Ok, been wrestling with finding the time to start this and the wording to get it straight.  I'll take some small steps.

Here is something that makes me very uncomfortable in my faith.  Quite frequently it seems lately that I have heard something along the lines of "without the Resurrection there is no Christianity".  That to me is disturbing, because it seems to imply that what Jesus had to say wasn't very important, it was the miracle of the Resurrection that is the point.

In the Old Testament there are plenty of prophets who are the voice of God, teaching and leading the faith.  None of them were required to have been killed and raised in order to give validity to the faith of Judaism.  The Word of God was the point.  Miracles occurred to make a point in support of the faith, not to be the reason for the faith.

I believe the point is what Jesus had to say, what he taught.  I feel we should be focused on his life, on his teaching.  When it comes down to it, I think that the reason for the resurrection was not because Jesus was sacrificed for our sins, but to ensure that his message spread beyond the Jews and across the world.

More on this topic to come...

Picking back up...

Ok, well, I started off pretty strong on this project. Looking back over my posts, I find I am actually still pretty happy with what I have written. The past couple years have brought a lot of change to my life, and so my writing has fallen off. As things settle down I hope to pick it up again.

And to start, I think I am going to delve into one of the other main problems I have with church doctrine, the idea of sin and the purpose of Jesus being to forgive sin. I hinted at some of my thoughts on this in the past posts, but didn't want to get distracted from those topics. Now may be the time to pick it up.

A New Church

My family and I have been attending an Episcopal church near our home for a few months. Very nice group, it seems, and no one gives us a hassle about not singing. The pastor is a very nice, interesting gentleman from Germany, and I look forward to getting his point of view on things. Best of all, they have Sunday school, which is good for the kids, so they can get a good basis of Christianity, before they have to deal with my issues of canon...

You know, I don't remember the last time I heard a sermon on the Ten Commandments. That is one of the things that bugs me about church services, is that they don't seem to talk about basic right and wrong anymore. Can't risk offending people by being judgmental, I guess...

But they are starting a discussion group outside of church services about facing current issues as a Christian, so I am looking forward to participating. Should be interesting...

Easing back into it...

Amazing how fast time goes... We have finally gotten back into attending church. The driving force is that Kacie wants the kids to be baptized, and I agree, but at their age, I want them to understand what it is about. Coming from her Catholic background, it seems more urgent for her, so I explained that in a lot of Protestant denominations, baptism is not done with children, but as adults.

Regardless, we are attending a nearby church, St. Nicholas' Episcopal church. It's a small church and the reason that we are attending it now is because it actually offers Sunday school for the kids, which they enjoy and will learn more from than attending the adult service.

Wow, been too long!

I've been away from this project way too long. Will have to get back into it. I've been reading C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" lately and it has some very interesting points. Definitely my favorite Christian writer. "The Great Divorce" really was an eye opener.

The Trinity or One God? (part 14 thru 22, Conclusion)

Well, I became distracted by other things for a while, and have been putting off finishing this, so this is the time to wrap it up by analyzing parts 14 through 22 (Conclusion).

* * * * * * * * *

Part 14 refers to Jesus as the “Son of God”, but Rev. Roberts is careful to state that at that time, it was not a claim to divinity, but rather it was used to refer to a righteous person. More specifically, this title would have been understood as a (entirely mortal) Messiah whom, most Jewish people believed, would have the God-given mission of throwing off the Roman oppressors. As this was not the mission God gave to Jesus, he did not claim that title in that sense.

Parts 15 through 17 discuss the “Son of Man” reference, but Mark points out that this meant “human being”, and was the title that Jesus himself used more than any other. This seems to imply that Jesus’ own view was that he was not God in the flesh, if the thought would have even occurred to him. Rev. Roberts expands on the “Son of Man” title, but the references seem to speak more about the role of the Son of Man as a ruler appointed by God, than as God himself. The passage, below, refers to a “Son of Man” coming to an Ancient One, who I am pretty sure refers to God.

As I watched in the night visions, I saw one like a human being coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came to the Ancient One and was presented before him. To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed (Dan 7:13-14, emphasis added).

Mark writes this:

“The opponents of Jesus saw his use of “my Father” as scandalous, if not blasphemous. But his followers saw something very different. For them, the unparalleled intimacy between Jesus and his Father, combined with his self-reference as “the Son,” suggested that Jesus was the Son of God in a unique way.”

Ok, that is all reasonable. But then Mark continues with this:

“He wasn’t just God’s favored king, or a righteous man, but a human being who was also God in the flesh.”

I find that to be a huge leap to a desired conclusion. It is reasonable to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and just as reasonable to believe that Jesus, whether Divine or mortal, had a special relationship with God. I just can’t see where this leads to Jesus being God in the flesh. It’s interesting that, as Mark points out, the Gnostics were strongly of the opinion that Jesus was more divine than human, and yet they were eventually labeled as heretics.

In reference to the forgiveness of sin, the idea that Jesus forgave sins doesn’t necessarily mean he is God; he could have been speaking in God’s name, sort of a delegation with all the authority of God granted to him. Or perhaps it was a way to indicate that God knows our human weakness, and is saying that you don’t have to worry about every little sin you committed in your life, as long as you are honestly trying to come to God. Basically, your sins are forgiven before you ask.

I do believe in the Resurrection, though I also don’t believe that means Jesus is God. God is very capable of bringing someone back to life. Additionally, I completely disagree with Mark’s statement, “Take the resurrection away from early Christianity and all you’ve got left is vanity.”

Besides the fact that Paul may have been simply saying that a religion founded on a lie is worthless, a statement like Mark’s implies that the Resurrection was the only meaning in the life and ministry of Jesus. I tend to believe the ministry of Jesus was the focus, and that the Resurrection was a tool for that, but that is a topic for another discussion.

“God the only Son” (John 1:18), is the only Biblical quote I have seen that hints at Jesus being God, but it is a very shaky hint at best. There are far more quotes that suggest against this. It is entirely possible that John’s personal interpretations or goals, or a translation problem influenced that saying.

I had not expected Reverend Robert’s essay to prove that Jesus is God, but I hoped to see a reasonable argument for this. Unfortunately, it seems that the argument boils down to, “Because the early Christians thought so”, and I can’t say that I find that to be a reasonable argument. As much as the people of the early Church may have believed that Jesus was God, it does not make them correct, any more than the Jews who thought that the role of the Messiah was earthly liberation rather than spiritual.

In fact, in Part 18, Mark quotes Matthew 24:36: “But about that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”.

This, to me, is the soundest evidence against the concept of Jesus as God. I recall a quote that says that the only thing impossible for God is for him to not be God, so for Matthew’s passage to be true, and for the idea that Jesus is God, Himself, to be true, it would require God to hide knowledge from himself; but he is omniscient, so this is impossible.

I have heard people, confronted with religious conundrums such as this, simply throw their hands up and say, “It is just part of the mystery that is God”, but I believe this is actually more about the mystery that is man. I don’t believe that faith has to be separate from logic, I fully believe in original sin and I don’t believe anything written by the hand of man is infallible. I may very well be wrong. As Rev. Roberts says, this may be a job for the Holy Spirit, and I pray that God guides me to the right answer.

The Trinity or One God? (part 12 and 13)

(Continuing my review of the essay by Mark D. Roberts)
Rev. Roberts sent me this email in reference to my last posting:

I appreciate the effort you're making. It's a good one. Yet for me to
comment adequately would take more time than I really have. For
example, your ideas about Wisdom deserve a careful reply. There are
many reasons why it's not right to think of Wisdom as an angel. My
advice is that you keep on working on these things, but especially that
you get some good input from folks whose learning is larger than my
own. Is there a seminary near where you live where you could take some
classes?

Honestly, I'm not even dealing with the issue of the Trinity, though
that seems to be important to you. I'm only trying to assess what the
early Christians thought about Jesus and whether he was in some sense
God. I think the answer is clearly "yes." The doctrine of the Trinity
was a later attempt to make theological sense of this.

I appreciate his input and understand that he doesn’t really have the time to spend on my behalf. I will continue approaching this exercise considering what he has said.

First, he says that it isn’t correct to think of Wisdom as an Angel. I’ll have to find some more information on these concepts, but that will take time, and have to be a new topic which may invalidate my entire thought process on this. I imagine that is true in the sense of the idea of wisdom as a concept, instead of just a descriptive name. I wonder if the Jewish word for “wisdom” has been used as a common name? As for the issue of the Trinity, he is right that this concept is important to me, because of the reasons I stated in the beginning. He may not be directly dealing with that issue in this essay, but before the details of the Trinity as a later doctrine can be considered, this concept that Jesus and God are one and the same must be addressed.

* * * * * * * * *

Part 12

It one sense, it appears that Jesus is being linked directly to Wisdom. This may have been due to Jesus being the incarnation of one of God’s heavenly host, or of God, Himself, or it may have been an attempt by John to link Jesus to earlier Biblical writings (very likely), or a combination of these ideas. The section then begins to meld Wisdom with The Word, and then both with Jesus, but at this point there isn’t anything to really suggest Jesus as God. I expect that this eventually leads to “Jesus is the Word” and “The Word is God”, thus, “Jesus is God”.


Part 13

Obviously, monotheistic Jews would not have looked at Wisdom as having been a “goddess” alongside God. But their writings suggest an entity created by God, and I imagine can suggest an angel who is close to God, is divine and yet not God. Perhaps the writers did not use as much poetic license as some might think.

I can see where he is going with the idea that Wisdom pitched her tent in Jacob. But he says that pitching the tent was physically the Tabernacle, or Temple, “in which God was present on earth”. I think this is once again putting human limitations and expectations on God. I thought, though I will have to look into this more, that Jews did not believe God lived in the Temple in the way that, for instance, the Greeks believed their gods did. Or, at least, the tradition did not start that way. In any event, I thought Jesus brought us the word that the Temple was in each of us, that the building itself wasn’t really important? I don’t think that God had changed the rules when Jesus came.

John makes a very poignant remark with “It is God the only Son,” that does strongly imply that Jesus and God are one and the same, but I don’t find this convincing by itself. For one, I wonder if there are any issues with translation here. Also, in the passages he posted (John 1:1, 3-4, 10-12, 14, 17), it is another appeal to gentiles, telling them that acceptance of Jesus allows them to come to God, rather than God being simply for the Jews. So this makes me wonder about his motivations for linking Jesus as God.

The Trinity or One God? (part 8 thru 11)

Continuing my review of the essay by Mark D. Roberts.
(Click on the title, above, to link to the essay.)

* * * * * * * * *

Part 8

Pro. 8:29-30 seems to be centering on something here that is glossed over. Wisdom speaks as if a servant of God. The Old Testament indicates that angels served God before creation, so it is reasonable to consider that Wisdom may be one of God’s chief angels. Is it possible that God sent the angel, Wisdom, to earth as Jesus, to fulfill his purpose? The title of the piece asks if Jesus is Divine, but the real question is whether the Trinity is an accurate doctrine. My main problem with the idea of the Trinity is that, as he acknowledges, the Trinity was something that developed over several centuries. If it was the case from the beginning, why didn’t the Old Testament mention it? Perhaps because it didn’t apply at the time. But then why doesn’t Jesus teach of it? Why did Jesus refer to God as his father, and when God spoke to Jesus, or about Jesus, it was as if a separate entity? Why does it take four centuries of evolving thought to come to the conclusion that God and Jesus are one? That makes it more likely that the Trinity is a human construct and not a Heavenly one. And this brings it back to the real problem. When I go to Church, there seems to be an almost complete focus on the worship of Jesus, rather than God.


Part 9

This section again equates the Old Testament with the New, saying that what was said in the time of the old must also apply at the time of the new. This is a weak argument (especially if there were no Trinity in the Old Testament), as God could certainly make changes as desired, and these passages may refer generally or specifically to the circumstances at that time. More specifically, the passages from Luke and Philippians state that Jesus is “a” savior, not “the” savior specified in the Old Testament passages referring to God. In John, why does it not say, “The Father came to us as Savior of the world”? It clearly indicates a separation of identities. If God sent Jesus to bring the world closer to Him, there is no reason not to consider him either “a” or “the” Savior. In other words, God giving Jesus the mission of savior would make Jesus “the” Savior as much as if God came to earth Himself.

Part 10

The logical path of God is Salvation, Salvation through Jesus, Jesus is God, suffers from an issue of interpretation. In the same way that a road is the only way to a destination, and yet is not the destination, Jesus may be the path to salvation, without actually being the one to grant salvation. References to Isaiah 7:14 are also shaky, because Isaiah seems to be talking about contemporary issues, namely, convincing Ahaz to trust in God in dealing with the Syria-Israel threat, and the birth of Hezekiah.

.http://www.hope.edu.academic/religion/bandstra/rtot/ch10/ch10_1b.htm.

“If Jesus were to save us, they argued, then he had to be fully human. Only in this way could he bear the penalty for human sin.”

Ok, that is reasonable.

“Yet if he were merely human, then he wouldn’t be able to break the power of sin. So he must also be fully God.”

This is not a good argument. First, what determines, other than human interpretation, that Jesus must be able to break the power of sin? If Jesus were “only human”, would God’s hands be tied in deciding how sin was to be dealt with? If God simply wanted to forgive sins, why did he need Jesus to be sacrificed? Ok, we are drifting into a subject for another day… Still, it seems that God is being forced to follow rules of human design.


Part 11

This section delves more into the idea of Wisdom as an entity and gets closer to what I mentioned in section 8, though it doesn’t really make specific point yet. He describes the Wisdom tradition as just a poetic description of an aspect of God, but I wonder how he determines which writings are poetic license and which are literal fact. I’ll have to look into the concept of angels and guardian angels and such. I guess the idea of an angel being a teacher to humans isn’t exactly kosher, though. I wonder if this idea causes problems for monotheism? I imagine it’s possible that God could have a member of his heavenly host be a teacher to mankind. The idea that Jesus identifies himself more with Wisdom than with God, Himself gives my idea a bit more weight, unless there is a good argument against this concept.

The Trinity or One God? (part 4 thru 7)

Continuing my review of the essay by Mark D. Roberts.
(Click on the title, above, to link to the essay.)

* * * * * * * * *

Part 4

This section describes how Greco-Roman culture may have influenced Christianity as it spread. This is, as he mentions, an argument with merit, but he doesn’t refute it at this point. It is worth noting that all cultures (is it reasonable to say that religion is not part of culture?) have been influenced by the cultures they come in contact with. To say that Christianity has always been immune from this requires one of the following:

1. Christian beliefs were well established from the moment Christ established the Church. In other words, there would have been an instructor’s manual, well defined and in place, i.e. the Bible (leaving aside any arguments about contradictions in the Bible).

However, the earliest writings date from at least 20 years after the death of Jesus, most were not written until more than a century after his death, and we know that the Bible did not take shape as it now is until the Council of Nicea in 325 AD.

2. The writers of the Bible were guided by the hand of God, and the resulting texts that became the Bible were perfected.

This idea is more plausible than the first, however, if this were the case, why would the various texts be written separately and sometimes in contradiction with each other?

Also, why would there have been so much trouble and discussion about what was true canon that led to a Council of Nicea to establish the Bible in 325? Does this mean that the other Gospels that were not included were all patently false? To believe that the bishops did not err in these decisions, it would require one to believe that God set aside the idea of free will long enough to guide the council to choose (by vote, even), specifically the correct texts from among those that had been circulating for three centuries. If God did specifically guide these bishops to establish what the true doctrine should be, then this raises difficult questions for Protestants…


Part 5

“the earliest Christians didn’t consider Jesus to be divine, but only an inspired man. These first Christians were, after all, monotheistic Jews who didn’t go around divinizing people.”

The phrase, “but only an inspired man”, minimizes the value of Jesus if not divine (more specifically, God in the flesh). It suggests an all or nothing attitude. I think it’s very possible that Jesus was sent by God, not just chosen by God, and that there are other things that set Jesus apart from the “inspired” men and prophets of the Old Testament.

I think it is reasonable to look at Paul’s letters as a good example of early Christian belief, but I don’t know if I am comfortable with giving Paul divine infallibility. I guess this rests on whether one believes the Bible is completely and litterally accurate, without any issues of human error, bias or misconception, or other issues of translation or culture, but that is another discussion.


Part 6

It is a somewhat plausible argument, but it seems to be given more credence out of desire for it to be true. Most notable, the possibility that “marana tha” means “Our Lord is coming”, which makes more grammatical sense than “Our Lord, come”. In this case, that would change the saying from a prayer to an affirmation. Also, I think it is a stretch to say that this phrase is very important because Paul taught it in the original language.

Part 7

Phil 2:5-11 seems to indicate that Jesus is not merely a man, and this may have something to do with “Wisdom”. It does not, however, state that Jesus and God are one and the same. Additionally, Isaiah 42:5-8 and 21-23, seems to be more related to God speaking against idols. As he points out, Philippians certainly seems to be intended to tie Isaiah to Jesus. He states that there is “no evidence” that Paul was influenced by Greco-Roman tradition; however, he certainly was aware of these traditions. Considering how Paul was converted, and the fact that he was not one of the original apostles, it is reasonable to consider that he may have had a different view of Jesus than the other apostles. In fact, I’ll have to check on this, but I seem to recall that there was a rather bitter disagreement between Paul and James, the brother of Jesus, one of the original apostles and the head of the Church in Jerusalem. Additionally, considering the nature of Paul’s mission, which was to bring Christianity to the pagans, I think it is not unreasonable to consider that he may have had practical reasons to promote a concept of Jesus and God as one.

The Trinity or One God (part 1 thru 3)

Ok, lets jump right into one of the big problems I have with church doctrine, namely that of The Trinity. While it may not be scientifically provable that God exists, I do believe logic and God can co-exist, and there are some serious logical issues with The Trinity concept. My main issue is that I believe there is one God. The idea that God has three aspects, namely, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, is certainly possible. My problem has come from my experiences in Church, in which it seems worship of Jesus has eclipsed worship of God.

So I began to wonder about this concept of The Trinity, and where it came from. I could recall no instance of it being mentioned in the Bible, and I never heard of Jesus calling himself God. Moreover, I remember Jesus praying to God, asking for strength, not taking counsel with himself. And when Jesus was baptized by John, God spoke from Heaven, saying this was His Son, in whom He was well pleased. It seems like a bit of split-personality, pardon the expression, if Jesus were God Himself.

I believe in Jesus, and the fact that he lived, performed miracles, died and was raised. These things would not be changed by whether Jesus was God or the Son of God. When I ask myself why it matters if I have an answer to this question, it is because it troubles me that a true understanding of God and Jesus may be blurred by human issues and misconceptions.

So, last year I heard a radio program on which the Rev. Mark D. Roberts was a guest, and he offered some interesting perspectives, so I emailed him about this question. He emailed a link to his website (click on the post title, above), which addressed this. I read it then and have reread it now, and I’m finally starting to write my thoughts on the article.

His essay is broken up into 22 parts, so I will work my way through the posts in sections. I hope he will be interested in responding (and have the time to do so). As always, I am not saying he is wrong, I ‘m challenging the ideas, looking for the response that I can’t reasonably challenge.

See www.markdroberts.com for more!


* * * * * * * * *

Part 1

“But if Christians claim that Jesus was not merely a human prophet, but somehow also the one true God in the flesh, then this sets Christianity apart from other religions”

Not so. Gods have come to flesh in other religions as well.

“The question of why the earliest Christians believed Jesus to be divine is important, not only as a matter of historical interest, but also because the divinity of Jesus is often rejected today on the grounds that it was not an essential part of earliest Christian faith but a latter addition. Because it came later, many have argued, it can be safely jettisoned, and we can all get back to the most authentic and politically-correct version of Christianity, in which Jesus is an inspired man, but only a man.”

If something comes to the belief system later, it is a valid argument to say it may not be accurate, because human vagaries are more likely to make changes as time goes on. I also do not think it is reasonable to say that Jesus is no more than an inspired man, but only a man. It may well be that Jesus was much more than an inspired man, but still not God in the flesh.


Part 2

This section, though it is designed to refute an example of why early Christians may have thought Jesus was divine, is a very good example against the belief in general. Namely, that Jesus was never claimed to have been God, and that references to him are more similar to those of royalty and Divine favor (the Divine Annointing) that applied to other people in the Bible.


Part 3

“The earliest Christians confessed that “God raised” him from the dead (Acts 2:24; Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14), but they did not say that Jesus raised himself, thereby showing himself to be God.”

This is a very strong argument against Jesus as God.

“Jesus could have been the Messiah/Son of God, and he could even have been raised by God on the third day after his crucifixion, without being divine. These things surely point in the direction of Jesus’s specialness, but more is required to get to his divinity.”

Yup.

“In fact, there really wouldn’t have been any early followers of Jesus after his crucifixion, were it not for his resurrection.”

Very important to why Jesus had to sacrifice himself, but something for another discussion.

First things, first...

I guess the best place to start is with some fundamentals. Today's post is about the "Meaning of Life", but it also touch’s on the idea of the existence of God. Below is en edited version of a paper I wrote for my college “Intro to Philosophy” course. Please feel free to comment!

* * * * * * * * *

I have asked myself what meaning, if any, life has. If philosophy is a study of fundamentals, then this question may be ultimately fundamental, as questions of theology, morals, ethics and other beliefs may rely on the answer.

Before I ask what the meaning of life is, I must ask if there even is a meaning to life; a yes or no question. I believe this can only be answered on the basis of whether humans are simply and only biological life forms, or whether there is such a thing as a human soul.

If the answer were that we are simply biological creatures, the evolutionary product of nothing more than the fortuitous joining of the correct combinations of certain molecules, then I would have to say that there is no meaning to life. We simply exist for existence’s sake. There is no guiding purpose other than base needs: self-preservation and reproduction. There is no higher basis for ethics or morality, law or selflessness, and the question of the meaning of life ends here, as do any questions of philosophy that attempt to delve deeper than basic natural instincts.

I do not believe humanity would have advanced to it’s present stage had this been the case, as there would have been no check on the savagery and selfishness that humans, as any animal, are capable of. Some might say that civilization advances because it addresses a natural instinct for self-preservation that recognizes the need for cooperation among people.

However, civilization is not required for survival. In fact, civilization over-rides some of nature’s rules of survival that are observed by the rest of the animal kingdom, such as over-population and the sharing of resources in ways that do not benefit the owner of the resources. In fact, I believe that, while certain societies today show the base and animal nature of humanity, other societies, like that of the United States, are the result of a growing evolution of humanity that transcends basic biological necessity.

Therefore, I will approach this question from the standpoint that we are not simply biological creatures, but that we do have a soul. Now the question of whether there is a meaning to life may be asked. If human beings do have an existence beyond the biological, namely a soul, why would there be a need for an earthly existence?

Certainly, as we imagine the nature of the soul to be, there is nothing that a free soul would lack. There is no pain, so sorrow, no questions, no loss, no hunger, no weakness, no failure, no death. Why come to an earthly existence and experience all of these negative, uncomfortable things?

Perhaps there is something missing! If you never experience sorrow, how can you know happiness? Considering there is nothing to bring sorrow, the opposite, happiness, must be the natural state. Yet it could at best be felt as contentment. No lows, no highs. If there are no questions, where is the wonder of discovery? If there is nothing to bring failure, where is the sense of accomplishment? If an earthly existence brings lows to an even existence, it also brings highs.

What could the ultimate result of these experiences be? If we do have a spiritual existence, there is no reason to believe that God does not exist, though in some form as difficult to comprehend as the concept of infinity.

I have come to believe that we are given life, and all the sorrows that come with it, as a gift. An omniscient God already has a full understanding of everything. Yet, if we are “His” creations, our souls cannot possibly have the level of understanding that He has. I draw a parallel between this and the relationship of parents and their children.

Parents love their children, and want the best for them. They usually also come to realize that they must allow their children to fall and get back up on their own in order to grow and develop. Additionally, a parent cannot have the same relationship with their young child that they have with a peer. Yet as the child develops and grows into an adult, the gap in maturity, wisdom and understanding narrows between the parent and child, allowing them to develop a closer relationship. I have come to notice this with my own parents and my own children.

I believe God wants a relationship with His children in the same way, and gives us the gift of life in the hope that we will grow and develop and come closer to being able to have an adult relationship with Him. People who witness or experience a tragedy have asked, “If a loving God exists, how could He let (or cause) this to happen?” Having witnessed a large number of tragedies as a police officer, I have come to notice that, for instance, the death of a loved one has far more impact on the survivors. The troubles are over for the one (or three thousand) who have died. It is now up to the survivors to adapt, overcome and go on. Tragedies can even be a catalyst for an even greater good. World War II, for example; and perhaps even September 11^th.

I have come to see every setback, failure and sorrow as a learning experience and opportunity to overcome and become greater, and to come closer to God. For me, this philosophy has resulted in a greater peace in life, and a greater ability to calmly and effectively deal with all of life’s “setbacks”.

Welcome to My Arena!

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt
"Citizenship in a Republic," Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910

* * * * * * * * *

Welcome to my blog! While I may drift to other subjects from time to time, the reason I started this is to organize and explore my Faith in God. I welcome and encourage comments and dissent, as long as it is respectful and reasoned. My arguments with myself and anyone who posts to my blog are not confrontational, they are my way of challenging myself. I am looking for someone to convince me that I am wrong!

I pray that God will guide me in this journey, and I thank anyone who gives me something worth considering.