How Do You Know When It's Love?

We all have asked this question. We ask because we want guarantees. We ask because we don't want heartbreak. But if it is love...

1. You won't be scared...eventually.Yes when it's serious it can be scary. The deeper you are the harder you land. The potential for pain and disappointment increase proportionately with how bad you got it. But, when you're in love you get over that because love is willing to take the risk. And once it's willing, it's no longer afraid.

2.There is no future...there is a future. When it's real you simply can't imagine life without that person. Now, wanting what's best for them means being willing to let go - but that doesn't mean you're gonna be happy about it. Don't get this mixed up with wanting to keep them tied up your basement - that's something else entirely. Still, if you're happy being bored with them - that's a good sign.

3.They are home. No they won't always be home, but you always.feel at home with them. No need to impress, no anxiety and silence is ok. It's the kind of comfort that doesn't need roses to feel romantic. You like who you are with them.

4.You don't need a reason. There's no need to check the list of 'things you want' off because intuitively they are there. While romance is all nice, real life without the fancy decor is good enough to enjoy them. At the same time you don't need a special occasion to splash on some bells & whistles.

5.The more you know them, the more you like. That's a good sign that you like what's beneath the skin, not just the skin.

I knew this guy who once said, 'you can fall in love with anybody' I now know that was a steaming pile of verbal manure. You can't fall in love with anybody. You hardly have a choice who you fall for, though you do have a choice about what happens after. But that's not what these thoughts are about, that's part II.

'An Eye for an Eye': Getting Even vs Getting Over it - Biblically Speaking

Where Do Eye Start?
Often the Biblical reference of 'an eye for an eye' is used to justify revenge - some even say that God endorsed revenge in the Old Testament through this teaching, while Jesus revoked it in Matthew 5: 38-42:

38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39But I tell you do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Now Jesus is referencing scripture itself - so is he telling us to turn away from the practice of revenge encouraged by Old Testament teaching? The best thing is to go to the texts in the OT that make the initial statement. The first scripture is Exodus 21, and much of Exodus and Leviticus are spent giving specific instructions on delivering justice and fairness to the people of Israel. Indeed, some believe much of the modern day justice system in the West is built on the Judaic judicial structure.

Exodus 21:22-24 reads,

22 "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Sounds pretty much like revenge right? Someone lops your hand off - you lop theirs right off and everybody goes home left-handed, whether they like it or not. But if you think about it, going home with someone’s severed hand really won't help you (especially if you live in a time when advanced surgery like face-replacement isn't around just yet). It would probably be better if the victim was somehow compensated - sounds very familiar right? You might be thinking of all those frivolous lawsuits in the US where people are awarded millions for burning themselves with their own coffee, or sue a burger joint for making them fat.

More Even-handed Than Previously Thought

The whole point of the lengthy and often boring detail of books like Exodus and Leviticus was to avoid frivolous cases by covering as much of the possibilities as could be done. So, what does the rest of the scripture say? Verses 26-29 read,

26 "If a man hits a manservant or maidservant in the eye and destroys it, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the eye. 27 And if he knocks out the tooth of a manservant or maidservant, he must let the servant go free to compensate for the tooth.

28 "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.

Wow. This sounds more reasonable doesn't it? There is no reference to taking out someone's eye if they take out yours at all. Other references to this type of judgement are made in Leviticus 24 and Deuteronomy 19 but in very much the same vein as this Exodus passage. Now we already know that capital punishment was part of the Judaic justice system and some crimes that attracted the death penalty may be questionable, but if one considers the detail that went into the laws it might be fairly easy to avoid such crimes. Just as easy as it is today. It might not be too common to be accidentally involved in a pre-meditated murder.

Even in today's society the death penalty is still carried out - and I'm not talking about Afghanistan or Iraq but USA, Texas. Our challenge has always been in determining the just punishment for a crime. So many factors come into play: intent, remorse, self-defence, motive and so on. But one thing is for certain - we need a system of justice if society is to function normally - or as close to what we can call 'normal' as possible.

The Price is Right?

The problem with crime or sin is that when it is committed it cannot be 'un-committed'. Stolen goods can be returned but the violation is already done - the house broken - the peace-of-mind and security of the family shattered. What is the proper sentence? Not even apologies make true recompense for insults or affronts. Unfaithfulness in relationships destroys trust in profound ways - even genuine remorse cannot completely restore trust to a person who has been so betrayed. Some wounds may heal, but still bleed, however, in our consumerist society money if often sufficient for the troubles of many. It might be worth asking if large financial settlements enhance or devalue justice. What do you think?

A crime that has been committed is done so forever. Indeed, in some societies we deem some acts as crimes that are less destructive than others we don't deem criminal. Adultery, for example, is punishable by a prison sentence in South Korea (no, not North - South Korea). In many, maybe most countries, adultery is not a crime - but when one considers the repercussions of such an act it might make you think a little about how we determine what is or isn't a crime.

Of course that is a debate about morality and the law. The two don't always meet by any means - and this is what terrifies us about religious law (like the Muslim Shariah) because the law is morality. How can we go through life and not break some aspect of the law, nobody is perfect?

It makes one think about the purpose of any moral code. Is it there to tell us what is right and/or wrong or to tell us what to do only when someone does something we innately know is harmful in some way? Justice usually seems simple when one is neither the victim nor the perpetrator, but if you are either, an objective or impartial standard comes in handy.

But then we are left to question the justice of the justice system. It may be that a moral code is the least of our worries - we might do well to be concerned about living up to a moral code - any moral code. The track record of humanity suggests that no matter how realistic a moral code, we manage to fall below it and break 'the rules'. Paul points out the part of our human nature that just wants to do something because we were explicitly told not to (Romans 7:7-10). Justice is indispensible when considering our propensity for wrongdoing - whether it is a violation of state law or Mom & Dad's law.

Living a Law

This points to something beyond law - rules don't make us better, only better informed and only then if the rules make sense. If we violate some aspect of morality by lying, for example, the solution is not just to speak the truth - it is to stop being a liar, or racist or violent as the case may be. What good is it to apologize for a racist slur when one continues to be racist?

Perhaps Jesus' intent - indeed the intent of most moral codes - is not to make people DO things, but to help people see the value of certain aspects of character and hence be things. But as for the initial passage referring to 'an eye for an eye', Spielberg's Munich suggested that the only true solution to violation, illustrated through the perennial Israeli/Muslim conflict, was forgiveness. But this is nothing new - only under-practiced. Surely it takes a depth of character to act in a just and righteous way - but pursuit of righteous character may be more progressive than pursuit of righteous rules. Indeed, when we come upon some undocumented situation that has no coded solution, what's left? Only our character and this is the difference between knowing a rule and living it - between avoiding an act of injustice or embracing acts of kindness.

It may be that forgiveness has nothing to do with the trespass itself or the perpetrator - but the attitude of the victim. Forgiveness doesn't preclude justice, but it may very well prevent a vicious circle of injustice.

One love.

Women: 5ive Things Men don't Want You to Know (if we really thought about it...which we haven't)

To be fair, we do have to speak to the male issue.

It is already known we're none too bright, so the following 'secrets' may not be too novel, and women probably already know them. I'm in no danger from my brothers because they will either not read this or lose interest by the 4th line.

It should also be noted that men generally do not tell secrets because we rarely get a word in edgewise and hence when trying to say something - anything - it may be completely unintelligible. To a man, after all, being able to convey more then three words to a woman without being interrupted is a monumental accomplishment indeed and when we do get a chance to speak we are so surprised that we usually don't know what to say. Apart from that our block-headed transparency and womankind's prodigious intuition leaves us unable to have any secrets whatsoever.

Some of these points may also come in the form of free advice to women and give just a tad bit more insight into the male mind - what little of it there is.

Here goes!

1. Men DO care what you think/feel. Contrary to all evidence we do! It's just that we care for a maximum of 2,500 words or 5 minutes of sharing your feelings. After that we physically cannot ingest the torrent of emotions that you unleash upon us. As the ones who adore you we take your feelings personally. So when you are berating us as if we were the woman at work who wants to 'destroy you' it is an incredibly traumatic experience for us. We just think that if you realized we really care about your feelings you may never stop telling us what they are. Further, the woman sets the tone of any home - if you are happy, the home is happy. If you are miserable you will ensure everyone else is at least as miserable as you. So, we have a vested interest in your feelings.

2. We don't tell you our thoughts/feelings for your own protection. This is serious business. As men we think a great deal about several things including: nothing, what we would do if we were a cyborg, what life would be like if we never met you (sad, it would be very sad), what if someone attacked us with a chainsaw, are you trying to kill us and a host of other very disturbing and unhealthy material unfit for a woman's sensibilities. We just want to do our part to increase the peace. But having written this, the risk is run that you will absolutely want to know what we are thinking to find out if this point is true. Resist the temptation.

3. The reason we don't react the way you do, is because we are trying not to have a heart attack. Many women tend to think their man doesn't care about an issue because he doesn't react with the drama/emotion she does. The thinking behind this is that we want to help you be calm and also keep our own blood pressure in check. Using what could be considered logic, we think that what you will wear to work doesn't warrant tears, panic and nervous breakdowns. However, we do think that terminal illness and bankruptcy is worthy of a healthy dose of panic and a good 'freak out' is warranted for such things. We may even participate. However, if you do wish to 'go ballistic' upon discovering the extra $2 on the grocery bill, please allow us to be excused from the exercise - but we fully support your right to an emotional meltdown for any reason of your choosing. Men who have heart attacks have been unsuccessful at excusing themselves from the aforementioned meltdowns (may they rest in peace...finally).

4. We're as dumb as you think. Now we will never admit this - who would? In fact my admission of this proves this point. The problem with this point is that we are not entirely sure just how dumb you think we are - but you are probably quite accurate in your determination. Still, it is essential to prove you wrong in order for us to feel that we are worthy of your attention, affection and love. That said, our 'dumbness' may not be in the traditional sense of the term - men have proven they are smart enough to invent amazing technology, it's just that the technology primarily revolves around blowing things up - that's the dumb part.

5. We actually do have emotions. Yes this one is hard to believe and we don't blame you. We show our emotions very rarely but for a good reason - the last time we showed them you thought we were wussy pushovers and had no idea what we were talking about or 'where we were going with this'. By the time you were done with us we realized that what we felt was completely inaccurate and we had no right to be meddling with feelings and emotions in the first place. As it is, the safest range of emotions currently shown by men are: angry, hungry, football and randy (look it up - it's a Brit term). We will show an even broader range of emotions if you can guarantee you won't laugh at us at the informal gatherings in the ladies room (yes we know about the 'Gatherings').

As a bonus, I will add that men get together and talk about you like you get together and talk about them. We don't mock you though we do commiserate on the perplexities of the female-of-the-species. But in the end there is no doubt we are crazy about you - crazy being the operative word.

C. Arthur Young

But Seriously: Men & Women...roles, rumours, relationships

The conversation about men & women is often fun, sometimes strident and certainly perpetual.  Time for a few thoughts on the raging battle. Read this excerpt from Ephesians 5: 22-33:

Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

The reactions to this passage usually range from revulsion and incredulity, to disgust and fear, and if you're a man, happiness - with convenient misinterpretation. But like many scriptures it is widely misunderstood. I'm not an expert on the Bible, but my intuition tells me that the Bible is not just a book of rules or commands, but an insightful text that points out facts about human and Divine nature and how both those things 'work'.

In my opinion, this passage is telling us about the most basic but profound needs of men and women in the love relationship. The person with the most power (and responsibility) over you on earth is the one whom with you are in love. They have the potential to hurt and/or inspire you more deeply than any other person.

Now each Biblical role is seriously challenging, submission for women and total self-sacrifice for men. But something tells me that a woman would have little trouble entrusting herself (and that is what I believe submission to be) to a man she felt completely loved by and who would die for her. Likewise, I can't imagine any reasonable man would hesitate to lay down his life for a woman he felt genuinely respected him and demonstrated loyalty and devotion.

It is my belief that the last sentence of the excerpt is the core statement: men above all else desire respect, and women above all else desire love and affection. Both are expressions of love, but each incarnation is an articulation in accordance with the way the respective genders consume love.

Women look for a man they can respect, who knows how and when to 'put his foot down' with anyone - including her, but is also considerate and gentle though firm and strong in character. A man loves a strong and outspoken woman who wants to uplift rather than compete against him - who will 'be on his side' and truly believe in him.

We are in the realm of the ideal right now - so clearly this passage is proposing the goal and aspiration. Men may balk at the idea that such a woman exists and women laugh at the possibility of such a prince. But as much as we sometimes fall - sometimes we are this ideal. The idea would be to become this ideal more of the time than not - and that will take not just time but intent, effort, practice and yes - Divine intervention. The built in failsafe is that each role is meant to compensate for the reality of human frailty.

If you give thought to some of the central conflicts of the man/woman relationship they revolve around issues of love and respect - usually surfacing through communication. It would take a profound sense of security and self-confidence to fulfil either of these roles. A sense of security and strength that would not find its genesis in the relationship itself but, I believe, from the Divine and from within the individual. A relationship that demonstrates fluency in the stated direction is one where each individual is bringing that peace, security, confidence, strength and Divine connection to the table. And one can only get what one pursues.

Issues of authority and leadership also arise and make this passage ever more controversial. But ask yourself if fighting for 'control' ever made you happy. Then ask yourself is having complete control ever made your partner happy. For both men and women the issue is not control - it's surrender.

The roles outlined by the scripture, in my opinion, relate to the natural needs of the parties rather than enforcing some unnatural order. One can assume the roles imply silence and non-participation for the woman and complete control and lordship for the man - but that would be a mistake. However, if that's what one wants it may be what one gets. Either way, for any relationship to work there must be an agreed order of some kind with which both parties are happy. No order, no plan, no agreement will lead to more conflict - disorder always does. Leadership doesn't imply superiority but responsibility and servanthood and any sensible leader will recognize the strengths (and weaknesses) of those in his care. Indeed the kind of leadership that scripture advocates subordinates the needs of the leader for the needs of those in his care.

The problem is the 'you first' mindset. If no one wants to fulfil their role until they are sure the other does so first - then there will be an impasse; constant conflict. So, if one person fails the other withdraws their offer of respect or love, as the case may be. Or one partner spends more time pointing out the other’s responsibility rather fulfilling his or her own. If one does not consider their partner worthy of self-sacrifice or respect then one should consider the future, value or at least purpose of the relationship (perhaps it is purely for entertainment or self-satisfaction).

Now, when we bring weighty issues like abuse, infidelity/adultery, apathy and such into the discussion, things get more complicated. Not every relationship works out and it can't be fun to be in a one-sided affair. But if our actions and attitudes are completely dependent on another, then who is really in control? Perhaps if we pursued the kind of very profound Divine confidence that no mortal can give us our relationships would benefit profoundly.

It is my belief that virtues like respect and love are not things you do - but things you are. And wherever you go and whomever you go with, there you are.

C. Arthur Young