Ramblings About Credit Cards

http://www.stacymakescents.com/using-cash-instead-of-cards

I read the above blogpost today. I thought it was very insightful, and presented a great case for the argument of using "paper instead of plastic." But here is my (probably NOT as good) argument against that view.



I've heard a lot about using cash instead of credit (or debit) cards lately. I understand that it is much harder to part with cash. I also understand that you CAN'T spend more than you have with cash.

But I've just been wondering; what about rewards programs? I know that the credit card companies set up these programs to get you to spend more... THEY are really the ones making the money on people who can't control their spending.

But if you ARE the type of person who pays off your balance at the end of the month, then is it really a bad thing to have and use a credit card? We used to only use our card for emergencies... we put everything else on debit so it would cut out the middle man. But when I realized I could make a few hundred dollars a year by using the credit card instead, we started doing that. Now we use the credit card almost everywhere (except ALDI, which only takes cash or debit, or St. Vinnies, which only takes cash. I think the fact that two of the places we frequent most are a discount grocery and a thrift store show that we aren't exactly HUGE spenders...), and then just pay it off out of the checking account at the end of the month. Since we started using it more, I realized how fast the points can rack up... just on buying the purchases of daily life.

Now, I'm definitely not saying I am the most frugal person. I'm sure I could benefit from like a Dave Ramsey class or something. I definitely spend money on things I don't need. But I'm just saying that sometimes credit cards seem like a good thing.
Example #1: I have started buying diapers and sometimes other non-perishable groceries online because I find great deals. If I am going to buy disposable diapers anyway, and I have a $10 off coupon online, but then I went to the store to buy them with cash, I feel like I'd be losing that $10. (I know cloth diapering is MORE economical, but that's just not something I want to do since I have shared/pay laundry facilities right now)
Example #2: I have ALWAYS bought my husband's school books from Amazon or Half.com... why on earth would I pay 3x as much for books from the college bookstore? (Now, when I was in school, I didn't even buy books... just used the library. But he likes to build his theological library, and this is still cheaper than LOGOS.)
These are just a couple examples of things I couldn't do if we didn't have a credit card.

When it comes to the credit card rewards, I don't go for any of the gift cards and appliances and other stuff they have on the rewards redemption... I just go for straight cash back to pay the credit card balance (I usually redeem at about $100 or so). Is this really wrong?

I think trying to justify your purchases because of a rewards program or deal is foolish (Sure, I paid $80, but I "saved" $20 on this new coat because it was on sale! But did you NEED the coat? You could have saved the $80 you paid) but I don't think there's anything wrong with using a different method to buy the things you would already be purchasing in order to get a "reward."

I think handling money is more about setting up a system that works best for your family. For us, my husband is actually MORE likely to spend cash than to use a card, because he knows his wife balances the checkbook and sees every McDonalds run he makes. When he gets a bit of cash, on the other hand, I'll ask him for some of it in a week and he will have no idea where it went.

My husband and I run the risk, just like anyone does, of living beyond our means. I suppose this would be a trap that is much easier for us to fall into since we DO use credit cards. (Who knows? Maybe someday I will jump on the "all cash" bandwagon.) But my point here is that I think there also needs to be more education on how to WISELY use a credit card. Whether we like it or not, our kids are going to be using electronic money; instead of teaching them that it is a bottomless pit they should avoid, we need to teach them that it is a tool, and teach them to be smart with it.

Thanks for reading.



*Note: Above, I highlighted in RED the crucial point to making this work. You must pay off your balance on the credit card. If you carry a balance and pay interest, THAT is where it becomes unhealthy debt. My husband and I are not debt free (I think student loans are a "good debt") but we DO strive to be free of credit card debt, and so far have been able to accomplish this. I just wanted to clarify that.*

Ramblings About Mornings

Today I will address my thoughts on the question:

Is it a sin NOT to be a morning person?

Now, I realize this article will sound like I am on a high horse, and will definitely step on the toes of most people who read it. (It is stomping on the toes of the person who is writing it!)
This is not anything groundbreaking... I'm sure many people have said it before and much more eloquently than I can. As such, this is not meant to be a devotional or a sermon; these are just my thoughts along with a couple Scripture verses. But you may have a better argument AGAINST my view, so feel free to comment as such, or to just stop reading now.
Ok, here we go.

As I was laying in bed this morning listening to my 11 month old tell me in no uncertain terms from his crib that he is READY TO GET UP, I grumbled and sighed and thought, "Why me, Lord?"
So, I guess I started the day in prayer which means I'm off to a great start, right? (note: this is sarcasm.)

But, as I dragged myself out of bed, took care of my son, and then grumbling, made the coffee, the thought came to me: it's ok for me to be a little grumpy... I'm just "not a morning person"... right?

I don't know where this phrase came from, but it seems to me a little bit like an excuse. Mornings are something we all have to deal with. They are (for most of us) the start of the day, and whether your day has to start at dawn or noon (or anywhere in between), the point is that it has to start SOMEWHERE.

Note: I know a lot of people work night shifts or have other circumstances that cause "morning" for them to be at a different time of day. Probably most of this article would still apply to them, but for my purposes I mostly have actual "mornings" in mind here.

So, if morning is a part of life that we cannot escape, then the only difference I see between "morning people" and "non-morning people" is the attitude they employ to deal with it. Typically, a morning person embraces the time with a smile and a vigor to start the day, while a non-morning person will fall on the spectrum anywhere from being silent and reserved to being grumpy and lashing out at anyone in his/her way.

I realize that some people do seem to be "wired" to need more sleep (we see this even in infants) and that some people seem to be "wired" to need a slow transition from sleeping to wakefulness. We'll talk later about being understanding with these people.
But, if this is true that the issue of being a morning person is related to attitude, then I think I can safely say that it whether or not you are a morning person IS a heart issue, and that means, dare I say it, that being a non-morning person is actually a sin.



Ok, time for some Scripture. First, a little bit of defense for the non-morning person.

Proverbs 27:14 "He who blesses his friend with a loud voice, rising early in the morning,

It will be counted a curse to him."

As I said before, some people are just naturally wired to be able to wake up refreshed and ready to sing a musical number. Other people want to be quiet for a while and have a slow transition into the day. THIS is not a sinful attitude towards mornings. If your morning person friend comes up to you with a huge bear hug and a loud, bubbly "Good Morning!!", it is not necessarily sinful to ask them to tone it down for a bit, and maybe give you some space. (If you snap at them or coldly ignore them, however, is this really a Philippians 2:3-4 attitude? "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself. Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others." Remember, just like you maybe can't help your predispositions toward mornings, neither can they.)

But none of us can deny that God DOES say quite a bit in His Word about the attitude that we should try to foster in regards toward mornings. 

Mornings should be a time of prayer:

Psalm 5:3 "My voice You shall hear in the morning, O Lord; 

In the morning I will direct it to You,

And I will look up."

Psalm 88:13 "But to You I have cried out, O Lord,

And in the morning my prayer comes before You."

Mornings should be a time of meditation:

Isaiah 50:4b "He awakens Me morning by morning,

He awakens My ear

To hear as the learned."

And, *cringe*, we even see that mornings should be a time for singing:

Psalm 90:14 "Satisfy us in the morning with your unfailing love, that we may sing for joy and be glad all our days."

Psalm 59:16 "But I will sing of Your power;

Yes, I will sing aloud of Your mercy in the morning;

For You have been my defense

And refuge in the day of my trouble."

Mornings (in some cases, EARLY mornings) should be a time for productivity:

Proverbs 31:15 "She also rises while it is yet night,

And provides food for her household,

And a portion for her maidservants." 

Note: I know this is a passage depicting a virtuous woman, but I think the attitude of provision for others even when it is a sacrifice for yourself is a biblical principle that can be applied to everyone. 

Proverbs 20:13 "Do not love sleep, lest you come to poverty;

Open your eyes, and you will be satisfied with bread."

These verses are mostly from the Psalms and Proverbs, so maybe you will be saying, "Sure, this is a good idea for David and Solomon, who were obviously morning people, but I can do all of those things later in the day. I just don't have the time in the morning to do my devotions, and I can still praise the Lord without singing in the morning!" I think that may be true... the importance of worship through Bible study, song, and prayer should not be regulated to a time of day. 

But... just think for a minute about your reasoning... before you excuse yourself from following the pattern in these verses, ask yourself what your reasons are. Are you putting off doing these things because you honestly need the sleep? That would probably be a valid reason... we know that God has designed our bodies to NEED rest. Psalm 127:2 "It is vain for you to rise up early, To sit up late, To eat the bread of sorrows; For so He gives His beloved sleep." 

Or are you shirking responsibilities because you WANT extra sleep? That was me this morning; I didn't go to sleep till after 11pm (which is late for me) because I always wait up at night till my husband gets home from work. This is an important time for us as a couple, and it is not something I feel I should give up, but taking care of my son when he wakes up in the morning is not something I can give up, either. These are my responsibilities to my family, and to say that I can't do them cheerfully because I'm "not a morning person" is sinful.

But, hey, I woke up and took care of the diaper... that counts, right? My husband has a t-shirt that says something like "I'm up an dressed, what more do you want?" We laugh at this, but this is the point where I might get a little controversial. (Up till now you're probably just going, "duh".) My thought this morning about being a non-morning person was...

Why do we as Christians excuse sinful behavior with the phrase "I'm just not a morning person."?

If you can truly NOT be a morning person, but still combat the sinful behaviors that often go along with it-- laziness (Proverbs 26:14) , grumpiness (Proverbs 16:32), shirking responsibilities (Proverbs 21:5), neglecting worship (see verses above), and overall disregard for the happiness of others (Philippians 2)-- then sure, maybe being a non-morning person is not sinful for you. But the truth is, when we use the phrase "he/she's not a morning person" we usually are referring to someone who DOES manifest at least some of these behaviors. 

Think about it like this. When a little kid asks "Dad, why is mom always so grumpy in the morning?" it is considered acceptable to say "Well, honey, she's just not a morning person. Try not to bother her for a couple hours."
But if that little kid asked "Dad, why does mom always throw thing at us when she gets angry?" we may report this woman for child abuse!

My point is, both attitudes are sinful. I feel that this issue is another life situation where we tend to minimize sin, or at the very least, create "levels" of sinfulness. ("Sure, he's never been a morning person. We never can talk to him till he's had his first cup of coffee. But that's just who he is. At least he doesn't beat his children.")

We do the same thing with children... we often excuse sin because of external circumstances. ("I know he is throwing a temper tantrum, but he didn't sleep well last night and he is cutting a new tooth.")

Don't get me wrong... I think we all have a responsibility to be understanding of others and recognize when they are having a hard time with something. You would hope that they would treat you with the same kindess when YOU are struggling! But just like tiredness and pain are a part of life, and you are not doing your child any favors if always excuse their sinful behavior when it has a "valid reason", so mornings are a part of life, and we are not doing each other any favors to say, "It's okay that you don't wake up and help with the kids. It's okay that when you do wake up you snap at your spouse and co-workers. It's okay that you procrastinate on your work until you've had enough coffee, or skip devotions because you didn't have enough time." Why are things like sluggishness, grumpiness, and procrastination viewed as "lesser sins"?

Something as small as one selfish, fleeting frown in the morning (that could break the heart of my eager child), is a sin for which my Savior's blood was shed.

So, if you categorize yourself as a "morning person", please try to be understanding of your loved ones who are trying to combat fleshly desires for sleep and self in this area.

And if you call yourself a "non-morning person", do some deep introspection to find out if this predisposition of yours is manifesting itself in any sinful attitudes or behaviors.

I hope that my husband is as patient with me as I try to be more Christlike in the mornings as I am trying to be with him. (And that our son learns to be patient with both of us.)

I know this is long and rambly, but if you've read any of my other posts, you know that's how I roll.

Thanks for reading.

Ramblings about Bugs

(Disclaimer: I don't know much about blog copyright laws, so I included the links where I found all these pictures so I don't get in trouble. They all came from Google image search, so I CANNOT vouch for any of the websites if you click on the links.)

Today's discussion--

Which is worse: A boxelder bug or a ladybug? 

Though I am not a fan of either of these household pests, I would argue that ladybugs are MORE EVIL than boxelder bugs. Read on to see my reasoning.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with these two types of beetles, here is what they look like:

Boxelder Bug
(http://www1.extension.umn.edu/garden/insects/find/boxelder-bugs/)

Ladybug
(http://www.shadesofgreensa.com/ladybugs.html)

And here is what they DO:

Boxelder bug swarm on windowsill
(http://www.wiscnews.com/news/local/article_1e5e5022-0ca3-11e2-8749-0019bb2963f4.html)

Ladybug swarm on windowsill
(http://www.cridx.com/blog.html)

 When I lived in PA, every fall and spring our home would be invaded by ladybugs, whose sole purpose was to infest everything from the light fixtures to tunafish sandwiches. They were a threat that was impossible to prevent, and almost impossible to eradicate.

After moving to WI, I found that the ladybugs were not quite as numerous, but they had a midwestern counterpart-- the boxelder bug-- who had the same agenda.

I don't know any actual statistics of these pest populations; I'm just reporting on MY experience, which was ladybugs in the East, boxelder bugs in the Midwest.

Either way, they are both gross. But which one is WORSE? I've already said that I think ladybugs are inherently evil. Here is my argument:

-----

Point number 1: When it comes to indoor bugs, I have a general dislike for bugs that can fly AND crawl. Flies are annoying, but at least they usually fly around, land for a bit, then fly away. Ants are gross, but at least they just crawl all over the place so you can step on them. BUT both ladybugs and boxelder bugs crawl AND fly, which is just unfair. So, they are evenly matched on this point.

-----

Point number 2: We have already seen that they both swarm. They like to get inside doorways and windowsills, crawl on your walls and ceilings, and then die in your stuff. Or fly around you as you try to run to your car. Again, evenly matched in awfulness.

Boxelder bugs
(http://www.buggslayer.com/)

Ladybugs
(http://www.mountainphotographer.com/ladybugs-black-seeds/)

-----

Point number 3: Both bugs stink. 

"Oh, you think I'm gross? Why don't you just kill me? HA! Now I am gross AND I stink. Even in my death I have defeated you." 

We're still at a tie.

-----

Point number 4: Boxelder bugs eat trees (which are generally considered good) and ladybugs eat aphids (which are generally considered bad). So this is one point in favor of boxelder bugs being worse than ladybugs.

-----

Point number 5: BUT, the close of my argument, and the reason that I think ladybugs are MORE EVIL than boxelder bugs is their DECEPTION.

For whatever reason, the ladybug has convinced humans that it is not only NOT a threat to our existence and American way of life, but that it is something to be PRAISED and viewed as *shudder* cute.

Ladybugs in childrens' literature
(http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Little-Ladybugs-Melanie-Gerth/dp/1581170912)

  

Ladybugs in party food
(http://www.brightideas.com/bright_idea.aspx?ID=27)

Ladybugs in wedding decor!
(http://www.merchantcircle.com/business/Classy.Baby.Diaper.Cakes.And.Gifts.318-218-6732/picture/view/2037483)

We even dress our young ones up as these vile creatures.
(http://goodcostumeideas.com/a-bugs-life/bugs-life-ladybug-costume.html)

Sure, even I have to admit, ladybugs in a nursery seems like it could be really cute...
(http://www.etsy.com/listing/101942210/ladybugs-nursery-wall-decal-ladybug-wall)

Until you realize that in reality, ladybugs in a nursery looks more like THIS
(http://www.cridx.com/blog.html)

 This is the reason why I think ladybugs are more evil than boxelder bugs. I mean, at least boxelder bugs are honest about their grossness. They don't put up a front. They don't try to infiltrate our society with cutesy decor. You never would see a children's clothing line named...

(http://www.thedabblingspeechie.com/2013/04/22/a-lady-bug-hunt-adventure-a-visit-from-eric-carle-and-some-lady-bug-absurdies/)

-----

 So, in conclusion, you can have your own opinions about these bugs. If you want to think ladybugs are cute, go ahead. But for me, I don't think I could ever let my baby wear something with a ladybug on it without thinking of this:

(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/nyregion/20ladybugs.html?_r=0)

 Thanks for reading.