Jabber, it's really hard to watch the people we love suffer without questioning why, perhaps moreso when those people have strong faith and a history of solid relationship with God. The only thing that makes any sense at all to me is that there is more to the picture than what little of it we are able to see - and there is more to the ripple effect of our actions, journeys and even our deaths than what we are likely to experience in our lifetime. We are pieces of a Master Plan that looks far beyond this moment in time to a greater good and a greater glory somewhere farther down the road, perhaps farther than we ourselves will be able to travel.

I think of Terry Fox. He's a beloved Canadian hero who started running across Canada - on one leg and a prosthesis, because he had lost one leg to cancer - to raise funds for cancer research. He had to quit half-way across because his cancer, which had been in remission, recurred, and soon after, he died. At first, everyone thought that his dream would die with him. But now, 28 years later, his legacy lives on through yearly "marathons of hope" that go on across the world - to date, more than $400 million has been raised worldwide for cancer research in Terry's name. Who could have predicted that one man's death would have such an amazing, world-changing ripple effect. In effect, his death was what allowed this particular miracle to come alive - and it's still alive, long after everyone asked why God had taken this wonderfully, gifted compassionate man at such a young age. Now the "why" is much clearer.

Hi again, MA, I'm not even sure I know what I meant. My comment was in response to something Eagle had said. I'm thinking now of the biography that was written about Mother Theresa. In the biography there is a statement of faith. Even with Mother Theresa, her faith wandered. I don't think of myself as fickle. But definitly ambivalent. Eagle, your description of how you use words was so good I wrote it down. PL

Eagle,
I agree with you! I'm sure our experiences R a tiny segment of The Master's overall plan. We should live by faith and not our own understanding. God knows everything; humans know a fraction, in comparison. I must crank up my faith 2 a higher level and think positive rather than negative. It's so hard 2 C good, while watching a loved 1 suffer.
My only hope is that GOD answers my prayers, not only 4 my friend, but 4 everybody here as well!

We need to always remember that God answers all our prayers....however, they're not always the answers we had hoped for. The important thing to remember is that He knows best and to trust in that. This is where deep faith comes in!

Princess Lenora, ambivalence could well be a frustrating reality for anyone who has faith and deep compassion...for Mother Theresa, it must have been so difficult to see such suffering and not question God about the 'why' of it. Or the 'why' of unanswered prayers. The 'why' of beautiful innocent children being thrown away like trash. IMO, the deeper your faith/belief in God, the more impossible it becomes to witness that day in and day out without questioning God's apparent silence and inactivity.

The closest I've ever come to finding any remotely palatable answer was in Betty J. Eadie's book, "Embraced by the Light". http://embracedbythelight.com/index.htm It changed my life, and continues to be my best way through my own tangle of why's.

Very wise counsel, Eagle. I stepped into my former self (pastor's wife and teacher) when I made the above statement. While true and biblical, it was rather black and white. In no way would I mean that we never or should never ask "why" of God. We do. We're human and can't have the mind of God ourselves. We do question the seemingly unanswered prayers or what we perceive as God's silence to us. The silence is deafening and at times we feel abandoned. It's excrutiating in those times.

Her books helped me, too, EH... mostly in the area of why we are on earth in earthly form, in whatever capacity. I think I came away from her writings accepting we are here to learn lessons*. If the common idea of similar authors, that we choose how we come to earth to learn necessary lessons, is correct, we need not be concerned by social, economical, familial, and so on, situations we witness on earth. If the idea is correct, each capacity we live in is chosen by us. That does not mean we ignore, because lessons to be learned and practiced include God's three fundamentals: hope, faith, love (charity) - hearts would be saddened.

*Other authors examine and endorse this possibility (probability, for some), going as far as supporting the idea of reincarnation. One book I read, not too long ago, claimed reincarnation was an acceptable belief before the Council got busy defining a uniform doctrine. It gave the reason that, if the body of Christendom were given license to believe in reincarnation, they'd be less likely to conform immediately to the newly defined and prescribed doctrine, because they'd have more time (lives) to accept the new statements of beliefs as defined by the Council. That's why the Council edited out reincarnation. (I'd love to hear what Lola has to say on this.)

I need to ask a question - something similar to the importance of our thoughts, but drilling down to the words (in and of thoughts). If you were to say, read or hear this about someone(s), what would you be thinking - negative, positive, or cautiously neutral:

Look at (insert individual/pair/group), so unique - but, we are proud of (him/her/them), aren't we?

If you would, before answering, think of it from a negative perspective, a positive perspective, and a cautious one, each, applying a pointed subjectivity (kind of making it personal), then answer. And, if you would, please explain how you came to your answer.
Thanks!!!

Anytime the word BUT is used, it makes me wonder. It's much better to use the word AND.

The word BUT makes me think it's not a compliment. Is that what you're looking for?

I tried substituting my kid's names and with each one, the BUT got in the way of it being an all out compliment.

Gims, the Nicene Councils and the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople never discussed reincarnation. Where it was mentioned in the latter, it was only raised in so far as to condemn it. 'Where the notion of reincarnation proposes that death does not bring finality but endless opportunities for souls to live over and over again, the Christian belief is that one's body is as unique to its own spirit.' The destiny is resurrection not reincarnation as held by the Profession of Faith (Nicene Creed). For Christendom to believe in the latter, one must find some biblical evidence to support it and contrary to Heb. 9:27 "it is appointed that men die once, and after this comes judgment"

As such, our Catechism is as follows:-

1013 Death is the end of man's earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the Divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When "the single course of our earthly life" is completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives: "It is appointed for men to die once."

Quote:

---

...claimed reincarnation was an acceptable belief before the Council got busy defining a uniform doctrine.

---

By Christians? Did the book cite an authority on this basis? Did it offer any discourse on Easter?