Saying 'no' is often the hardest thing to do. It requires self-control. It also requires self-knowledge not coloured by pride, by fear, by desire, by greed... The discussion about learning to say no is something I return to a lot (most recently here), because it's something I struggle with. It was with some interest, therefore, that I read a blogpost on Buffer about learning to say no to distraction and temptation.
Essentially, the post was about a study done investigating the thought processes that enabled some people to be more effective at saying no. Essentially, it revolves around self-talk: replacing "can't" with "don't". When someone says they "can't" do something, the self-talk indicates they are powerless to do something, so they become powerless. When someone says they "don't" do something, the self-talk indicates they are powerful, choosing not to do something, which further enables them to make the same choice again at a later stage.
As with many truths, when reading that, the wisdom in it seems so self-evident. When I read it, my reaction was "of course!", but it's not something that occurred to me until it was explained to me.
I've been trying to run at least twice a week since the start of the year - with greater and lesser success in different weeks. One thing I've learnt is that on days when it is hardest to get up, the thing that has motivated me has been positive self-talk: You ARE going to get fit; you WILL lose the weight; you CAN do this; you WILL do this. When the self-talk is negative (I don't want to do this; I can't do this; I don't want to do this) it becomes impossible to do it.
Once I'm actually running, and want to give up because it hurts too much, if my self-talk is positive (you CAN make it to that tree/ pole/ bench) I usually make it beyond the goal I've set myself. When it's negative, I stop before I've even realised I'm going to.
So my own experience bears this out.
It's not: I can't eat that chocolate. I can't eat wheat. I can't miss my morning runs.
It is: I don't need that chocolate. I don't eat wheat. I don't miss my morning runs.
I am CHOOSING my behaviour. I am CHOOSING my future.
In a way, it's like any addict. Addicts will tell you that in that moment of craving, they have to make a choice - either to choose to do drugs again, or to choose to walk away. That's the only choice they have. They can't control the cravings, but they can control their response to their cravings.
While I am not an addict, the same truth holds for me. I can't stop the temptation - but I can choose my response to it.
In fact, the same holds true for my walk with God. I can't stop the temptations that would otherwise stop me from spending time with him, or praying. However, I can choose my response. I can choose to give in, or I can choose not to give in. Of course, that makes it sound so easy to do. Sometimes it's anything but easy. That's why Jesus said the road to life was the narrow, rocky one; the one most people wouldn't choose; and the road to hell was the wide, nicely paved one; the one that most people would choose because it was easy to follow.
The power to choose is, I believe, what makes us unique. In the Garden of Eden, God made humans in his image - the ability to choose our behaviour is part of that image. We chose not to obey. We chose to follow the wide road. Jesus chose his behaviour too. He chose to come to earth as a weak human, and to submit to a cruel death, one that should have been mine.
No doubt, the temptations he faced in his life were harder than anything I have, or will, face - ultimate earthly power and glory, to meet his own needs using supernatural power, to know the love found in a marriage, to have children, to save himself from a gruesome death... yet at each point, at each temptation, he chose not to give in. Jesus' choices, as recorded in the Bible, often reveal his self-talk, and interestingly, it was often of the nature of: "I don't do that. I don't want that. I don't need that."
So, my New Year's resolution, my personal challenge, was to get 7 hrs sleep a night and to run twice a week. This term, my challenge will be to change my self-talk. My Easter challenge to myself is to consciously have more positive self-talk - to replace my can'ts with more don'ts. What's yours?
Showing posts with label questions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label questions. Show all posts
Friday, March 29, 2013
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Tough Questions
For many people, there are some BIG questions to be asked about faith and religion, and about faith in Jesus Christ in particular. They look at the Church (global) and they look at Christians today, and decide they want nothing to do with it, or with God. In the words of Rigby Wallace, though, if you think churches are filled with people who are perfect, or close to being perfect, then you couldn't be more wrong. Churches are filled with people who are all too aware of their sin, or their shortcomings - that's one of the reasons they're in church in the first place.
I'm not the best advert for Christianity at the moment either. Despite that though, people ask me the difficult questions - why does God allow suffering? Surely science has disproved the existence of God? Surely evolution and the Bible are incompatible? Wasn't Jesus just a good (moral) teacher and not really God? Surely all religions lead to God? Surely the Bible is a man-made construct, not the Word of God? Does God really hate all homosexuals?
Questions like this indicate me to that the person asking is genuinely searching for something. While I can attempt an answer, there usually isn't enough time to really explore these issues with the person concerned, so I usually recommend a host of really good books they can borrow from me - I particularly like C.S. Lewis and John Stott's books.
Common Ground Church is currently running a series looking at these tough questions. Last week looked at how a loving God can allow suffering. Today looked at whether or not science has disproved God and religion. So far, I've found the talks very good, given the limited amount of time to discuss the topic. If you are at all interested, then do click on the link and download the talks as they are uploaded to the site.
It might just change your life.
I'm not the best advert for Christianity at the moment either. Despite that though, people ask me the difficult questions - why does God allow suffering? Surely science has disproved the existence of God? Surely evolution and the Bible are incompatible? Wasn't Jesus just a good (moral) teacher and not really God? Surely all religions lead to God? Surely the Bible is a man-made construct, not the Word of God? Does God really hate all homosexuals?
Questions like this indicate me to that the person asking is genuinely searching for something. While I can attempt an answer, there usually isn't enough time to really explore these issues with the person concerned, so I usually recommend a host of really good books they can borrow from me - I particularly like C.S. Lewis and John Stott's books.
Common Ground Church is currently running a series looking at these tough questions. Last week looked at how a loving God can allow suffering. Today looked at whether or not science has disproved God and religion. So far, I've found the talks very good, given the limited amount of time to discuss the topic. If you are at all interested, then do click on the link and download the talks as they are uploaded to the site.
It might just change your life.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Grounded
I can't believe that there is anyone out there who doesn't yet know about the volcanic eruptions in Iceland this past month, or the effect on the airports in the UK and Europe this past week.
I've been so fascinated by the whole thing because I keep wondering whether the ash will stick around for long enough to (partially) reverse the effects of global warming. I mean, back in 1815 Mount Tambora (in Indonesia) spewed up so much ash that global temperatures dropped so much there was no summer the following year. It was rated 7 on the volcanic explosivity index. (Krakatoa was rated 6.)
If you take into account the fact that many volcanoes that have had several smaller eruptions in a short period of time have wound up having a major one, I think we're in for an interesting ride.
The airports in the UK and northern Europe are already closed. How long will they remain closed for? Will they have to close again at some later date? Can you imagine a Europe with no air traffic? Will the airlines be able to survive financially? Will that put us back to the days of relying on boats and trains more (if airlines collapse?) or will the governments give the airlines a bail-out? And if so, will that mean that airfares will have to be hiked incredibly to pay back those loans? And if so, will that mean that air traffic will reduce??????
See what I mean? I'm just BURSTING with questions about this.
While I wait impatiently to see what happens, here are some photos to keep you all entertained. OK, not really entertained, but at least they're worth looking at. Once again, they're from 'The Big Picture', which is one of my favourite photo sites.
Of course, if you're Tammy and stuck in SA when you should be making your way back to London to your job, that seriously sucks. But for the rest of us living here in the land of milk and honey, it's pretty cool.
Which reminds me of a cool joke I heard about Malema... but I'm not sure it's appropriate to put it into print... so sorry, you'll have to hear it from someone else. Oh wait - none of the Saffas can fly to the UK now, so I guess you won't be able to hear it. Bummer dude!
I've been so fascinated by the whole thing because I keep wondering whether the ash will stick around for long enough to (partially) reverse the effects of global warming. I mean, back in 1815 Mount Tambora (in Indonesia) spewed up so much ash that global temperatures dropped so much there was no summer the following year. It was rated 7 on the volcanic explosivity index. (Krakatoa was rated 6.)
If you take into account the fact that many volcanoes that have had several smaller eruptions in a short period of time have wound up having a major one, I think we're in for an interesting ride.
The airports in the UK and northern Europe are already closed. How long will they remain closed for? Will they have to close again at some later date? Can you imagine a Europe with no air traffic? Will the airlines be able to survive financially? Will that put us back to the days of relying on boats and trains more (if airlines collapse?) or will the governments give the airlines a bail-out? And if so, will that mean that airfares will have to be hiked incredibly to pay back those loans? And if so, will that mean that air traffic will reduce??????
See what I mean? I'm just BURSTING with questions about this.
While I wait impatiently to see what happens, here are some photos to keep you all entertained. OK, not really entertained, but at least they're worth looking at. Once again, they're from 'The Big Picture', which is one of my favourite photo sites.
Of course, if you're Tammy and stuck in SA when you should be making your way back to London to your job, that seriously sucks. But for the rest of us living here in the land of milk and honey, it's pretty cool.
Which reminds me of a cool joke I heard about Malema... but I'm not sure it's appropriate to put it into print... so sorry, you'll have to hear it from someone else. Oh wait - none of the Saffas can fly to the UK now, so I guess you won't be able to hear it. Bummer dude!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)