"Cares for" and "cares about" are funny phrases when it comes to God.
Part of the problem is that the Western conception of God, which has been mostly influenced by Christianity, is a little bit conflicted.
Christianity has, on one hand, Hebrew roots. The God of the Hebrew Bible, although transcendent in many ways, is not in the least bit dispassionate. God wrestles with Jacob. God negotiates with Abraham. God gets angry. God has regrets.
However, as the church is formed from/by Jews shaped by this understanding of God, in a world where Greek philosophy carries the day. And Aristotle influenced the popular understanding of God by referring to God as the "unmoved mover." In Greek philosophy, God didn't care about humans. God didn't care.
So there's the problem: If God cares about our actions, which we know are often petty, that makes God seem petty. But if God doesn't care, then why should we?
Although I understand the influence of both strains in the formation of our theology, I tend to lean towards the Hebrew understanding. It makes God harder to figure out, but who said understanding God should be easy?
God exists in relationship--not just with humanity but (Christians believe) with God's self.
Relationship is funny. God interacts with us--without changing who God is. Is there a tension there? You bet. And we can't get it from outside of the relationship where we might be able to understand it objectively. So yes, some faith is involved.
Does God care what religion we are? God's love came, according to Christian understanding, while we were still opposed to God. So, no. We cannot change the way that God chooses to engage us in relationship because of our behavior/belief/whatever.
Does this mean that what we believe doesn't matter? It doesn't change God. It does, however, change us. If I believe I can fly, and it is not true, there will be some negative consequences. Our beliefs and behavior matter, but not because they affect God. Its because they affect us.
God cares for us in that he cares to engage us, and gives God's self to us. But this self-giving is God's eternal choice, not a reaction to anything we do.
I wrote this late at night, so I am reserving the right to edit/clarify.
I hope this shed some light on some more of my reactions to (e:jim)'s statement, but I should also add that I see this as background stuff. It is not reasonable to ask somebody to engage in the "big picture stuff," especially when Jesus' stories and actions were so rooted in the here and now.
But its fun to engage here, even if I might start in a different place.
PS: (e:carolinian), please correct me if you think I have misrepresented the Hebrew Bible and/or Judaism.
Drew's Journal
My Podcast Link
07/08/2008 23:12 #44909
God cares?Category: religion
07/07/2008 21:33 #44899
Exploring the nuance of the listCategory: religion
In Jim's list of things that have to be taken on faith, this was the first statement that I gave an *, meaning that I couldn't agree/disagree fully without explaining a little bit of nuance.
[box]
That God is the Christian God, not the Jewish, Islam, Baha'i, Mormonism, etc.
[/box]
I believe that there is one God, and I believe that God is best understood and revealed through Christianity. I even believe that God was made incarnate in Jesus Christ.
However, I can only apprehend God. God cannot be comprehended. So while I believe that I have an understanding of God, my understanding will never be near complete (not in this life, at least--but we haven't gotten to "eternity" stuff yet).
Therefore, I believe that I worship the same God as the other faiths. To say otherwise would be to contradict myself, because I believe that there is only one God.
Other faiths comprehend God differently. Or they misunderstand God. Or they make God out to be who they want God to be (which is bad, yes, but Christians make that mistake, too).
So I would say that I best understand God through Christianity, but I admit that my knowledge is incomplete. Other faiths have different, incomplete knowledge as well. I can learn from them, and yet still maintain that Christianity has the truest picture of God.
I do not present my faith as a complete system of total understanding--just the best one (as far as I can tell).
Unless I know in completeness, which is impossible as things are, I have to approach other faiths with humility--open about what I believe to be true, but also admitting that there is truth that I do not comprehend.
[box]
That God is the Christian God, not the Jewish, Islam, Baha'i, Mormonism, etc.
[/box]
I believe that there is one God, and I believe that God is best understood and revealed through Christianity. I even believe that God was made incarnate in Jesus Christ.
However, I can only apprehend God. God cannot be comprehended. So while I believe that I have an understanding of God, my understanding will never be near complete (not in this life, at least--but we haven't gotten to "eternity" stuff yet).
Therefore, I believe that I worship the same God as the other faiths. To say otherwise would be to contradict myself, because I believe that there is only one God.
Other faiths comprehend God differently. Or they misunderstand God. Or they make God out to be who they want God to be (which is bad, yes, but Christians make that mistake, too).
So I would say that I best understand God through Christianity, but I admit that my knowledge is incomplete. Other faiths have different, incomplete knowledge as well. I can learn from them, and yet still maintain that Christianity has the truest picture of God.
I do not present my faith as a complete system of total understanding--just the best one (as far as I can tell).
Unless I know in completeness, which is impossible as things are, I have to approach other faiths with humility--open about what I believe to be true, but also admitting that there is truth that I do not comprehend.
jon - 07/13/08 22:23
I for one appreciate your recent posts concerning your thoughts on Christianity. I'm purposely being silent on my own thoughts for the time being, but I do enjoy the varying opinions expressed so far.
As you mentioned, you haven't touched on eternity "yet". I would be interested to read about your thoughts concerning this. Also I'd like to hear exactly why you believe Jesus was God incarnate. You just briefly mentioned both, I guess I'm just curious about your thoughts on each.
Again, thanks for the thoughts on this topic and expressing yourself so openly here. =)
I for one appreciate your recent posts concerning your thoughts on Christianity. I'm purposely being silent on my own thoughts for the time being, but I do enjoy the varying opinions expressed so far.
As you mentioned, you haven't touched on eternity "yet". I would be interested to read about your thoughts concerning this. Also I'd like to hear exactly why you believe Jesus was God incarnate. You just briefly mentioned both, I guess I'm just curious about your thoughts on each.
Again, thanks for the thoughts on this topic and expressing yourself so openly here. =)
drew - 07/09/08 22:03
It's a valid point to bring up, especially considering the religiosity of the current president and his warrior ways.
As for violence being done more often in God's name--that is another hard one to prove. There are the easy examples: the crusades, Americans wiping out Natives, European wars, etc.)
But plenty of wars weren't about religion. And some of the most ruthless people (Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, to name three off of the top of my head) did not believe in any sort of God at all.
People are inclined to violence, whether they have faith or not. Good religion checks it, bad religion multiplies it.
It's a valid point to bring up, especially considering the religiosity of the current president and his warrior ways.
As for violence being done more often in God's name--that is another hard one to prove. There are the easy examples: the crusades, Americans wiping out Natives, European wars, etc.)
But plenty of wars weren't about religion. And some of the most ruthless people (Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot, to name three off of the top of my head) did not believe in any sort of God at all.
People are inclined to violence, whether they have faith or not. Good religion checks it, bad religion multiplies it.
ajay - 07/09/08 18:59
Just to be clear: I wasn't picking on Christianity with my comment. I would ask the same question of any religion.
It must be noted that throughout history, more violence has been conducted in "God"'s name than under any other cause (but if the mess in Iraq continues, I guess "Freedom" may supplant that...)
Just to be clear: I wasn't picking on Christianity with my comment. I would ask the same question of any religion.
It must be noted that throughout history, more violence has been conducted in "God"'s name than under any other cause (but if the mess in Iraq continues, I guess "Freedom" may supplant that...)
jason - 07/09/08 18:03
Applying natural logic and understanding to the supernatural only leads you to a dead end because to me at least many of these questions are unanswerable, especially with a lack of due diligence.
Killing in any circumstance is wrong, and I think Christians outside of the Dobsonite sects understand this concept. There is a lot of hypocrisy, no doubt, among these people. I see it all the time.
In my experience many TheoCons do find convenient excuses for supporting war and capital punishment. They certainly don't represent everyone, or even a majority, but they squawk louder than normal people. That's what people on the fringes do.
Nice to see you around, (e:Ajay).
Applying natural logic and understanding to the supernatural only leads you to a dead end because to me at least many of these questions are unanswerable, especially with a lack of due diligence.
Killing in any circumstance is wrong, and I think Christians outside of the Dobsonite sects understand this concept. There is a lot of hypocrisy, no doubt, among these people. I see it all the time.
In my experience many TheoCons do find convenient excuses for supporting war and capital punishment. They certainly don't represent everyone, or even a majority, but they squawk louder than normal people. That's what people on the fringes do.
Nice to see you around, (e:Ajay).
drew - 07/09/08 17:00
Oh. That's an easy question. Well, it seems easy. I have to presume to speak for God, which is always dangerous, but in this case it seems pretty clear that the answer is "no."
The answer is no, and its because they are not faithful and/or they have been misled and/or they are so afraid of Obama that they do what is not right.
I do not believe that God condones the killing of civilians (or soldiers) in a war of aggression. Frankly, it is hard to make the case, Biblically speaking, to take life in self-defense.
Christian faith calls you to die for your beliefs, not kill.
Oh. That's an easy question. Well, it seems easy. I have to presume to speak for God, which is always dangerous, but in this case it seems pretty clear that the answer is "no."
The answer is no, and its because they are not faithful and/or they have been misled and/or they are so afraid of Obama that they do what is not right.
I do not believe that God condones the killing of civilians (or soldiers) in a war of aggression. Frankly, it is hard to make the case, Biblically speaking, to take life in self-defense.
Christian faith calls you to die for your beliefs, not kill.
ajay - 07/09/08 16:55
So let me ask this question: how would this God of Christianity look upon Bush's actions in Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people and untold misery to millions? Does the God of Christianity condone this behavior?
If yes, then how do you reconcile this with the basic premise of a kind and benevolent God?
If no, then why does the Religious Right continue to support him and his surrogates (McCain)?
I guess I'm wondering what kind of a God condones the killing of civilians, even if they are "collateral damage" or whatever euphemism you can put on it?
I can understand a God supporting a defense of His followers who are under attack and about to be wiped out; but Iraq was as close to that as a mosquito is to wiping out a whale.
So let me ask this question: how would this God of Christianity look upon Bush's actions in Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people and untold misery to millions? Does the God of Christianity condone this behavior?
If yes, then how do you reconcile this with the basic premise of a kind and benevolent God?
If no, then why does the Religious Right continue to support him and his surrogates (McCain)?
I guess I'm wondering what kind of a God condones the killing of civilians, even if they are "collateral damage" or whatever euphemism you can put on it?
I can understand a God supporting a defense of His followers who are under attack and about to be wiped out; but Iraq was as close to that as a mosquito is to wiping out a whale.
drew - 07/09/08 15:56
You are right ajay.
I should have finished that sentence with "to me." or "for me."
The reason that I don't devote as much time to other faiths is not because of a necessary dislike of them--in fact, the more I understand of Judaism, the richer my understanding of Christianity becomes (which makes sense, Jesus being Jewish and all). Rather, it's because I have so much left to learn about my own faith.
Certainly a painter could become a more well rounded person by studying astronomy, but she loves painting, and finds her fulfillment in it. Furthermore, the more she paints, the more she realizes the ways she can grow as a painter. For this painter, it wasn't about finding the right profession, so that she can lord it over all of those who chose differently. Nor is it about choosing right and then being satisfied and resting that she is a painter and that is what she is supposed to be, its about following a passion that gives meaning to her life.
It's the same way for me and my faith. If other people find meaning and passion another way, I don't begrudge them. In fact, I want to hear about it and maybe even give it a try. But just like the painter goes deeper and deeper into her painting, so it is with me and my life following Jesus.
Does that mean that I forsake other ways? In many ways, yes--but it is not out of contempt, its just because for every one thing you say yes to, you necessarily say no to many more things.
You are right ajay.
I should have finished that sentence with "to me." or "for me."
The reason that I don't devote as much time to other faiths is not because of a necessary dislike of them--in fact, the more I understand of Judaism, the richer my understanding of Christianity becomes (which makes sense, Jesus being Jewish and all). Rather, it's because I have so much left to learn about my own faith.
Certainly a painter could become a more well rounded person by studying astronomy, but she loves painting, and finds her fulfillment in it. Furthermore, the more she paints, the more she realizes the ways she can grow as a painter. For this painter, it wasn't about finding the right profession, so that she can lord it over all of those who chose differently. Nor is it about choosing right and then being satisfied and resting that she is a painter and that is what she is supposed to be, its about following a passion that gives meaning to her life.
It's the same way for me and my faith. If other people find meaning and passion another way, I don't begrudge them. In fact, I want to hear about it and maybe even give it a try. But just like the painter goes deeper and deeper into her painting, so it is with me and my life following Jesus.
Does that mean that I forsake other ways? In many ways, yes--but it is not out of contempt, its just because for every one thing you say yes to, you necessarily say no to many more things.
ajay - 07/09/08 14:47
"I can learn from them, and yet still maintain that Christianity has the truest picture of God."
How can you make this claim without having studied (in similar detail as Christianity) what their picture of "God" is ?
This is like saying "my cooking is the best", without even having tasted anyone else's cooking.....
Me, I'm a "spiritual atheist".
I believe that God doesn't really exist; but if S/He did exist, it would be in the form of spirits: hefeweizen beer, moscato wine, a good margarita, etc.....
"I can learn from them, and yet still maintain that Christianity has the truest picture of God."
How can you make this claim without having studied (in similar detail as Christianity) what their picture of "God" is ?
This is like saying "my cooking is the best", without even having tasted anyone else's cooking.....
Me, I'm a "spiritual atheist".
I believe that God doesn't really exist; but if S/He did exist, it would be in the form of spirits: hefeweizen beer, moscato wine, a good margarita, etc.....
johnallen - 07/08/08 11:49
Faith, should be a personal matter, between you, and whatever you believe in. If you take the "word" as what it is,then you get it. When Jesus says,"I am the way the truth and the life, whoever believes in me has life.....That's all
He says. He doesn't say Only Roman Catholics, Only Billy Graham, etc.
For those of you who are interested with all of this the "god Squad"(Sundays in the Buffalo News)had a great article about this very issue about 2 weeks ago. It was awesome.
Any denomination that says my way or the highway is infact being counter intuitive.
I was once a member of the R.C. church the whole "my way" is why I left. I'm an Episcopalian. The Episcopal church doesn't get into all that stuff that has nothing to do with God. (sexuality, etc). It's all small detail stuff, nothing that has anything to do with faith at all, NOTHING
All I'm trying to say is - Faith, should be your special relationship you and your God (who ever or what ever he or she might be)Don't let any ideolgy get in the way of that.
Faith, should be a personal matter, between you, and whatever you believe in. If you take the "word" as what it is,then you get it. When Jesus says,"I am the way the truth and the life, whoever believes in me has life.....That's all
He says. He doesn't say Only Roman Catholics, Only Billy Graham, etc.
For those of you who are interested with all of this the "god Squad"(Sundays in the Buffalo News)had a great article about this very issue about 2 weeks ago. It was awesome.
Any denomination that says my way or the highway is infact being counter intuitive.
I was once a member of the R.C. church the whole "my way" is why I left. I'm an Episcopalian. The Episcopal church doesn't get into all that stuff that has nothing to do with God. (sexuality, etc). It's all small detail stuff, nothing that has anything to do with faith at all, NOTHING
All I'm trying to say is - Faith, should be your special relationship you and your God (who ever or what ever he or she might be)Don't let any ideolgy get in the way of that.
drew - 07/07/08 23:08
Oddly enough, I am not a Christian because I have studied it. I studied it, because I am a Christian. Although it happens, I don't think that most people that convert to Christianity do it because of study, but because of practice.
I don't think any amount of study could change my mind, but I think that if I could live as the practitioner of another faith, I would be more likely to give my allegiance to it.
And, while conscience prevents me from attempting some practices, I have grown in affection for some other faiths by incorporating their practices.
I don't think that I will ever convert to another religion, but I do try to listen at least as much as I share, and participate in conversation as openly as I possibly can.
Oddly enough, I am not a Christian because I have studied it. I studied it, because I am a Christian. Although it happens, I don't think that most people that convert to Christianity do it because of study, but because of practice.
I don't think any amount of study could change my mind, but I think that if I could live as the practitioner of another faith, I would be more likely to give my allegiance to it.
And, while conscience prevents me from attempting some practices, I have grown in affection for some other faiths by incorporating their practices.
I don't think that I will ever convert to another religion, but I do try to listen at least as much as I share, and participate in conversation as openly as I possibly can.
drew - 07/07/08 22:53
I'll agree with (e:jim) that co-equal, though appealing at first, is not too helpful.
Some ideas are just bad. Declaring equality of all gives bad ideas greater legitimacy. A "free market," though imperfect, and difficult to keep free, is the best way to sort out said ideas.
I'll agree with (e:jim) that co-equal, though appealing at first, is not too helpful.
Some ideas are just bad. Declaring equality of all gives bad ideas greater legitimacy. A "free market," though imperfect, and difficult to keep free, is the best way to sort out said ideas.
jim - 07/07/08 22:06
Tinypliny:
I would say that some religions are unequally bad. Scientology, Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, hard line Islam, etc, are all noxious. You can't admit them as a 'co-equal religion' when they are so anti-everything but themselves.
Tinypliny:
I would say that some religions are unequally bad. Scientology, Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, hard line Islam, etc, are all noxious. You can't admit them as a 'co-equal religion' when they are so anti-everything but themselves.
tinypliny - 07/07/08 21:54
Just as we take the existence of Gods/Goddesses on faith, why can't we take the equality of every religion on faith as well?
Just as we take the existence of Gods/Goddesses on faith, why can't we take the equality of every religion on faith as well?
tinypliny - 07/07/08 21:53
So would you say that, given a chance to study other religions as much in detail as you have studied Christianity, you might be open to accepting that the others could have the right understanding of the supreme being as well? That would require a lot of time and effort. So, in essence, if everyone in a given religion believed that their religion was perhaps the best understanding of the divine, then it might take generations for everyone to place every human being of every religion on a common footing.
So would you say that, given a chance to study other religions as much in detail as you have studied Christianity, you might be open to accepting that the others could have the right understanding of the supreme being as well? That would require a lot of time and effort. So, in essence, if everyone in a given religion believed that their religion was perhaps the best understanding of the divine, then it might take generations for everyone to place every human being of every religion on a common footing.
07/05/2008 17:06 #44871
Jim's listCategory: religion
My list, from Jim's list of things that must be taken on faith if one is to be a Christian.
In short, if that were what is necessary to be a Christian, I would not be one (I guess there are some people out there who believe that I am not).
Here's my code to what I think about the beliefs Jim outlines:
X = I do not believe this
+ = This belief really is central to the faith, as I see it. (maybe or maybe not necessary, depending on who you ask)
+ That God exists.
* That God is still involved in the universe he created.
+ That God cares about us.
X* That God cares what religion you are in.
X* That God is the Christian God, not the Jewish, Islam, Baha'i, Mormonism, etc.
X* That all other religions are in grave error. (despite those faiths having equally compelling claims and theology to lay claim to this honor)
X* That God interacted directly with humanity in the past, and chose the Jews as his people above all others.
- That God guided the oral history of the Jews.
-* That God wrote the Bible, indirectly.
-* That God edited the Bible into its present form, indirectly.
X That God prevents textual errors from being introduced during copying, indirectly.
XThat God would not allow the Bible to mislead us, but would allow other religious texts to mislead us.
X* That sins are against God, instead of against other humans.
X* That we have original sin that needs to be redeemed.
+* That Jesus rose from the dead.
X* That the story of Jesus was accurately told orally for a hundred years.
X That the hundreds of contradictory written fragments and letters from the time after that don't matter, because:
X The editing process to sort everything out was also guided by God, again, indirectly.
X That the Gospels were then transmitted down with no textual errors in copying or translation thereafter, thanks to God, indirectly.
X That the parts of the Bible and the Gospels that don't make sense don't contradict any of the above.
X That if you choose wrong, despite this inconsistent and inexplicable chain, you are damned to hell.
In short, if that were what is necessary to be a Christian, I would not be one (I guess there are some people out there who believe that I am not).
Here's my code to what I think about the beliefs Jim outlines:
X = I do not believe this
- = There is a nuance to this belief, so that depending on how it is defined/explained, I may have to change from X to no X or vice-versa. That is to say, that there is a little bit more nuance to the statement that needs to be explored.
+ = This belief really is central to the faith, as I see it. (maybe or maybe not necessary, depending on who you ask)
+ That God exists.
* That God is still involved in the universe he created.
+ That God cares about us.
X* That God cares what religion you are in.
X* That God is the Christian God, not the Jewish, Islam, Baha'i, Mormonism, etc.
X* That all other religions are in grave error. (despite those faiths having equally compelling claims and theology to lay claim to this honor)
X* That God interacted directly with humanity in the past, and chose the Jews as his people above all others.
- That God guided the oral history of the Jews.
-* That God wrote the Bible, indirectly.
-* That God edited the Bible into its present form, indirectly.
X That God prevents textual errors from being introduced during copying, indirectly.
XThat God would not allow the Bible to mislead us, but would allow other religious texts to mislead us.
X* That sins are against God, instead of against other humans.
X* That we have original sin that needs to be redeemed.
- That virgin births can occur.
- That Jesus was born to Mary as the Son of God.
- That Jesus could redeem sins through his death and resurrection.
+* That Jesus rose from the dead.
X* That the story of Jesus was accurately told orally for a hundred years.
X That the hundreds of contradictory written fragments and letters from the time after that don't matter, because:
X The editing process to sort everything out was also guided by God, again, indirectly.
X That the Gospels were then transmitted down with no textual errors in copying or translation thereafter, thanks to God, indirectly.
X That the parts of the Bible and the Gospels that don't make sense don't contradict any of the above.
X That if you choose wrong, despite this inconsistent and inexplicable chain, you are damned to hell.
metalpeter - 07/06/08 12:55
I will admit I have lots of questions on faith and not sure how much I truely believe. That being said a lot of the things you Xed I would have also. I in general terms think that Humans are flawed, I also think that some things in the Bible where put in there as a way to control people. But I also think that when a story is told it changes over time. So if a story is told for a couple or maybe 400 years then written down it couldn't be exactly the same, yes it could still have the same meaning but some stuff would have to change. How ever I also think some things that have been taught were done so to put down other faiths. The greeks where known to have gay or at least but sex or maybe both so then that is where you get the thing about a man shall not lay down with another man. Also the Greeks had Multiple gods so that leads to the thing about only one god and to put no god before this god, sorry I don't know the exact quote. But that being said one can still think that there is a god. I think it is good that you explained your views in a post in response to (e:jim).
I will admit I have lots of questions on faith and not sure how much I truely believe. That being said a lot of the things you Xed I would have also. I in general terms think that Humans are flawed, I also think that some things in the Bible where put in there as a way to control people. But I also think that when a story is told it changes over time. So if a story is told for a couple or maybe 400 years then written down it couldn't be exactly the same, yes it could still have the same meaning but some stuff would have to change. How ever I also think some things that have been taught were done so to put down other faiths. The greeks where known to have gay or at least but sex or maybe both so then that is where you get the thing about a man shall not lay down with another man. Also the Greeks had Multiple gods so that leads to the thing about only one god and to put no god before this god, sorry I don't know the exact quote. But that being said one can still think that there is a god. I think it is good that you explained your views in a post in response to (e:jim).
jim - 07/06/08 11:03
Thanks as always for taking the time and engaging with me over this stuff :)
It's helpful to hear other perspectives then the more hardcore proponents from my youth and family that are hanging out there in the back of my head coloring my views on this stuff.
Cheers,
Jim
Thanks as always for taking the time and engaging with me over this stuff :)
It's helpful to hear other perspectives then the more hardcore proponents from my youth and family that are hanging out there in the back of my head coloring my views on this stuff.
Cheers,
Jim
07/04/2008 09:59 #44855
My Hero: Roberto ClementeCategory: heroes
So, you can read his biography on wikipedia: (WIKIPEDIA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberto_Clemente), so I won't go into too many details about that.
Here's some of the ways that he has influenced me.
When I play, I tend to play all out.
I try to be as selfless and generous as he was.
I want to be personally involved in my efforts to make a difference in the world, as he was.
I want to break down barriers, the way that he did.Maybe I will write about Dietrich Bonhoeffer later.
Here's some of the ways that he has influenced me.
When I play, I tend to play all out.
I try to be as selfless and generous as he was.
I want to be personally involved in my efforts to make a difference in the world, as he was.
I want to break down barriers, the way that he did.Maybe I will write about Dietrich Bonhoeffer later.
museumchick - 07/04/08 11:20
That's awesome... I've always really admired Clemente. He sounded like an amazing man.
That's awesome... I've always really admired Clemente. He sounded like an amazing man.
07/03/2008 11:15 #44846
Blogging suggestion: heroesCategory: heroes
After talking with (e:Tinypliny) about Roberto Clemente, I got to thinking about heroes, and I thought it might be fun to share some of the people I look up to, as well as invite others to do the same.
I'll get the ball rolling with a post about Clemente (a little later--I should be writing a sermon right now), but I am putting out the invitation:
Who is a hero of yours? Why? What do you wish to emulate about them? How has their life affected yours?
I categorized this post "heroes." It would be nice if every participant did the same.
drew - 07/03/08 14:42
I never said that they had to be celebrities.
I never said that they had to be celebrities.
tinypliny - 07/03/08 13:53
Nice idea! :) I don't have any celebrity heroes, however. :/
Maybe I could just post about everyday heroes. :)
Nice idea! :) I don't have any celebrity heroes, however. :/
Maybe I could just post about everyday heroes. :)
mrmike - 07/03/08 11:28
That's interesting. I appreciate your sense of history. I remember the shock when he died here, being all of 8 or 9 at the time. I can only imagine what Pittsburgh folks must have been feeling, especially considering the mission he was on when he passed.
That's interesting. I appreciate your sense of history. I remember the shock when he died here, being all of 8 or 9 at the time. I can only imagine what Pittsburgh folks must have been feeling, especially considering the mission he was on when he passed.
I think that you've given a pretty good representation.
A parent has to discipline their children and keep them in line, while at the same time sitting back and letting them make their own mistakes (as painful as it is to watch) because only through those mistakes they can learn and grow as human beings. I think it's the same thing with G-d.
Given the null hypothesis that God is in the business of caring, if what you believe affects your situation directly, then it would seem that God would care about what you do and through that, care for you.