and, let me just once again, that I state my frustration and dismay.

As I think it is very well done on so many counts, and is very moving. I just struggle with the theology that seems to underwrite it,

Here's the beautiful thing that is going on here (and always goes on):

to see it as aboot you possibly misinterpreting implies that there is some objective meaning in Peter Short's piece, and that things like theology exist in some sense independently of you...where what is really going on is that your interpretation IS THE "TRUTH".  When you read his words, you create their meaning by comparing your recognition of those words to your life experiences, what you have learned, you being sensitive to certain language, having a sense of history of some writers, your sense of corporate politics, etc etc.

That is a fun way for me to look at it, everything that we have written here.  We are creating truth when we read Peter Short's piece.

We can talk with Peter Short aboot what he 'meant'*, but STILL, what we believe in this case is still our TRUTH.  It will still be a guess and a bet on our part.  There is never a point at which I can stop thinking and go 'This is what Peter Short MEANT", some mythical place that doesn't involve me at all.  At all :3

Good show :3

* and by waiting before writing aboot Peter Short's piece, for Peter Short to confirm what he meant, what we are really doing is trying to circumvent a social game and part of how we are wired; we tend to believe what we perceive before we start questioning it and we tend to believe whatever the second person says aboot something...

 well, and actually, it doesn't matter what is meant unless you plan to rewrite it or have hte opportunity of dialoguing with the writer.

 If I just share it, then it seems that a set population is going to interpret in a way that will cause discomfort or angst regarding the theology...a theology which I do not agree with....

sigh....at least here we can talk about it.  

i just wish i was the only one that interpreted it this way....or that there was another easy interpretation that i could be shown.

Hi guys and gals!

I'm reading along with interest. Since we are all awe struck at the calmness and civility of the Japanese people I'm interested in their spiritual  beliefs which I've been researching.

Quote:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/14/how-japans-religions-confront-tragedy/

 Well, the one thing that I am sure of, is God wasn't here discussing this theology.

so, off i go, trying to  focus on the positive, and will sit on the prayer thread for a bit.

Inanna,

Aboot what you say here - I was struggling to say the same thing. 

It's why, if the writer concerned isn't here to clarify, the reality is all we're possibly doing is pushing our own barrows.

One is free to do that - but it's fair to be aware of it.

That's all I'm saying.........

unsafe

I understand your belief concerning the end times but here is a long long  list of end time predictions which began way back in 44 AD and continue to the present time. It makes for an interesting read......

Hi stardust ---great to see you commenting again

Thanks for the link ----Have a great day

Hi stardust   ---This scripture is interesting

Matthew 24 verses 3-9 ---Jesus is speaking and gives an account of the beginnings of what I call end times.  

Blessings

I have been talking to Peter Short on the phone.  He did not do the revisions to his original letter but he did approve them - they were minor.  Mainly a change of dates.  But, he assures, me it was not his intention to imply in any way that God caused the earthquakes or tsunamis or that God had any choice in the matter.   He asked me to convey this to you.   I cannot speak for Peter and explain exactly what he meant to imply by his words, but I know him and I know that his theology is not of a God who causes suffering or hardship or punishes those he is peeved with.  

I accept Peter did not mean to implie that God caused and that is not his theology - my point is we need to be careful in our language for we can communicate the opposite of what we believe.  In the midst of a piece of reflection was a disconnect which lessened the value for me - It countered the tone of the piece.

I'm trusting God is understanding of all our feeble attempts to comprehend and our need for explanations.

We may jade our perspectives with our life experiences but at least we try. I find the sharing of ideas connects us and doesn't leave us alone with our own conclusions.

We agree, we disagree, we walk away in disgust or we become even more baffled by our combined musings. But sometimes dialogue can strike a chord of truth in our hearts. For me the truth in this thread is that nobody really knows, yet we have become connected through a mystery.

 I had left this thread, but, I want to return for two reasons.

1.  Thank-you Seeler for reaching out.

2.  To share a prayer, which is wonderful on the link Aaron posted for Japan ....but I can't seem to do so.  If you can get to the United Church Japan Relief page, click on the Angels take Shape resource.   Wonderful, simply wonderful imagery.

unsafe, you've convinced me that the end times are coming in our generation, unlike all the previous generations, who also predicted the end times would come during their generations.  I think Jesus' remark about earthquakes in Matthew 24:7 cinched it for me, because we've had two devastating earthquakes in the past few months, and that has never happened in the past two thousand years.

Sometimes, I think I hear the Four Horsemen.  But then, I live in horse country now.  I get a lot of false alarms.

Seeler - I'm not at all surprised to hear Peter say that he didn't mean that in the article so it's a shame it was submitted as is because that's what it conveys.  I wonder why he didn't get feedback in 2004...

I could read this as it is written and if there were no newcomers, nobody in my congregation would think I meant a controlling God or one who causes earthquakes and tsunamis.

How? Because if I said, "the God who controls the world slipped", it could mean "the belief of/in a God who..." (In that, I would make sure I was clear in my language if that is what I meant)

If I said it as written "The God who controls the world slipped between crack and beneath the waves" and had the middle he did and ended as he did with:
"Now we must do what we can to help. When our common and frail humanity moves us to work side by side, we may become aware in spite of ourselves that the One who loves the world is rising from the deep.

Everyone present who knows me or my theology would know I meant we may lose sight of God or be angry at God, but in our grief we would see that God has not gone anywhere or changed. God still loves and calls us to love. We are God's hands....

If I take this paragraph,

"We do not know the why of it. No one is responsible. There is nowhere to lodge the meaning or lay the blame, except at the doorstep of God. Who else can shake the foundations of the world? At least the grief is deep, strong, and true. Grief is best when only God carries the blame. It liberates the heart for clean anger."

Those who know me and my theology would know that I meant is closer to:
"In the face of not knowing why and having no place to lay blame the Creator of the Mysteries and Bearer of All can take it. God is there to take it. Our questions and our blame. When we grieve personally and seek why's and how's we lay blame - on doctors, on science, on people, on others, on the dead.... Then, and now, in this mass grief God is the safest and wisest bet for clean, pure grief. God can handle it."

I do not know what Peter meant. Those who know Peter and his theology likely do.

I do agree however that if we are to be welcoming, we need to expect those who do not know us our our theology, our denomination or their theology... They may know another theology better... so we must be aware and use caution and care...to ensure that we do not foster a theology we never had or long ago left and we can spread a theology that we are proud of...

One of the things that it has shown for me is don't let your name stand for Moderator. Your words can come back and bite you 7 years later. Our words live on.

Here is one way to express the vexing paradox for theodicy.  On the one hand, the OT often implies that humanity can routinely be the victim of blind chance (e. g. EccIesastes 9;11)..  On the other hand, Jesus praises faith for healing and miracles, when He encounters it, and in Matthrew often laments His disciples' status as "men of little faith" in divine intervention and protection (e. g. from adngerous storms)  This implies that the right attitudes and actions that step out in faith can be decisive for divine intervention.  When the father of the epileptic boy challenges Jesus' to do something to help his son, Jesus reverses the responsibility to the father's faith and the father passes the test.  James teaches that often "you don't have because you don't ask [God--4:2]. 

The more we disagree with Jesus on a theological or moral issue, the more we need to justify how we can consider ourselves His disciple.  I will not detail my own proposed resolution to this paradox.  But one elusive factor that needs to be better undestood and applied to this problem is Carl Jung's concept of synchronicity--meaningful, but uncaused coincidences.  The case Jung makes for synchronicity is fascinating but difficlult to evaluate for its providential relevance. 

When it comes to language you can use all the care in the world - but chances are what you imply will not be inferred.

When we speak or write we do so based on our "invisible" histories and life's experiences.

Our listener or reader interprets our language from his/her "invisible to us" history and life's experiences.

That's just for a start - there are also cultural differences etc..................

We have the Bible.

We also have many versions of Christianity, based on many interpretations of the same "book'.

Language in a sense isn't the real problem (despite academics and theologians trying to make it so at times) but that the readers come to it from their own life's experiences.

We can continue to do this, because we can't turn to say, the writer of the gospel of Luke, and ask "when you say............, do you mean..........?"

But, in the land of the living, clarification is possible and important - but it requires both effort and patience.

If it's not employed, it often leads to a kneejerk reaction, which can quickly lead to polarization at best and open hostility at worst.

I'm a number one fan of Wondercafe, and would like to see clarification used more - and polarization used less.

Berserk,

I, too, find Jung's concept of synchronicity fascinating.

It's a long time ago since I read about it, but wasn't there something about a beetle landing on his windowsill when he was thinking about it? Do you know that story?

There have been many times in my life when I've wondered if "coincidence" was a strong enough word. 

PP, given how many people misinterpreted this one, I think that the church didn't do a great job of checking it before sending.

Sorry, but there is a responsibility to do due diligence in communications for doing corporate communications, public, private or church.

The church has a communications  branch.

This wasn't a far off interpretation, especially given United Church of Canada history & diversity.

I would agree with your points if it was you / me dialoguing, or even an open forum...but this was not.  This was an church communique.

A discussion by a few people on Wondercafe hardly qualifies as a bite on Peter Short's or anyone elses rear end and the fact that a moderator and their words may be criticized or questioned shouldn't deter anyone from becoming one.  Haven't you ever had anyone disagree with  a sermon you preached??  Oh that I had a congregation filled with perfectly reasonable people who never reacted to a sermon negatively or in a kneejerk fashion and asked for clarification first before getting mad....Actually that hasn't happened to me in years which I credit to the greater care I take in the writing of my sermons.  Either that or I'm so boring no one's listening

Even if one theological reply to the problem of unfair suffering is correct, pastors need to focus on whether such a reply would raelly be experienced as helpful.  We, myself included, are more emotional than rational creatures when it comes to the big questions.  If an answer is experienced as a case for a remote or uncaring God, then it is a mistake to have offered it.  I  consider it an unintended trap when suffering people ask me why questions because what they really need is a pastor who respects the inevitability of their doubts and lovingly travels with them down their dark valley in a way that helps them identify, experience, and reflect on all their negative feelings with no fear of censure and with the no sense that the pastor thinks he would handle the same situation without less severe emotional scars.

As for PP's quesiton about examples of Jungian synchronicity, let me share my favorite.  Jung didn't believe in astrology,but wanted to study it as objecftively as poosible.  So he collected about 500 horoscopes of married couples to determine whether their marital happiness or unhappiness correlated with their horoscope configuration.  To his dismay, he discovered that the correlation was very significant!   But as he thought about it, he could not rationalize why this should work so well.  So he decided later to replicate the study.  This time there was no correlation whatsoever.  Yet the results for the first study were very significant.  How could this be explained?  For the first study, Jung was very curious and was strongly hoping for a significant correlation.  But on the replication study, he was more open to a discrediting result. For his first study, his mind apparently attracted to him just those horoscopes that created the illusion that astrology is valid.  

When I was young, I dabbled in blbliomancy, the practice of closing one's eyes and quickly inserting one's finger randomly in a Bible to point to a verse in response to a question I was meditating on.  If I was meditating on a romantic adventure, my finger would point to a verse on divine providence and the right time for romance.  I tried the same thing with playing cards.  I would ask for romance  and would then consistently draw 4 straight hearts out of a shuffled deck.  I even displayed this odd talent to friends.  As this became an obsession, I realized that no clear correlation existed between my wishes and the synchronous result. 

One day Linda, an attractive new friend (a Harvard grad student in Japanese art) told me that she had used this method to determine whether she should divorce her abusive and unfaithful husband.  At the time, she tended to think divorce was a sin and her finger at once pointed to one of Jesus' prohibitions against divorce.  I laughingly asked her, "Give me your Bible."  When she gave it to me, my finger immediately pointed to Deuteronomy 24:1 which approves divorce for any perceived "indecency."  Linda grinned wickedly and asked, "So are you saying that your divine guidance trumps mine?"  I replied, "No Linda, I've discovered this weird ablity to do this at will.  I've never seen your fat Bible before.  This seems to be a strange manifestation of synchronicity, not of divine guidance.  I''m saying that this means nothing; just use your intuition to decide whether to pursue a divorce or not.  She dgot the divorce.  Perhaps God occasionally uses bibliomancy as God seemed to do for St. Francis.  But I believe it generally means nothing spiritual. 

A few years ago, an academic couple invited me over for dinner and brought up this subject.  I asked for a Bible and for a subject they would like me to point to.  "How about a plant or chemical?"  I closed my eyes and pointed to a verse about wheat 3 times in a row, a different one each time.  I haven't tried this for several years now, but wonder if such a talent could be developed and harnassed for a productive use and how often it operates in the meaningful and meaningless coincidences of our lives.  . 

ThaT was written tongue in cheek, Meredith

Meredith,

Clarification in communication is something I'm passionate about - I'm disappointed that it merits just a humorous response.

But then, my past history has shown the value of clarification in communication..........

Berserk

I love hearing about all your experiences, fresh material on the WC . There's so much that is the same old. I had never heard about  bibliomancy before. Interesting!

Peter used to be my minister.  I would sit in church and listen to his message.  I don't remember many for the exact words or phrases used.  But I remember the message - of love, of wholeness, of inclusion, of welcome, of a call to commitment and service, of living in God's presence. 

When I first read Peter's message for the people of the earlier tsunami, upgraded for the present one - I didn't analysis each sentence.  I looked for meaning.  Perhaps knowing Peter helped.  But the message I received was that God was there with the people in their suffering and that God was weeping with them in sorrow.  Disasters happen, but God is there in the midst, with the people.  That is what I heard Peter say.   I cannot speak for him, not even after talking to him, I can only say what I received as his message.   And I found it reassuring.

God is where God always is, watching over human kind. Consoling the lost and hurting, giving strength to the weak, and courage to those who are afraid. Inspiring others to reach out and help.

The real question is where are humans in times of peace and happiness.  Everytime there is a major event people cry out where was God. The amazing thing is that God doesn't cry out where were you. In our modern world we have removed God from just about every part of our world. Prayer in public is looked on as something for a court action. The average child will tell you the reason for Christmas is Santa claus. Talking about faith is just not done. People do not go to worship.  The Modern human rarely thinks about God but when something bad happens they cry out and demand to know where was.

Thanks Seeler that's exactly how I read it. I am not totally sure what people are so concerned about. The thought of God being with us in our suffering is very powerful to me.

Does the potter cry when he drops a Ming Vase?

I bet the Eire would turn bloody bleu ... a separatory issue of emotions and intellect ... explaining a Primal Big Bang as hyperbole! It's all depth 've word ... divided, A'B'D, or de vine mine. You really couldn't tell with all the evolution of word of millenia! Will the God's do anything to hide, or covenent the word, or even the meaning? Is that like cretin fey-th'? Flighty word! Like burr'd ich ID'll stick to anything GUI!

And then he would think about how to adjust the rules ... them's words ... God's spirit flying ... all-there-is toIT. One could call it scion (Zion) ... but that's graft of connecting a thought to old desire ... then, isn't desire like a blind crippled olem'n driving the boot (Iannawhimsy)? Perhaps it's just pure (per) Parse ... Paris even in the spring'n. Words come in a Black Cloud (people often can't see eM) one must put them together to match the state of thought you observe ... an out of bode-an thing-heh. If you look at it without the pain ... you will not understand a great deal of how those people perceive this---Sufi Scholar!

Life is chi-ite; a  heated alloy of physical and non-physical attributes ... and then you die .. to make room for improvments in a mortal lab ... prototypical space? There is the grit of the real situation and then there is thought that comes in waves of words ... food for the mind? The polynesians felt that manna (bred of soul) was an unnatural creation ... following desires? Perhaps the source of the Roman attitude towards science, observation (sight, light) and rationale about the whole thing .. which would include of course emotional content ... a whispy thing. Put em all together and you get a construct appearing out of nowhere ... of the ET'IC aL soul standing up d'eire in de dirt ... two chaos' one above, one below ... dual quanta of states of mind. Like an image of a waterspout goan over d' Loch!

You can't take this seriously; to blame a greater power that didn't know what they were doing?  On Dr. Phil yesterday they spoke of the conflict between extroverts and introverts ... the extroverts were more full of confidence that consciencous peoples ... perhaps they don't have room for thought with all the intuitive emotional content? It could explain why powerful people make more mistakes and blame them on the lower tiers ... they know they don't have to confidence to speak out. Then such thought would be driven underground like worms ... explaining why we very seldom see the soul of God (all-there-is) ... it's vaguely subliminal ... ephemerally supporting like Lady Luck ... quanta  've intuitive state? you just know this should work ... but mensa lazy carrier until awakened to life ... between a rock and a difficult place ... love and thinking dimensions all entangled? Wee vine theory ... Ragged Belivers? Just because they was deprived ... does that put primal intentions in a place of blame or just pure ignorance encouraged by powers that wouldn't wish us to know. That would put them at a disadvantage ... space for infinite struggle between emotions and intellect ... makes my head and the whole intergral mind spin ... taking time off to rest and heal ... hasn't been seen for close to 7 Millenia ... what some call a Magi Nos ... extended?

I think all agreed that the pastoral tone of the piece was good.  It did reinforce God cared for us and weeps with us.

The point some were making is when a piece is sent out to others who might read the piece and have some negative thoughts about faith, there were two sections that made many pause.  Basically it was this section:"We do not know the why of it. No one is responsible. There is nowhere to lodge the meaning or lay the blame, except at the doorstep of God. Who else can shake the foundations of the world? At least the grief is deep, strong, and true. Grief is best when only God carries the blame. It liberates the heart for clean anger."

I can understand the rhetoric point of blaming God is fine - but it does reinforce an understanding that is a disconnect from the piece.  The point made is when any of us do a piece of writting a good edit ( editor) might catch the disconnect.  For those of us who are within the piece  when it flows as a compassionate reflection and that section did not jump out. 

Like all events like this theodicy jumps out and some of us respond to the hidden theodicy to see if it is adequate.  Thus the lines of God choosing suggests a problem in the underlying theological construct that leads to blaming God - for God choose between love and control the mind can easily go to - if God can control all - omnipotent- then why did God allow this to happen?  Does not love include doing something when you have all the power? We know we intrinsically do not have control over chaos ( randomness of life) and the answer some of us have is neither does God. All of God's power is one of love and compassion not control - only persuasion. 

Thus the piece made some of us examine the issue of theodicy - which the piece is a reflection on, and while beautiful in tone, pastoral in words, it had a disconnect.  In critical reading one then goes to what did an author mean, as well as what the reader read?  Yes we have no control over the final reading but we can in our writing seek to be aware of the many readings possible, and to try to prevent a possible misread of intentions.

God is recorded in the Bible as raising the dead, parting the Red Sea, healing the sick, making people sick, changing the weather, indeed, creating the earth and the universe, etc. etc., then it isn't surprising people have the idea God could have at least stopped the earthquake. I've never heard a satisfactory answer to that issue of why a good God allows bad things to happen. But what I like about this article is that it accepts that God is big enough to take this "blame" as well as big enough to be there and deal with the consequences. (I guess that's "theodicy" - had to look it up, ha ha). Maybe this isn't what the writer meant, but that was my reading and I can accept that vision of God. At least it's honest.

While I do agree that God can be seen in those helping after disasters have struck, I don't think it wise to so easily dismiss God's role in bringing disasters. I believe in a God who is all-powerful, who can use nature and supercede natural laws as he sees fit. The Bible certainly speaks of this. In church we have recently been studying the book of Joel. Here is a brief excerpt, "Before (the locust swarms), the earth shakes, the heavens tremble, the sun and moon are darkened, and the stars no longer shine. The LORD thunders at the head of his army;" - Joel 2: 10-11a

 Mahakala, the way you read it, and MorningCalms additions to the interpretation,  is exactly the issue that I have with it.

 Pinga - I have re-read the article several times, and I just don't see where you and the others here get the message that God caused the earthquake.   For me, the article is saying that the belief in a God who is in control and who blesses us is what was crushed in the earthquake, and that God is not about control, but love:  "I have come to believe that God’s ultimate commitment to the world and its creatures is not a commitment to control but a commitment to love. I believe that between control and love God must have had to make a choice."

So God chooses to act in the world in the form of love, and terrible things happen and God suffers with us, and heals us through our brokenness.

That's how I read it, anyway.

That's how I read the article also, Diana. I do not, however, entirely agree with the author's theology.

But, when you go down this road, then the question of why God would do this comes up. All too often, that leads to obnoxious nonsense like Pat Robertson's comments after the Haiti quake. A natural disaster of this magnitude causes untold suffering and trying to blame the victims (or their ancestors) for what happened by saying that God was somehow punishing them is just compounding it. A natural disaster is not a punishment from God, it is us crossing paths with the forces of nature and trying to deal with the outcome.

Mendalla

What happens, I think, is that believers in the type of G_d that is Ultimately Loving, Created Everything, is Omniescent and Omnipotent, when presented with a natural disaster like this they run into cognitive dissonance as their minds try to come up with hypotheses as to why this is possible while keeping their core concept of G_d.

 So, Diana, what does it mean if some people interpret something one way, and others another. 

Does that mean that the one group is wrong and the other right?  Does it matter?

If a section of people are going to read it, and find an issue, then, doesn't that make it true to them?

Example:   Put 10 people in a room  in January in Florida:   5 from Florida, 5 from North Bay.  The people from NorthBay wear shorts and call the weather beautiful, the 5 from Florida say it is cool.  Which is right?

 Hi PInga - yes, where there's language, there's interpretation, and where there's interpretation, things get gray.    I just wanted to contribute my interpretation because I was really surprised at the conclusions that people appeared to be jumping to about Peter Short's theology - as I had jumped to quite the opposite conclusion!  And if I didn't read these posts, it quite honestly never would have crossed my mind that anyone would interpret it differently than I had.  So interesting!

To me, it highlights how valuable it is to read things - especially scripture - together in community, so that we can hear perspectives that never would have crossed our own minds.

“This is what I believe:
That I am I.
That my soul is a dark forest.
That my known self will never be more than a little clearing in the forest.
That gods, strange gods, come forth from the forest into the clearing of my known self, and then go back.
That I must have the courage to let them come and go.
That I will never let mankind put anything over me, but that
I will try always to recognize and submit to the gods in me and the gods in other men and women.
There is my creed.”

--D H Lawrence
 

Man, do you have a wide range of experiences :3

That particular post of yours reminds me of a Scottish writer, name of Grant Morrison.  He wrote this really long graphic novel back in the 90's, where one of the characters was an idealized form of himself, and he noticed that, strangely enough, whatever happened to his character would, eventually, happen to him.  So when his character became deathly ill, he also, eventually, became deathly ill.

He also once went to Katmandu and wanted to experience an alien abuduction...so he set it up so that he did in fact, experience an 'alien abduction', which he has written aboot.

And that is interesting that you have mentioned astrology...Richard Tarnas spent a large portion of his life trying to find out what astrology was, if it 'worked' and if so, 'how' and such...the results of his investigations are in his book Cosmos & Psyche.  A point that he discovered is that the planets and the stars don't influence or control us, but that they act as a kind of marker or clock, signs that tell the astute observer what to expect.

Before we look at God, and Regardless of the theology, the question ultimately is why is everything going to die.

Fo me the answer is everything must die, so that new life can begin. If we did not die there would be no need for children.

Where is God? Is the second part

In my tradition God offers me everlasting life no matter what. No matter how I die I will go in the universe. The way I will last in the most enduring way is in the good things I do and the effect these things have on others.

So God comforts me, in ensuring that in the face of death and destruction, I will go on. More important, than the fact that I will go on, is that logically, it also means that I count, that I am important, right now. In the here and now.

It's not a question of being right or wrong - as Diana says, it's a question of interpretation.

The question for me is are the short wearing folks from NorthBay prepared to take the trouble to consider why the Florida folks think it's cool - and vice versa?

Or are they content to say simply, "I'm right, you're wrong?"

At best, that approach leads to a stalemate - at worst conflict.

To build bridges it helps to see the background behind the other point of view. It's not a big deal in the example of the the room in Florida - but it can be vitally important when it comes to matters of faith and politics.

 Pilgrim's progress.....i'm still not clear ....it's not that either is right or wrong....but, that the interpretations are both valid.

Given that, it is reasonable to say, ....if there is a probability of an interpretation that is counter to my faith , then I won't share it.

I will not put forward somethng that can be interpreted the way that a reasonable % of the commenters did.

I am thankful that some do not read it that way...awesome...good for them...but, i will error on the side of caution and not share.

Pinga,

You see the problem that language presents?

My interpretation of what you had said was a question of right or wrong.

Your clarification is - no, that's not what I meant - I meant are both valid?

I can't help feeling that it is impossible to get the language right - folks will interpret according to their background, family values, culture, education.......... the list is endless.

Thus, clarification is always a good place to start. (it's often surprising that when clarification takes place, folks realise that they have been arguing against cross purposes - misunderstandings).

Re your  I will not put forward something that can be interpreted the way that a reasonable % of the commenters did.

For reasons I stated above - I think this would be difficult if not impossible to achieve - particularly in matters of faith.

 Personally,  I welcome ambiquity - it challenges my thinking - and can lead to a fine tuning of my faith.

As to what has been written - I think this man Peter did his best to express his thoughts. I don't feel comfortable judging him  - I prefer to confine my thinking to trying to understand the essence of what he seems to be saying -  always allowing for the possibility that I may have misunderstood.

As Aaron posted - and not him - we cannot ask for clarification - which, as I've stated is the  way forward in this dilemma.

If you know Peter a bit, you will get to know what he projects. It fits in with an old premise that you can not tell mankind truth for being all moor'd to the physical they don't believe in the chaos of the metaphysical ... like words as chaos on a loving mind in another kind of chaos. Pair em up and they rest ... exhausted with on another?

That's word for you ... a huge dark chaos ... like a storm on the brae'n. It nneds to be cracked once in a while to give it some light brevity ... Levite? It's all 'n ig maw ... which in German Cyrillic is 'N ich Ma' ... sort of mysteriously dark  and thus ...

Is a modern Christian too confident? I dun know ... was just ask'n!

But 'Eire sah shot at IT ... Eros! ID all starts with UR Oz .. the bones of the story is scrimsha ... to the metaphysical mind ... which you must believe even though you can't grasp the concept ... or you will cease and desist thinking ... sort of like rapture ...

If you believe in religious actions without rest, how could you stand peace? There is this thin dimension ... ethereal!

Some phonetic experience with the shift of q-> k-> g (in the Cyrillic sense) is helpful ... the perception of the tongues of men-sah .. the ever living/loving mind? Many do not believe, but they say they do ... like imaginary kod down in Florida!

Everyone projects themselves on what they hear or see.  In areas that are naturally ambiguous like thoughts, beliefs and ideas it is important to refrain from applying the projected conclusions onto the author.  When reading such nebulous writings the focus should be on the whole not a part and for the reader to take ownership of the emotions the words inspire within them.

Even the best writer can not speak to every one.  The impossibility is part of our diversity.  The author brings to the page a part of themselves but what occurs after is what marks the difference between putting pen to paper and the miracle of art.  The goal of a writer, the objective of all art, is to stimulate the audience:  Make the reader think, make them question not just what is written but  to question their own perspectives.  The persona of the author is lost and the words take on a life of their own and changes with each new reader.

The question then becomes when judging the work, not a matter of right or wrong, good or bad, but:  Did this work provoke; make me think, make me question, make me act.

From reading the preceding posts I would say the author achieved that goal....

LB

My task...is, by the power of the written word to make you hear, to make you feel - it is, before all, to make you see. That - and no more - and it is everything.
     Joseph Conrad

 I remember a letter to the editor I wrote to the Vancouver Sun once.  It was in response to those who were angry about the Christ being taken out of Christmas,   and my letter stated that Christmas was largely a secular holiday and that in this respect it was great that people of no faith, or any faith, could partake if they so chose, and to get used to the idea that nobody "owns" today's Christmas celebrations.

People who knew me got my point bang on.  However, about 3 days later, a guest columnist who was a Jewish rabbi devoted her entire column to her outrage about my letter.  She essentially called me a racist;  her interpretation of my letter was that I had suggested that all people of other faiths should give up their own traditions and join in with the traditions of the majority.

I was horrified, and still am, truth be told.   To be so misunderstood, in public, without the opportunity for rebuttal was truly awful.  It was a long time before I wrote another letter!   Language.......not always the best way to communicate!

PInga, are you saying that you would not share with people who are in need of comfort and answers regarding the earthquake?  If that is the case, then I tend to agree.    But if the sharing is with the intent to spark reflection and ultimately spiritual growth, then couldn't it be valuable to share a piece like this?   Perhaps puzzling out the ambiguity, like is happening on this thread, would lead to the kind of questions that leave us spiritually enlarged.    I guess what i"m saying is that a lot depends on how we construe the intent of the text - was it to comfort, or was it to offer and spark reflection?   Again, I construed the latter, but I could absolutely be wrong.  Wouldn't be the first time!

This is a nicely said response on the reader/author issue - Diana gives another possible read, which makes me the reader go back and say yes this is a possible read.  The question becomes did the author want us to question the onmipotent view and to show it does not work- the event actually causes a shift in understanding about the meaning of God's action in such event.  On a quick read it one can suggest this is the author's intention.

This issue is at the basic discussion of meaning and text.  I was reminded of a discussion re Attwoods book Surfacing.  At one point it was about the rise in Canadian identity and then another read out of feminism suggested it was about the coming to consciousness of femininism.  Both possible reads and suggestive that a good piece of literature opens to more than one interpretation  Note both reads have a common theme - coming to consciousness and that could be the author's intent.  Now if the reads are in opposition then not all possible readings are possible - some are wrong or do not fit the text.

This is the issue of postmodern reading that we all live with for at one point one could say this is the meaning of the text because it is what was intented and that no longer works.  The reader has power of interpretation.  And that then raises what is the reader's worldview.  This issue also found in how to read the bible.  So we must take into account both the reader and her context and the text in its context to get at a pluasible reading.  The text tests our world view and the world view tests the text.

It is here that both Diana and Pinga have possible reads and do make us move to the larger issue of theodicy.  It is this issue of theodicy that forces us the the reader to see what is opperative - the different answers must be tested for internal and external logic.  An all controlling God ( onmipotent) fails because if we had the all controlling power we would act more morally, to stop the action.  However, if God's power is one of relatedness, and persuasion and the 'forces' nature are free by metaphysical given - nature has its own trajectory - and our freedom to influence is also metaphysically given - not given by God - self determinative is part of  our actual existence, then God is not the cause of natural events and must work with them, and Short's insight of weeping with us and offering us energy of compassion is a read.  And this is a possible theodicy where God is involved but not the one cause so did not cause the natural event.