At first, you get ecstatic when you a guy tells you that he has been thinking of you quite often. However, you begin to ask yourself what he really meant when he said that – thus, the confusion. This article will tell you what a guy really means when he says that you’ve been in his mind.

Step one: He loves you
Why would a guy think about you for a long time if he doesn’t love you? He wants you to know that he cares by giving clues – like saying that he’s been thinking of you. He might be scared to say that he loves you upfront, which could explain the situation.

Step two: He really means what he said
If the guy looks very sincere, and has a good reputation, then he really means what he said. This is a good thing, because confessing to someone that you have been thinking of them quite often is no easy task. It requires courage.

Step three: He wants to be with you
If the guy is someone who is not your ex-boyfriend, then it means he wants to be with you. You are a potential girlfriend for him. He is also thinking of pursuing you, depending on your response to his statement.

Step four: He wants to get back with you
An ex-boyfriend who tells you that he has been thinking of you probably has intentions of getting back with you. He probably has thought things through, and has decided that he actually wants to have you back in his life. It should go without saying that if he was the one who broke it off in the first place, he is likely apologetic for his mistakes.

Step five: He may also want to have sex with you
Some guys think about sex all the time. If a guy tells you that he has been thinking of you, it may mean that he wants to have sex with you. Take things slowly, though; try to bide your time until you have a better idea of what he wants – and what you want, as well.

Step six: He is serious about you
A guy is genuinely serious if he tells you that he is always thinking of you. He doesn’t want to play around, and he’s sure that he just wants to be with you.

Step seven: He cares for you a lot
A man who always thinks of you is a man who really cares for you. He is always wondering what you are doing, and watches out for your well-being. The reason why he always thinks of you is because he wants to make sure that you are doing all right.

It can be a very tough blow when your spouse leaves you. But the blow can feel even worse when the reason that your husband gives for leaving seems personal. One example is when he tells you that he believes that there might be someone “better” for him in the outside world.

Someone might explain: “I was heartbroken when my husband told me that he was leaving me to pursue a martial separation, but I hurt even more when he told me why. When I demanded an explanation, I expected for him to try to gently explain that he just needed some time to himself. After all, we haven’t really been fighting. We are not as close as we used to be and I know that my husband doesn’t feel that we are always compatible. But I did not think that these small problems would amount to me potentially facing a separation or divorce. Instead of offering reassurances, my husband confessed that he was leaving because deep in his heart, he feels that ‘there is better out there’ for him. He is basically saying that he thinks that he will eventually find someone who is more suitable for him and therefore he will have the happiness that he deserves. He says that he wants a relationship that isn’t so hard. When I told my sister what my husband said, she was furious. She said that I should let my husband try to find better than me and then he will quickly determine that I am too good for him. She said how dare he act as if I am not good enough. I see what she is saying. And I am also offended at my husband’s words. But deep down, I wonder if perhaps he is right. My husband is a very good looking man. He is very funny and generous. Many women would be happy to have my husband. So I don’t doubt that many pretty, capable, and sweet women might one day be interested in my husband. But I am interested in him, too. He is mine. And it breaks my heart to think that he might find someone else. I don’t want him to even look for someone else. This makes me so sad.”

I totally get the sadness. I felt it myself. But I want to stress that sadness does not always attract your husband back to you. I know this from unfortunate experience. It’s normal and okay to feel sad. But sadness should not be the primary thing that you are projecting when you are around your husband, especially when you want him back. I realize that he already knows that you are sad. But men are most attracted to women who are capable and who respect themselves.

Why Projection Is So Important: I totally understand how you feel. But, as best as you can, you want to try to downplay these negative feelings around your husband. As unfair as it is, your fear might make your husband think that you’re aware that you’re not the best fit for him, which is exactly the opposite of what you want (and is also probably the opposite of what you think.) As much of a challenge as it can be to pull off, in my experience, the best attitude to project is one of quiet confidence. You want for your husband to think that while you are sad that it has come to this, at the end of the day, you’re sure that you are the right person for your husband and that one day, he will come to learn this.

Incidentally, him learning that you are right for him is not just wishful thinking. It is a real possibility. In my experience and observation, many men initially are sure that they are going to be happier separated and then they quickly learn that this was just not the case. The grass seems greener on the other side of the fence – until they find out that it is not.

Letting Him Know How You Feel While Projecting Confidence: In the meantime, I think it never hurts to be clear about your wishes moving forward. Because if you are only going to separate, you are still legally married and, I would think, would want to stress being faithful. You might try: “It’s upsetting to hear you say that you think that there may be someone better for you. I don’t agree. And I believe that we can fix our marriage, if given a chance. I hope that you come to this conclusion also. In the meantime, I want to make it absolutely clear that I still consider us married. I intend to be completely faithful and will use this time to work on myself and consider what I want. I hope that you feel the same way. A separation is not a divorce.”

Hopefully, he already understands this distinction. But it is better to be safe than sorry and to get this out in the open. Dealing with a separation has its challenges, but it’s very difficult when you have a spouse who is actively dating. You want to avoid this if at all possible so that it frees him up to focus on you and you alone. You’ll also want to very carefully show him the best version of yourself whenever you speak to or see him. You want to keep reminding him that you are the one for him and that there most definitely is not better out there. And you have every right to expect him to be faithful until then.

Normally men are lateral thinkers. They say what they mean. But when it comes to relationships they get all jumbled up. If your man says that you are special to him then here are some of the possible things that he could be meaning.

He is interested in you seriously

When a man tells you that you are special to him then he is trying to tell you that he is getting serious about you. Since he doesn’t want to come on too strongly he chooses his words carefully so that you both can ease into your relationship.

He wants to take things to the next level

If you have been dating for a while and your man says that he finds you special then he is implying that he wants to take things to the next level with you. He wants to approach the relationship with caution and hence is taking baby steps to let you know how he really feels.

He is letting you know that he cares deeply for you

By telling you that you are special to him your man is letting you know that he cares deeply for you. He says this to make it clear to you that you are not ‘just a friend’ to him but a whole lot more.

He could be trying to create a diversion

Sometimes a man can say that you are special to him just to create a diversion. If he is not sure of how he feels about you and yet feels the need to validate his feelings for you, then he says that you are special to him. It is his way to make you stick around till he is able to figure out what he really feels for you.

He could be shy to tell you that he is falling for you

Some men are shy and cannot find ways of telling their girl how they truly feel about them. Your man too could be falling deeply in love with you but for the lack of courage would settle for saying that you are special to him.

He has finally understood his feelings for you

Sometimes a man takes time to identify his real and true feelings for you. If your man has finally come around to understanding his real feelings for you then he will tell you that you are special to him.

He calls you special to retain his macho image

There are some men who feel that admitting how they really feel makes them less macho. Your man might tell you that you are special to him to let you know of your special place in his life and yet maintain his macho exterior.

While watching Monday night football, on an uneventful evening on December 8, 1980, I was nursing a hangover, when I heard Howard Cosell interrupt the game with a news flash. John Lennon was shot in New York City? Could that be true? It was true. Later, he was pronounced dead. I was in shock. Then my brother, Mark, telephoned me with the news. We both were John Lennon fans.

The Beatles, the fab four of the 60s, were each given character descriptions or nicknames adopted by their fans. John was the smart one, Paul was the cute one, George was the mysterious one and Ringo was the funny one.

I always felt John Lennon’s character description or nickname, should have been dubbed the “misunderstood Beatle,” because he seemed to always stir up controversy concerning his beliefs. He couldn’t quite make his comments clear, and the media didn’t help.

Take for instance, the comment he made on March 4, 1966, when he said, “the Beatles are more popular than Jesus.” What he meant was that more people would go see the Beatles, than go to church on Sunday. Which may have been true. He generalized a wee bit by laying the blame on America, when he meant England.

Lennon was interviewed for the London Evening Standard by Maureen Cleave, who was a friend, and made an off-the-cuff remark regarding religion. Lennon said, “Christianity, will go. It will vanish and shrink. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first– rock and roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It’s them twisting it that ruins it for me.”

On August 11, 1966, The Beatles held a press conference in Chicago, in order to address the growing furor.

Lennon: I suppose if I had said television was more popular than Jesus, I would have got away with it, but I just happened to be talking to a journalist friend (Maureen Cleave), and I used the word “Beatles” as a remote thing, not as what I think–as Beatles, as those other Beatles, like other people see us. I just said they are having more influence on kids and things than anything else, including Jesus. But I said it in that way, which is the wrong way.”

Reporter: Some teenagers have repeated your statements–“I like The Beatles more than Jesus Christ.” What do you think about that?

Lennon: Well, originally I pointed out that fact in reference to England. that we meant more to kids than Jesus did, or religion at that time. I wasn’t knocking it or putting it down. I was just saying it as a fact, and it’s true more for England than here. I’m not saying that we’re better or greater, or comparing us with Jesus Christ as a person or God as a thing, or whatever it is. I just said what I said and it was wrong. Or it was taken wrong. And now it’s all this.

Reporter: But are you prepared to apologize?

Lennon: I wasn’t saying whatever they’re saying I was saying. I’m sorry I said it really. I never meant it to be a lousy anti-religious thing. I apologize if that will make you happy. I still don’t know quite what I’ve done. I’ve tried to tell you what I did do, but if you want me to apologize, if that will make you happy, then OK, I’m sorry.

John Lennon returned to the subject later that year, when he told Look magazine that, “I believe Jesus was right, Buddha was right, and all of those people like that are right. They’re all saying the same thing–and I believe it. I believe what Jesus actually said–the basic things he laid down about love and goodness–and not what people say he said. If Jesus being more popular means more control, I don’t want that. I’d sooner they’d all follow us even if it’s just to dance and sing for the rest of their lives. If they took more interest in what Jesus–or any of them–said, if they did that, we’d all be there with them.

Although there was little reaction to his statement in England, Christians elsewhere embarked upon a massive campaign to destroy Beatle albums and other paraphernalia. The Archbishop of Boston admitted that he was probably right, but many still refused to forgive him.

I can relate to his controversial statement, because I have made similar statements, such as, when I drive by a gambling casino on a Sunday, I’ll say–“look at all those cars–try to pack them in a church parking lot.” Of course, my meaning was that gambling is more popular than Jesus. I hope that isn’t the truth–here in America. Am I in trouble for saying that?

All this didn’t bother Lennon, he continued using religious remarks in his songs, one was God, released in 1971. The lyrics are as follows:

God (words and music by John Lennon)

God is a concept

Our Pain

I don’t believe in magic

I don’t believe in I-ching

I don’t believe in bible

I don’t believe in tarot

I don’t believe in Hitler

I don’t believe in Jesus

I don’t believe in Kennedy

I don’t believe in Buddha

I don’t believe in mantra

I don’t believe in Gita

I don’t believe in yoga

I don’t believe in kings

I don’t believe in Elvis

I don’t believe in Zimmerman

I don’t believe in Beatles

I just believe in me

Yoko and me

And that’s reality

The dream is over

What can I say?

The dream is over

Yesterday

I was a dream weaver

But now I’m reborn

I was the walrus

But now I’m John

And so dear friends

You just have to carry on

The dream is over

THE END

Once again, Lennon was misunderstood. He was put off by many Christians. I always understood the style of Lennon. I felt he was reaching out to question things we dared not ask. He was a buffer between reality and make believe. Some considered it threatening. I considered it harmless. Although he did say “I don’t believe in Jesus.” And he did say, “I don’t believe in bible.” Maybe he should have left them out of the song, at least to avoid controversy and save his career.. But, Lennon was Lennon, and he didn’t care. He was saying he has the freedom to say what he wants to say, or sing what he wants to sing. I’m sure it hurt his career. Paul McCartney’s career only blossomed. Not intending to leave out George and Ringo. Their careers remained stable.

I always thought a more fitting song for John Lennon would have been–Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood, written and performed by a fellow musician and friend, Eric Burdon. He, also, authored a book under the same title.

In 1973, Lennon wrote and sang the song, Imagine, a very critical– but popular song. It questioned the existence of heaven and hell and no religion, too. This, too, was angered by Christians. His message was clear to me. He was simply stating, if there wasn’t any of these things he’s imagining, the world would live in peace–as one. What would there be to fight about? There would be no wars. Many wars are about religion. The song is all about imagination. He’s not a terrorist wanting to blow up the world. The lyrics are as follows:

Imagine

(words and music by John Lennon)

Imagine there’s no heaven

Living for today

Imagine there’s no countries

It isn’t hard to do

Nothing to kill or die for

And no religion too

Imagine all the people

Living life in peace

You may say I’m a dreamer

But I’m not the only one

I hope someday you’ll join us

And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions

I wonder if you can

No need for greed or hunger

A brotherhood of man

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world

You may say I’m a dreamer

But I’m not the only one

I hope someday you’ll join us

And the world will live as one

THE END

Lennon was always the outspoken one. Some say he was a hypocrite when he preached about love and peace–not war. In 1969, he demonstrated his beliefs in his penned song, Give Peace A Chance, after his departure from The Beatles, during his solo career.

He defended many rights and causes. He was an anti-war activist. His beliefs were misconstrued and often he was taken as a socialist or communist. President Nixon wanted him deported. Lennon stood up and fought for his right to stay where he loved to be–in New York City, U.S.A. Sadly enough, it was also the place he was killed by a deranged fan.

During his solo career, Lennon wrote and sang songs of rebellion with his political views. He would socialize with antiwar leaders, such as, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, and others. Lennon and his friends organized a concert in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in December of 1971, dubbed the “Free John Sinclair” concert. Sinclair was a local antiwar activist who was serving ten years in the state prison for selling two joints of marijuana to an undercover cop. Lennon appeared onstage along with Phil Ochs, Stevie Wonder and other musicians, plus antiwar radical Jerry Rubin and Bobby Seale of the Black Panthers. There was 20,000 in attendance; two days after the concert, the state of Michigan released John Sinclair from prison. During this time, a song written and sung by Lennon was released, entitled John Sinclair.

In 1972, Lennon released an anti-sexism song, entitled, Woman Is The Nigger of the World, implying that as black people were discriminated against in some countries, so were women globally. The lyrics are as follows:

Woman Is The Nigger of the World

(words and music by John Lennon)

Woman is the nigger of the world

Think about it…do something about it

We make her paint her face and dance

If she won’t be a slave, we say that she don’t love us

If she’s real, we say she’s trying to be a man

While putting her down, we pretend that she’s above us

Woman is the nigger of the world…yes she is

If you don’t believe me, take a look at the one you’re with

Woman is the slave of the slaves

Ah, yeah…better scream about it

We make her bear and raise our children

And then we leave her flat for being a fat old mother hen

We tell her home is the only place she should be

Then we complain that she’s too unworldly to be our friend

Woman is the nigger of the world…yes she is

If you don’t believe me, take a look at the one you’re with

Woman is the slave to the slaves

Yeah…alright…hit it!

We insult her every day on TV

And wonder why she has no guts or confidence

When she’s young we kill her will to be free

While telling her not to be so smart we put her down for being so dumb

Woman is the nigger of the world

Yes she is…if you don’t believe me, take a look at the one you’re with

Woman is the slave to the slaves

Yes she is…if you don’t believe me, you better scream about it

We make her paint her face and dance

We make her paint her face and dance

We make her paint her face and dance

We make her paint her face and dance

We make her paint her face and dance

We make her paint her face and dance

THE END

On a happier note, in 1971, Lennon, also, wrote and sang the song, entitled, Happy Xmas. This became a holiday favorite. It’s questionable why he left out Christ in Christmas. But “X” is the Greek symbol of Christ.

This year marks the 26th anniversary of the death of John Lennon. His killer is still imprisoned, as he should be. The music world was robbed of this musical genius. I sure miss his works and imagination. If it weren’t for his outspoken beliefs, he may have still been with us today. It may have been what killed him. But just imagine (I wonder if you can)–then there never would have been a John Lennon.

If you want to work from home writing books, then it’s important that you know how to do it. And you need to do it quickly. Writing is a numbers game which means the more books you write, the more you can earn.

And more importantly than that, you have to market your books to the right people and at the right time. There’s a saying that it’s easier to sell a mediocre product with great marketing than to sell a great product with mediocre marketing. So get your marketing right, and you can increase your sales with no extra work needed.

But how do you do it? How do you know what to write and who to sell it to?

Well, let’s start with the three most important things.

Keep writing. You can’t work as a self-published author if you don’t write. You need to write books and lots of them. And not only that, the way to sell more books is to write a series. It doesn’t matter if you’re writing fiction or non-fiction if it’s a series of books, and you’ve advertised your other books in the back of each book, then chances are that readers looking for another book will buy one from you.

Pre-market your books. As you’re writing your books, start marketing as you go. Tell your email list or blog readers what you’re working on, when it will be published and how they can pre-order a copy or grab a discounted copy. This helps to not only presell your book so that you have customers waiting to buy it before you’ve even finished it, but it holds you to a deadline so that you have to keep on writing to stay on schedule and not disappoint your readers.

Publish fast. They say that money likes speed. So if you’ve never published before, or you want to do it quickly, use Amazon’s Kindle Direct Publishing. It’s free to use, has book cover template software (also at no cost) and you can set your book up as a print POD book as well as an eBook if you want to. And because Amazon is good at marketing, when someone views one version of your book, they will also show them the other.

At first, self-publishing can seem a bit daunting before you’ve tried it. But as you do it, you’ll realise just how easy it is. And once you’ve written and published one or two books, and you have your systems in place, you’ll find it faster and easier to write and publish more books.

That’s the beauty of doing something over and over again. It becomes a habit and so it just gets easier to do and gets faster at the same time because you’re no longer having to think about every little step of the process so it becomes more automatic.

And the best thing about it an automated and easy system is that it gives you more time to write your next book.

Living trends seem to be changing at a pace which is not only hard to keep up with but also impractical most of the times. I am not saying that you follow every popular trend that sets in but if you feel that your living room has started to give off an old and worn out look it is probably time to redesign your living room for a fresher look. Your living room has to be spectacular. It is the first place in your house which gives a glimpse of your lifestyle and your aesthetic sense to your guests.

When you think of redesigning there are a lot of options open to you ranging from a major makeover to simpler cost affective solutions. A complete redesign may involve a complete change in the layout of your living room like bringing in new furniture a complete change of color schemes new carpets, rugs and art effects… I mean the works, which means that you have to spend heavy.

However using a little creativity and making some changes to the existing layout you can redesign your living room for a fresher look. Here are a few simple but cost affective solutions that may come in handy:

Repaint: You will be amazed what a fresh coat of paint can do to that dull old look of your living room. Overtime paint tends to lose its original hue and gives off a dull and worn off look. Fresh paint will give a lively and brighter look to the room.

Secondly while going for a repaint you have the option of going for a different color scheme which goes well with existing furniture and fixture of your room. You might think about painting a wall different or may be an artistic texture could do the trick.

Change curtains and window blinds: Try different color combinations to find out just the right match. Changing curtains and window blinds can give your living space a new look without costing you too much. Needless to say that if you have decided to repaint a different color scheme you have to make this change as well.

Relocate: Relocation of your furniture can make tons of difference to the way your room looks like. You will have to tryout different creative ideas to come to a final decision. When relocating do keep in mind that you do not cram things up which will not restrict your moving space but won’t be much presentable either.

The final touches: You need to make some final adjustments which will add spice to the decor of your living room for a fresher look. I call them attention grabbers, you could hang some wall paintings or you could add some decorative art effects.

You can do these fine tunings as long as they blend with the overall layout and look stunningly attractive but don’t look over done.

Sound outrageous? You probably think so, but there is a very good reason for me asking this question. The reason is, there are people out there in cyber space who have actually asked this question in order to accuse those, who have said what I am about to say, of blasphemy. So what am I about to say? Well I am certainly not going to say that Paul was a schizophrenic, if that’s what you were thinking, but what I am going to explain and describe is the dual natured beings we become once we are Born of God (Born Again). Now this dual nature and those who have correctly tried to teach this Truth, are the very people who are accused of labelling Paul a schizophrenic, which is plainly not true and they, in the process, have been falsely accused by these schizophrenia labelling, judgmental people.

For those of you who do not know what schizophrenia is, I will briefly explain. The word ‘schizophrenia’ means a split or dual mind, but not split personalities. From the Encarta Dictionary: a severe psychiatric disorder with symptoms of emotional instability, detachment from reality, and withdrawal into the self. Now, can we apply any of these character disorders to the apostle Paul? No, never, so what are these people on about when they accuse us of saying that Paul was a schizophrenic. Well, they do this to discredit the truthful teaching that when we are Born of God (Born Again) as new people, new creations and/or new men and women we remain in our dying bodies of sin, so, in effect, we are two people, but, I can assure you, without any of the above mentioned negative mental disorders.

OK, so if there are people out there accusing us of preaching a schizoid Pauline message, upon what misunderstandings are they basing their claims? Where do they get their evidence from, or is it a case that there is no evidence, because they do not fully understand what schizophrenia is, and/or, most likely, they do not understand the Holy Scriptures in Romans 7:14-25. These are Holy Scriptures that teach the dual nature of Born of God (Born Again) sons and daughters of God. The thing is, when we analyse our new Spiritual condition in depth, it’s not a full dual nature anyway, for half of our dual nature is already dead, it died in the watery grave of Baptism. This means that our bodies of sin no longer hold any real power over us unless we erroneously continue to think that our dead bodies of sin have more power than The Holy Spirit.

So without any further ado I will now write out The Holy Scriptures concerned and explain what Paul was saying in these verses of Scripture. Please bear in mind, too, that these verses are very likely the most controversial and argued over Holy Scriptures in the whole of the Holy Bible, and, as always, be prepared for a few surprises:

Romans 7:14 (KJV) For we know that The Law is Spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

From the Greek transliteral:

Romans 7:14 We have perceived (we are aware) for that The Law Spiritual is I yet fleshic (fleshy) am having been disposed of under the missing (sin).

OK, Paul states clearly here that the Law is Spiritual and yet he says he is carnal or, at least, that’s how the KJV words it, but notice the Greek is more precise by saying Paul is yet fleshic or fleshy having been disposed of under sin. ‘Disposed of’ here means ‘inclined to’, so he is stating quite clearly that our carnal fleshy natures have a natural inclination to sin – surprise, surprise, well bowl me over with a feather!!

Now moving on, he then says:

Romans 7:15 (KJV) For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

And again from the Greek transliteral:

Romans 7:15 Which for I am down acting (I am effecting) not, I am knowing not for which I am willing this I am practising, but which I am hating this I am doing

Now here in the above two renditions, the KJV and the Greek MSS, we are not really getting a layman’s understanding of what is being said here, by Paul, so let’s use a more modern translation or two for a better understanding:

From the Amplified Bible:

Romans 7:15 For I do not understand my own actions [I am baffled and bewildered]. I do not practice or accomplish what I wish, but I do the very thing that I loathe.

From the Living Bible:

Romans 7:15 I don’t understand myself at all, for I really want to do what is right, but I can’t. I do what I don’t want to – I do what I hate.

Here we can plainly see the battle that is going on in Paul’s mind, and let’s be sure about this, for these are the words of a Born of God (Born Again) son of God and don’t let anyone lead you astray regarding these verses. Don’t let them deceive you by allowing them to confuse you over past tense issues here. Paul is definitely speaking about his current Spiritual condition, not about how he had behaved in the past. How do we know this? Easy, He is telling us that the things he wants or desires to do i.e. the right things, are the very things he seems unable to do and also that they are the very things he hates to do. So what is Paul telling us? He telling us that his attitude to sin is right. He is telling us that he doesn’t want to sin and yet still finds himself sinning – this is the mind of a man who has repented and has the right mindset, the Born of God (Born Again) mindset, and yet admits that he still lives in a body of sin that sins. If Paul were not Born of God (Born Again) he would have no desire to do what is right and would not declare that the things he does are the things he loathes. Only a Spirit Born son of God would have this desire; only a Spirit Born son of God would admit to the fact that he is doing things that he hates doing. A degenerate fallen mind or unsaved and lost mind would not think this way at all. The fallen mindset is one that always looks for excuses for its evil deeds; admission of guilt is never in the equation. As an example, we only have to look at Adam and Eve’s behaviour after they had been found out, for all the proof we need regarding this fallen, carnal man, frame of mind.

OK, the next two verses:

Romans 7:16-17 (KJV) If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto The Law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Again I will use a modern translation in order to help us get a better understanding of these two verses for we need to be sure about what Yashua Anointed, through Paul, is saying here.

From the Amplified Bible once more:

Romans 7:16-17 Now if I do [habitually] what is contrary to my desire [that means that] I acknowledge and agree that The Law is good, and that I take sides with it? 17 However, it is no longer I who do the deed, but the sin which is at home in me and has possession of me. (Emphasis mine)

Notice the crucial use of the word ‘desire’ here to reveal to us the things Paul is desirous of doing. They are the very things that he doesn’t do but, rather, the things he hates doing, via the sin which is at home in his dead body, and also has possession of his dead body. Make careful note, though, of what Paul has said here: “It is no longer I who do the deed, but the sin within my body.” What is Paul saying here? Easy, he is telling us that he no longer sins, his dead body of sin, sins. We must be clear in our minds about this new reality that Paul is describing here regarding his Born of God (Born Again) Spiritual and carnal man condition – two natures.

The Living Bible:

Romans 7:16-17 I know perfectly well that what I am doing is wrong, and my bad conscience proves that I agree with these laws I am breaking. 17 But I can’t help myself, because I am no longer doing it. It is sin inside me that is stronger than I am that makes me do these evil things.

Here, The Living Bible then confirms what the Amplified Bible has said, so by now we should be getting the picture of Paul’s conundrum. He then continues in verses 18-19:

Romans 7:18-19 (KJV) For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Here Paul categorically states that in his flesh there is no good thing and he also states that the sin inside him is stronger than his manly or mental will to overcome it. Regarding the former, this is not surprising for nothing in the flesh is pleasing to God anyway:

Romans 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

I will return to this verse later in another article, but what does Paul say next? “For to will is present with me” which means the desire to do right, is there all the time, but the wherewithal to achieve it he cannot find in himself. In verse 19 he goes on to say that the good deeds he desires to do are the things he doesn’t do, but at the same time the evil deeds he doesn’t want to do are very things he ends up doing! He then repeats it, just in case we missed the point he was making:

Romans 7:20 (KJV) Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

From the Amplified Bible:

Romans 7:20 Now if I do what I do not desire to do, it is no longer I doing it [it is not myself that acts], but the sin [principle] which dwells within me [fixed and operating in my soul].

Notice again, that it’s no longer Paul that sins, and he says: “It is no longer I.” OK, if it’s no longer Paul, who or what is it that is doing it? Why, as previously stated, it’s his sinful dead body. Here, though, is the rub, and we must realise at this juncture that something surreal is going on here. Paul is most definitely drawing a line between Paul the ‘I’ as in, it is no longer ‘I’ and Paul the ‘dead physical body of sin’ which, from the Father’s point of view, is no longer Paul. We are, without any doubt, dealing with two entities here, not one. Notice too what the Amplified is saying, it’s that favourite word of mine again, ‘desire’. The things that Paul does, are the very things he ‘desires’ not to do and at the same time realises it is not actually him doing it, not his Born of God (Born Again) new man, but rather his old dead man wherein sin dwells “fixed and operational”, as the Amplified accurately describes it.

OK, moving on, let’s look at the next verses:

Romans 7:21-23 (KJV) I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in The Law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

So what is Paul saying here? Quite simply, that whenever Paul wants to do and does do well, evil is ever present with him and he is subjected to its insistent demands – it never lets up, nor does it ever leave him alone. He goes on to say that he delights in The Law of God after the inner man, which means the new man, the Born of God (Born Again) man, loves to do those things that are pleasing to God and yet at the same time he sees another ‘law in his members’. What does this mean? Again, quite simply, it means that Paul discerns the fleshly desires and sensuous appetites and/or wills of his flesh, and the KJV uses the quaint expression ‘law in my members’ to describe these carnal man desires. These carnal man desires, in turn, are at war with his new inner man via his mind and make him a prisoner to the law of sin. Yet again, what is Paul admitting to us? Easy, he is telling us that something else, deep in his lower carnal nature, wins the battle and brings him into captivity, the captivity or enslavement of sin, deep within his dead body of sin.

In the Living Bible it puts it more graphically:

Romans 7:23 So you see how it is: my new life tells me to do right, but the old nature that is still inside me loves to sin.

So there we have it: the battle that rages within a true Born of God (Born Again) son or daughter of God over sin and if we are to believe Paul, sin wins the battle, until…

Romans 7:24-25 (KJV) O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve The Law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

So will Yashua Anointed (the Lord Jesus Christ) deliver Paul from his body of death? Of course, and He does (twice), and yet at the same time leaves him battling with his dead body of sin that sins. The thing is, though, is it the old man Paul that is battling or the new man Paul empowered by the Holy Spirit that is battling with his dead body of sin? Well we know don’t we, it’s the new man, for this whole passage of Holy Scripture is about that very subject. In the last verse it describes our newness of being Born of God (Born Again), a condition that involves our new born minds and hearts, the inner man, desirous of keeping God’s Commandments, but at the same time living with our dead bodies of sin, serving the law of sin. To confirm all this I will copy the Living Bible once more:

Romans 7:24-25 Oh what a terrible predicament I’m in! Who will free me from my slavery to this deadly lower nature? Thank God! It has been done by Jesus Christ our Lord. He has set me free.

Notice, that I said Yashua Anointed (the Lord Jesus Christ) delivers us twice from our dead bodies of sin and I have covered how He does it the first time, but what about the second time? Well that takes place at the time of our resurrection when we are raised from our graves as Spirit Born beings never to do battle with dead physical bodies of sin again. We are raised incorruptible and only Spirit is incorruptible, flesh always decays (is corruptible) and is always desirous of things appertaining to the flesh – it can do nothing else!

OK, now all this is all very fine I may hear you say, but there is still that big nagging question. What big nagging question? Why, that big nagging question that all the 21st century Pharisees, Judaising legalists and boot strap ‘salvation by works’ Christians (wretched Commandment keepers) will be waiting to pounce on me with; so here it is: Is Paul, through this letter, just giving us excuses to carry on sinning as we have always done, in our old lives, before our calling and baptism? No, a thousand times no, but what he is telling us is that our dead bodies of sin will, at times, sin, and, for all the reasons he states above. If, though, we are led by The Holy Spirit as described in Romans 8, we can then be sure we are on the right path no matter how many times we sin. Always remember folks, it’s our attitude towards sin and our attitude towards the committing of sins that matters, not the sin itself. In turn, this means we are to be ruthlessly honest with ourselves and do not enter into lifestyles of delusional denial and/or of kidding ourselves that lives of sin are acceptable to Yashua Anointed (The Lord) or that He will just turn a blind eye to our continued wicked activities whilst still professing to be His friends, brothers and sisters.

Paul says elsewhere “Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? No, God forbid” and make no mistake God will forbid even to the taking of our lives if we blindly and/or stubbornly refuse to return the fold. So, to return to the title of this article once more and ask again if Paul was schizoid, we can plainly see that he wasn’t, because he only had one desire, but at the same time did, like all Born of God (Born Again) sons of God, have two natures – the new born Spiritual regenerated man and the dead fleshly, sinful, carnal old man.

For a continuation of this article/study please read my articles: “The 2,000 Year Old Good News or 21st Century Modern News – Which Do You Believe?” and “Romans 8:13 – What Did Paul Mean by Mortifying the Flesh and How Do We Accomplish It?” Always feel free e-mail me if you wish to learn more.

I lifted the title from a character from “The Transformers”. I wanted to start out by being honest, and this article will be one big honest affirmation. In life and existence, we must always blaze a trail, an honest trail for ourselves or be normal with “nothing good in particular happening” to us. Indeed, the great person makes themselves great by not seeking short cuts and having unyielding resolve within themselves that is completely from within themselves.

I am not saying that about personality. I am writing about essence, really. Only the essence is genuinely original anyway, everything else is just borrowed for our stay on earth or wherever we are at on it or in the universe, including personality.

When I think and understand about the “spark of the soul”, that is what I genuinely understand. I do not count personality, I do not count anything outside of ourselves: I count only the essence and what we do with it. Here is my point: We can bury our essence and be normal or live up to our essence and be great, it is always our choice. That is what I really mean by the quote in this article: Unyielding resolve has no conqueror. Live with total courage, and I do not mean “foolish bravery” either. I mean to live honestly with yourself and be totally real with yourself without compromise even when fear rears its head too at times and you can be honest about that “facing the music courageously” instead of looking for an “easy way out” with fear and conformity. If you can say “My virtue!”, you can also honestly say “My fault!” when warranted with guts and honesty that will make you great. After all, as long as there is existence, there is always a chance to make reality right, and existence is not going to stop existing anytime soon.

When you cheat and short cut, you only cheat and short cut yourself, like the older kid in the eleventh or twelfth grade of high school who pays twenty dollars to the autistic savant in the fifth or sixth grade to do their Algebra and Calculus homework while they party and have a good time on dates and skip the necessary work. It is the rare and smart kid or person that sees the value in learning and genuinely growing without skipping it. That is the basis of what I am getting at. Real greatness comes ultimately to those who do not skip over the work, and really do it any way it goes, indeed, normal people look for short cuts, and cheating ways, extraordinary people have resolve.

If you want to make your ex boyfriend miserable without you, you need to give him a taste of his own medicine. You need to remember that you are not doing this to take revenge. You are just showing him how much hurt he has caused you by making him feel at least a small amount of the pain you are feeling right now. You need to do this in love and not in hatred. The main goal is to get him back and make him love you with all his heart.

The first step towards making him feel at least a portion of your hurt and pain is to dump him. But how do you dump him when he has already dumped you? Well, he is under the perception that he has dumped you but you are still after him. This is what most guys feel after they have dumped their girlfriend. They also assume that if they turn around and ask their girlfriend to come back, they would literally run and fall into their arms. Well, you need to give him a surprise. You need to show him that his assumptions are wrong.

So write him a short note saying that you agree to the breakup! This might sound counter-intuitive to all that you have heard before. But as I said earlier, you have to give him a taste of this own medicine. He broke the relationship because he felt that it should end. Now you too say that the relationship should end. So write to him saying that you thought about it for a while and you are convinced that a breakup is the right thing for both of you.

This would come as a big jolt to him. Now he can no longer assume that you are after him anymore. He knows that you are out of his reach. Even if he wants you back, there is the possibility that he may not get you. Now that is powerful! A guy will start to feel very uncomfortable when he is no longer in control of a relationship. He can no longer call you and make you dance to his tunes. You are no longer ‘his girl’. Now that is going to give him sleepless nights. You have got him now! He’s hooked. As long as you keep running behind him, he has control over the relationship. But once you agree to the break up, his knees will start to shake.

Pathos is what the Irish survive and thrive on, so Swift begins his proposal with it. He presents a melancholy image to his readers in the first lines of A Modest Proposal, calling to mind the beggars and urchins in Irish doorways, the women followed by three, four, or six children. The first paragraph contains seeds of his logical and ethical arguments as well, mentioning the importuning of alms as a social evil, presumably because the practice offends certain wealthy people who are the ‘importuned’, and the unpatriotic practice of leaving Ireland to fight for an English enemy. He then elicits the emotions of his audience once more, preparing his own nest for subsequent feathering into the bargain, saying that whoever offers a cheap and easy solution to this dilemma ought to have a statue erected in his honor.

Pathetic argument presented, the author skips to a rather more ethical one. Considering one definition of Ethos as the ‘character and definition of a community,’ Swift’s reference to the substitution of young lads and maidens for venison is one place in A Modest Proposal that focuses on the ethical part of the argument. It does so by allowing Swift to mention what he considers a truly outrageous idea, proffered by a fellow of his acquaintance, a true lover of his country, who like others of his caste has lost all his deer. The fellow’s solution is to replace the deer with young lads and maidens not exceeding fourteen years of age. With tongue firmly installed in cheek, Swift is rightfully chagrined at such an idea, citing the fact that the meat of such children would be tough and sinewy, thus unacceptable for such refined palates. Leave it to Swift to be so cautious of the tastes and sensibilities of the only people who matter in Ireland, such as the highly esteemed gent, so deserving a patriot.

But the idea is turned back, as the author neatly summarizes the values and ethics of the community which would, at least considering the breeding potential of the females, constitute a loss to the public. He goes on to spare the energies and sensibilities of scrupulous people who would, unjustly in his opinion, censure the practice as cruel. This has always been Swift’s own personal opinion, thus his ideas are in keeping with community ethics. There have clearly been other such, in his opinion, unethical practices, and he abhors them. He says.

Then Swift continues picking at the idea, stating that his friend got it from a fellow from Formosa, who says those in his country considered among the riffraff for whatever reason are given over to Persons of quality as prime delicacies. Ever the ethicist, Swift ponders this, mindful of the communities economic interests, naturally, and then allows that eating girls who are, without one single Groat to their Fortunes, may not be a bad idea after all. The Kingdom would not be the worse. He says.

As for the logical considerations to A Modest Proposal, their appeal to reason, we refer to the itemized list, beginning with the presence of far too many Papists. Logic states that they pose a danger to the country, with their yearly issue of yet more of their kind, their sinister political leanings and their financial loyalty to the Catholic Church through tithing, none of which, of course, found its way into Rev. Swift’s collection basket of a Sunday.

Secondly, again more logic, the proposal would give the poor something they have no experience with, i.e. money of their own, and thus a way to actually pay their rent! This can be seen as either an appeal to logos, or to pathos, as landowners, being subject to certain emotions themselves, are likely reluctant to evict their non-paying clients. The idea of renters having money would, of course, allow landlords to raise the rent, thus a good idea, since corn and cattle have already been seized. It’s obvious that Swift concedes certain ruthless, thus unethical, behaviors to landlords, who must have been a favorite target of his pen. Yet the statement seems perfectly logical, and unassailable. He says.

Third in line of logical arguments centers again on the public coffers. Since the expenditure is so great to maintain the poor unfortunate children, why not use the proposal to not only enrich Ireland, but to give the country something it lacks, an industry of its very own? The irony is rich; Swift goes from a discussion of financial matters and cold, hard economic concerns, directly to new dishes and restaurant concepts. Of course the only people who stand to benefit are the (thinly-veiled) English aristocracy, those Gentlemen of Fortune in the Kingdom, who evidently lack not food, but sufficient imagination to create new recipes.

Fourth, and perhaps the most logical argument concerns the very poor themselves, the so-called constant breeders. Swift brings them into the argument, assuming that they understand the necessity of his proposal as well. Just think, he says, once this idea takes root, you’ll be free of the burden of raising these children once they reach a year old. Plus, you’ll have eight shillings per annum! Who can deny the logic of this? It’s obvious that Mr. Swift has little regard for the Irish peasant, even though he appears to include them in his grand scheme. This is, perhaps, the way the Irish have been dealt with all along by another overbearing entity, the English government across the water.

Fifth, he returns to the culinary aspects of the proposal, citing the dining possibilities for rich people, whom the vintners can perhaps scalp with ever higher prices. So not only has Swift made his logical appeal to the patriots, the religious, and the rich, he extends the proposal to commoners, and even beggars. How can it possibly be turned aside? He asks.