more successful at it now than when I was younger, and I think that's maybe because I'm already settled and have no need to try and impress anyone.

3. I would gravitate towards people giving off the same vibe: happy, carefree, sociable and friendly. Maybe also the wallflowers, just because that what I usually was in social situations-- hanging back, feeling shy and timid, nervous about approaching other people. Sometimes it's a real relief to  have someone approach you and strike up a conversation. I'm still mindful of what it was like to be in their shoes, so I sympathize.

4. Ooooh, that's a tough one! A deep, beautiful voice (think Josh Turner) can make any girl swoon, and I'm no exception. But I think scents would do it more for me. In particular, I like a clean, fresh, crisp scent-- like a guy has just showered, put on freshly laundered clothes (I LOVE the smell of clothes laundered in Tide!), and applied just a little dab of aftershave. No cologne necessary-- in fact, I'd wager to say that most colognes would be too overpowering, even in small doses. A natural, fresh, clean scent is more to my liking. There is, after all, something to be said for the phenomenon of pheromones ;-)

5. Well, here are the results of my quiz:

You Fall for the Guy or Girl Next Door Type

You think that people make love too complicated, and what you want in a partner happens to be pretty simple. You're content with someone who's nice, attractive, honest, and normal. So how come that's so hard to find? You are fairly traditional, and you value security in relationships more than most people. It's important for you to find someone loyal. When you find the right person, you don't expect much from him or her. You're just happy to be together.

What Type Do You Fall For?

Blogthings: Take a Quiz. Annoy Your Friends.

I think it's pretty accurate. I've never been one for the dark, mysterious, bad-boy type. Or the dashingly handsome muscle dude that EVERY girl wants. This is pretty much evidenced by my "top 5" list that I blogged some years ago, and that hasn't really changed much (except to add Silas Weir Mitchell to the list-- whom, as you can see, also fits neither the "bad boy" or the "gorgeous hunk" type).

How about you?