Amazon.com Widgets

Pete

Joined: Jul. 9, 2012

No bio


Most recent posts by Pete:     (See all of them)


No posts yet


Latest comments by Pete:     (See all of them)


Re: Celebrating two great lives

Oct. 15 at 9:07pm | see this comment in context

Katie, I was corroborating Edith Stein's quote with my personal experience of people who had be reverently open to me, as persons.  These people were the ones who were not hiding (not in the strictest sense of the word) or withdrawing (as you say) behind their work, who had been the faces of God in my life, and who had provided the contact of one mind to another for me.  To me this was God's face, heart and mind...  A heart and mind that sought understanding of me.  This is what I interpret Edith Stein to be saying, as I think you do too, only in the converse:  that I myself must be reverently open to others in order to understand them.  For me, the process towards knowing a personal God was reversed.  These people were being reverently open with me and I saw the face of God in them.   I have sought to know others in this way before too, and I try to always be sincere and reverent towards others I choose to know, but I have not made a conscious effort to make it a policy.  Is this what you are saying Edith Stein is saying?

Re: Celebrating two great lives

Oct. 15 at 6:08pm | see this comment in context

In my own experience, I find that the people who I meet who I truly get to know (their hearts and minds) - the people who risk authentic vulnerability - are the people who become the faces of God in my life.  It's as if I am actually experiencing a personal God...  By looking into these people's faces, I am seeing God - it's as if I am looking into God's face, heart and mind.  

God's mind being seamlessly and relentlessly bound up with truth, His heart a heart of infinite compassion.  In knowing someone in this way, in the moment I truly know them, it seems that everyone and everything is loved unconditionally, that truth is finally immanent.  

These people are not hiding behind their work, they are the faces of God in the world.  Their "secret" is that they risk vulnerability, they risk being hurt.  These are the people we fall in love with...  It's not hard to see why we do, we were made to.  They touch us on deep levels.  They move us.  They show us what we are supposed to be doing, what the truth really is.  Can you think of such a person?

Re: Personalist meditation of the day

Sep. 11 at 7:20pm | see this comment in context

I applaud Janaro's sincerity, but I find his theology and his approach to the alleviation of suffering to be wrong.  I believe that Christ suffered and died so we wouldn't have to.  So, I don't believe we suffer in Christ per se because of original sin as Janaro professes we do.  On the contrary, we take profound joy in our fallen nature because in humility we acknowledge our fallen nature and embrace it, knowing that Christ paid our debts in this regard.  It means that even in Christ, we suffer, but we suffer not because of original sin, our sins, or other's sins; we suffer because of our unmet true needs and feelings.  My prayer for Janaro is that he realizes this and gets the healing he needs.

Re: Overcoming Practical Pessimism

Sep. 2 at 9:13pm | see this comment in context

Also, I don't think it was just by coincidence that the "ugly girl" pessimist in O'Connor's short story, Revelation, was reading a book entitled, "Human Development" before she threw it at Mrs. Turpin,  and before calling her a Warthog from Hell, as you mentioned.

But, that story, like a lot of her others, was about racism too:

As when Mrs. Turpin has her vision of all the different kinds of souls in procession towards heaven and her kind, the only one's who were actually singing in key were shocked because their "virtues" were being burned away.

Such a brilliant soul that Flannery O'Connor. 

   

Re: Overcoming Practical Pessimism

Sep. 2 at 2:42pm | see this comment in context

Devra, I hope a correction to my post #8 will clear up any more possible misunderstandings:

In the first part of the first sentence of post #8 I made the reference (in error) to your "derivative" of the Good (which I called God in my post), thinking you were comparing original sin with the Good, when in fact you had compared evil with the Good and claimed it was derivative.

So, for the record, please omit the reference I made to the derivative of the Good in your post, (which I called God in my post).  Thanks!

I apologize for causing any confusion and I hope that clears up my post.

Stay informed

Latest comments

  • Re: What would Newman say about the Synod?
  • By: Disciplined_Idea
  • Re: What would Newman say about the Synod?
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: What would Newman say about the Synod?
  • By: Disciplined_Idea
  • Re: What would Newman say about the Synod?
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: What would Newman say about the Synod?
  • By: Disciplined_Idea
  • Re: What would Newman say about the Synod?
  • By: Katie van Schaijik
  • Re: The problem with "consenting adults"
  • By: Disciplined_Idea
  • Re: Cutting ties
  • By: Disciplined_Idea
  • Re: What would Newman say about the Synod?
  • By: Disciplined_Idea
  • Re: Cutting ties
  • By: Disciplined_Idea

Latest active posts

Reading circles

Lectures