About: Sibling/Family Rivalry...

This is what it looks like on facebook.
Brothers from one family versus sisters from another.
You decide for yourself who you think won ;)

Below is Anna's status from yesterday, I believe and the conversation underneath it are comments back and forth, obviously :D
* ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ *
Wow, I didn't think it was possible, but it happened. I got swiped by 10 different frisbees last night...AT ONE TIME!! >.< style="font-weight: normal;" face="Georgia">

Robert

Seidel family 1
Stone family 0

Anna

No way Robbie.
I remind you that I swiped both you AND Jeff... by myself...without Emily's help. I believe that makes the final score:
Seidel family 1
Stone family 1,000,000
(Because Stone family points are worth WAY more.) >:)

Jeff

I believe I had to risk my life by climbing on top of a building to get ya'lls frisbee back! I'd say thats an epic fail on BOTH you and Emmy/Emily/Emaleigh. My guess is thats a loss of 1,000,000 points for the Stones :)

Seidel family 1
Stone family 0

Anna

Soooooooo doesn't count. That was before the whole "swipe war" anyway...point retained. And besides, when you threw it down, you TOTALLY missed us.
Your bad aim costs you 1,000,000 points.
My brilliant memory though, earns us another million.

Seidel family -999,999
Stone family 2,000,000
>:)

Jeff

If I recall, the "swipe war" began last week! Even if the "war" began yesterday, you swiped me as I was walking in the gate! Pretty sure that was before you threw the frisbee on the roof. You lose infinity+1 points for giving yourself 1,000,000 points for a brilliant memory that was...well a lot off. My "bad aim" was a safe throw due to the ... See Moreinnocent bystanders who were in your direct area. Knowing the Stones' frisbee catching abilities and the wind factor, I figured it safer to throw the frisbee to the middle of the field :) 500,000 points for the safety consideration plus the points you tried to take from us.

Seidel family - 500,001
Stone family - Negative infinity+1

Anna

In response to that last boring comment with all those irrelevant, technical details...I can only respond with this well known fact. A fact which automatically puts us in the lead...period.
We are awesome.

Seidel family - 500,001
Stone family - A number so big you can't wrap your mind around it...then, attach 17 more zeros. We win by default. >:)
*happy dance*

Joshua

*makes mental note not to argue with Anna*

Emaleigh

BAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!
oh my gosh! i laughed SOOOO STINKIN HARD during this whole thing ^_^
so we're all in the red, right? O.o

Emaleigh

wait...

Emaleigh

ok, yeah... i'm lost :P

Jeff

In the red?

Emaleigh

minus something...
negative...
in debt.

Jeff

Way to show those smarts Emmy :)

Emaleigh

^.^
seeeeeeee? they DO exist XD

Anna

Be quiet Emily...so we can stay in the lead!! O.O

Emaleigh

-.-

Jeff

Good call big sis. Are yall coming to frisbee tonight? 5-8?

Josh I need your number again! I had to restore my phone :(

Emaleigh

i don't think so... i didn't even know there was frisbee on thursday nights!

Jeff

This is the first time we've been...we'll see how good it is :)

Emaleigh

well... lemme know how it goes! ^_^

Robert

Jeff- You of all people should know what 'in the red' means.
Anna- You're HILARIOUS!
Em- Don't take that from her!

Emaleigh

hahaha
i was thinking about inserting random comment pertaining to original thought... but didn't ^_^

Robert

Good idea.. Lull the older sibling into a false state of security, then attack! That's how I deal with Jefafa.. I also kick him when he's sleeping.. and place road signs in his bed..

Anna

I pity you your childish antics Robbie. Tsk tsk...

Robert

Whose childish, me or the person who has a profile picture of themselves with a bag over their head.. Another Point for the Seidels. :D

Anna

BAHHAHAHAAAA!!!! Good point!
IT'S A TIE!! :D

Robert

Nope, y'all lost.. You should have countered with something that had to do with my profile picture of me licking a crab.. For your lack of attention to detail, you lose.

Emaleigh

hm... you DO have a point, Robert.

Anna

Poor, confused Robbie. By conceding to a tie, I have merely upped our score by showing great virtue and humility. :)

Jeff

Don't confuse kindness for weakness. Pretty sure it's the latter of the two, older Stone sister

Anna

Never! And you would know that as an older sibling, wouldn't you Jeff?

Robert

Face it, y'all lost.. Even Emaleighereradseafjklea said I had a good point.. That's worth like a number so big you can't wrap your mind around it...then, attach 18 more zeros....

Jeff

Yes I have the responsibility to take care of Robby and make sure he makes the right choices in life. Him putting a street sign in my
Bed for me to blop on while half asleep must have been an idea he got from you. Surely I would not condone such hostile behavior

Anna

Emaleighereradseafjklea...that's awesome!
It's DEFINITELY a tie...no joke. :)

Emaleigh

hmm... older sibling/younger sibling...
is this now becoming a war of sibling rivalry? O.o

Emaleigh

and aahaaaaaaaa
you make me laugh with your confusedness about my name >:)

Anna

YES!! >:)

Emaleigh

well then >:P

Robert

okay >o.o<

Emaleigh

we need to up our game O.o

Jeff

SEIDEL - 6 letters
STONE - 5 letters

Even the alphabet suggest we're ahead by giving us one more letter :)

Anna

Yeah...it's devolving to a game of emoticons. :P

Robert

YES JEFF!!! AHAHAHAHH!!!

Anna

But today is backwards day...so less is more! >:)

Emaleigh

so...
you're guys...
we're females...
ladies first :P
ohoooo!
yeah. -.-

Robert

Backwards day? So, I'm bald, Jeff has hair and Emily is tall.. right?

Anna

Yeah! And I'm short, squatty, and terrible at being awesome. ;)

Robert

and if it is indeed backwards day as Anna as proclaimed, then Emily has just made y'all lose.. again..

Anna

I guess so...BUT JUST FOR TODAY! >:)
You bunch o' girls! :P

Jeff

Lose....and go second. Thanks Emalrufjeiwibfjdy! {=

Emaleigh

^.^
first is the worst..?

Anna

Oooooooooooooo...take that.
*MAN power*

Robert

What, are we rhyming now?

Jeff

If today is indeed backwards day then Anna can now run fast and Emily can catch a frisbee??

Anna

And Jeff is smart, I see.

Robert

Now you're getting it!

Emaleigh

Jeff... you have now officially hurt my poor little self esteem and crushed my feelings. :'(
you loose for making a girl cry :P

Robert

you LOSE for using 'loose' instead of 'lose'. Remember what Anna said earlier about not talking?? ;)

Jeff

Seeing how it's backwards day and all, I'm not falling for your tricks lil sis

Robert

So, you ARE falling for her tricks? This backwards day stuff is getting annoying..

Jeff

I was talking to anna

Anna

We need an official rule book. :-/

Anna

Rule #1:
Anna and Emily win every argument.

Anna

Rule #2:
Never try to argue that you did, in fact, win. You will lose.

Anna

Rule #3:
Anna and Emily write the Rule Book.

Anna

Rule #4:
No need for additional Rules.

Jeff

Rule #2: Honor backwards day (:

Anna

Rule #5:
If you were too late to write Rule #2...it doesn't count.

Robert

#6 Older age always wins..

Anna

Rule #3:
Anna and Emily write the Rule Book. >:)

Anna

We win, we win, WE WIN!!!!!!!!!

Robert

I'm not arguing, just disagreeing.

Emaleigh

soooooooo... is it over?
*comes out from bomb shelter*
and who won?
sibling groups or older/youngers?

Emaleigh

(actually, i was cleaning my room and the computer froze -.- *emily glares at monstrosity before her*)

Robert

Siblings won..

Lol, try hitting i a few times next time.. works for me.

Emaleigh

how on earth did we manage that?! O.o

Robert

Because we're awesome!!!

Emaleigh

backwards day, Robby :P

Robert

:( no fair :(

Emaleigh

>:)

About: As I Sit Here... Thinking and Dayspring~ Joining Forces

What an exciting new venture for me!
I am now an affiliate marketer for Dayspring.
Didja see that I now have links on the sidebar to their sites?
Dayspring is the world's largest supplier of Christian cards and gifts so make sure to check them out!

Blessings~

About: Two Women I Love!

I have a mother.
I love her very much!

I have a second mother.
I love her very much as well!

They're best friends. They love each other very much too! :)
This post I'm dedicating to both of these dear women.

My mom: Julia
My 2nd mom: Laura






They are many things.

{1} Dear friends...
{2} I'm convinced they're sisters that were separated and have been reunited at long last!
{3} They act alike
{4} Both sing beautifully
{5} Their faces resemble one another
{6} Godly encouragements to me
{7} Godly encouragements to each other



Every time I observe their interaction, I pray that the Lord will give me the grace to have a friend so dear. Well, He has, I suppose (anyway... beside the point).
I can't believe it, but these two dear women have known each other just over a year.





All of these verses describe their relationship, I believe:

Proverbs 12:26 ~ The righteous should choose his friends carefully, for the way of the wicked leads astray.

Proverbs 17:17 ~ A friend loves at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.

Proverbs 18:34 ~ A man who has a friend must himself be friendly, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.

Proverbs 27:6 ~ Faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

Proverbs 27:9 ~ Ointment and perfume delight the heart, and the sweetness of a man's friend gives delight by hearty counsel.

Proverbs 27: 17 ~ As iron sharpens iron, so a man sharpens the countenance of his friend.

Ecclesiastes 4:9 ~ {The value of a friend} Two are better than one, because they have a good reward for their labor.

Mama and Mamalala... I love you both so much and am constantly blessed by your relationship. I pray the Lord will bless you with years and years of friendship and encouragement!

Blessings, dear ladies!

About: Virtual Friendship

Online social networking, while not inherently evil, runs the risk of dehumanizing others and leading, ironically, toward isolation rather than community. By John R. Muether

Let's begin with a reasonably safe prediction: you are not likely to finish this article. That is not merely because of the prose of the author (though I concede it doesn't help.) It is based on reliable statistics that indicate how attention spans have shortened.

It may be an exaggeration to suggest, as The Atlantic Monthly provocatively proposed a few months ago, that Google is making Americans stupid. But the internet giant and its co-conspirators are rendering us more restless, and, as in the title of Maggie Jackson's recent book, distracted. In our digital age, focused attention is made more difficult. Multitasking fragments of our thinking, and moments of reflection are punctured by the urgent text message. Concentration drifts after a few paragraphs, and we have lost the art of deep and thoughtful reading.

We are reasonably computer literate by now. Technologically enhanced social networking via cell phones, email, blogging, twitter, or whatever is next are unavoidable features of our electronic landscape. We have come to accept the reality of them with little reflection. Beyond our atrophied reading habits, the effect of our social networking world is at least twofold: it trivializes the notion of friendship and it erodes our sense of community.

I have a colleague who has 1,035 Facebook friends. By Facebook standards, that is probably unremarkable. At the same time, of course, it is also a lie. Friendship is humanly impossible on such a mass scale. What results is exhibitionistic too-much-information for most: your colonoscopy this morning is really not my business. Meanwhile, those who are genuinely close to you wonder why the learned of the death of your mother from your twitter that instantly informed untold masses.

However Facebook may claim to "manage" our friends, we simply cannot keep track of such volumes. I have accumulated more than I can handle, at least 400, a quarter of whom I have never met. (On at least a couple of occasions, I confirmed a friendship with a perfect stranger fully convinced the person was somebody else.) Above all, no one can assume the expense of these associations. As Maggie Jackson observed, Facebook friends do not increase the number of folk to whom one is prepared to donate a kidney.

I have fallen into the habit of closing emails to friends I have not seen in years with words to the effect that "I hope our paths cross soon." This has become a cliche that I am trying to eliminate. But it illustrates the truism that friendship demands real contact. Electronic culture separates as it disembodies. The paradox is that it links us to folk far away while it separates those from whom we are closest. We are increasingly isolated even as we make the false boast that we have overcome time and distance and "reconnected."

The superficiality of these technologies is demonstrated by the proliferation of e-conflict. Scarcely anyone who has been on email has not experienced a serious miscommunication, even with an old friend. I have made what I thought were extremely clever online jokes, only to be accused of "flaming" beause my humor lacked the non-verbal message to couch it in the proper context. Is it any wonder, therefore, taht our Lord in Matthew 18 commands reconciliation through direct, face-to-face engagement?

Even worse, social networking has transformed friendship into a commodity. We collect friends in our desire to build status. Online personalities (even to the point of multiple identities and gender-bending) are carefully constructed as we crave the attention we hope it stirs. Christine Rosen has observed that the Socratic imperative to "know thyself" is altered in cyber culture to "show thyself." Here there is little shame. (One aquaintance of mine used his Facebook status in order to chronicle his writer's block.) Even the novelty of it all sinks in the vast ocean of pointless public diarists. Rosen describes Facebook as "an overwhelmingly dull place of monotonous uniqueness, of conventional individuality, of distinct sameness."

The hours we spend on such things leaves less time to engage in thoughtful correspondence with genuine friends. Why go through the time and effort to hand write and post a letter when you can "poke" dozens of friends? And cyberflowers are a lot cheaper than the real thing. Eventually, friendship becomes a competition: when will I crack the "Fave 5" on my friend's cell phone service?

In all of these examples, friendship is cheapened when reduced to utilitarian purposes. Can we even recognize genuine friendship after all? Unlike family (including one's church family) or neighbor (whom we are commanded to love and serve), friendship is premised on distinctive grounds. It entails choice (you do not choose family or neighbor), and it demands high levels of trust, respect, and privacy. In short, friendship has to cost something to be genuine.

Last week, in the course of a work related email exchange with a young woman, I discovered that she was the niece of an old friend of mine. "I cannot wait to tell my uncle taht we connected!" she wrote back. Her expression gave me pause. Is that what we did? And what does it mean, after all, to "connect?" Are we now friends? Facebook aligns friends of friends (of friends) based on thin affinity, either real or perceived. It is a fluidity of drive-by relationships. Maybe there was a reason, after all, for your college roommate to lose contact with you over the course of the past two decades. Perhaps you were not really connected in the first place.

I do not wish to deny that there are some legitimate uses of social networking. This morning I was gladdened to learn from Facebook taht my long-suffering Tabletalk editor, Chris Donato, is the proud father of his second healthy baby boy. (Hmm, perhaps that will distract him from noticing that my submission remains overdue.) Facebook may be a means of assisting established contacts; but can it create and maintain relationships that are otherwise unsustainable? That seems to raise two more questions: are these connections really necessary, and more importantly, do they compete with your non-facebook friends? The internet giveth, and it taketh away.

Defenders of social networking eagerly promote its promise to regenerate lost community, to heal the fractures of our fast-forward paced lives. Nowhere is this claim more confidently made than in churches today, whose craving for members mirrors the individual's tally of friends. It is astonishing to consider how desperately churches are trying to get wired. "Ministers of Technology" set out to build community through the internet. One pace-setting church assures skeptics that it is not interested in replacing face-to-face connections with virtual ones. But that is exactly what it will do. Plenty of studies indicate that internet connectedness comes at the expense of non-virtual relationships. A family left my church recently complaining about its lack of fellowship opportunities. The session racked its brain over this complaint, because it seemed that the family was failing to avail itself of plenty of social opportunities in the church. Finally the mother confessed that she craved a fellowship "where I can Facebook chat all day like I do with my homschooling network."

Shane Hipps writes in his Flickering Pixels: "Digital social networking inoculates people against the desire to be physically present with others in real social networks -- networks like a church or meal at someone's home." Why the messiness of real interaction when you can login to worship? In an online church, there is no assembly required!

Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, numbers among the cyberchurch skeptics. Church attendance genuinely diversifies, but the homogeneity of the virtual world is a cyberapartheid that masquerades as community. In Putnam's words, the internet is "unlikely in itself to reverse the deterioration of our socail capital."

Contrary to the inconvenience and inefficiency of genuine community, virtual communities have the advantage of allowing one to leave as easily as one joined. Disappearing can be as simple as not responding to an email. (Who among us is prepared the first cyberstone at someone who got buried under his email inbox?) Or there is a one-click means of "unfriending" a cyberpest. With these exit strategies, social networks are less communities than lifestyle enclaves. One sociologist has aptly described them as "networked individualism." Individualism and consumerism were not invented by the internet, of course. But the internet allows these dynamics to flourish and to dominate our sovial arrangements.

So our challenge is to reckon with the multitasking, split-screen, ringtone culture of the internet. Calvin College's Quentin Schulze encourages us to distinguish between good and bad "habits of the high-tech heart." Technological restraint is good for the sould, the mind and the church. We need to reshape our environment to enlarge our attention spans and deepen our commitments to friends and community.

You made a small start by finishing this article. Now read the next. Then write a letter to a friend. Texting or blogging is cheating.

* ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ * ~ *
John R. Meuther is professor of church history and librarian at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. He is also denominational historian of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.