prisonchaplain
-
Posts
13959 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
93
Posts posted by prisonchaplain
-
-
Traveler does bring a unique and important perspective. Seeing the immigrants as refugees from corruption also helps me understand that "the illegals" will never understand American rage that "illegals are cutting in line--in front of those who respect our laws and apply legally." If they come from a culture in which the system is absolutely broken, they would have no idea what it means to hope that going the legal route would work, and would not itself be corrupt (payoffs to immigration officials). This is not to excuse the issue, but to help us understand it.
It's hard for me to get angry at a group of people who partake in a process (illegal immigration) that has been tolerated, almost with abandon, for so long.
Like so many, I would like to see the U.S. get control of its borders, so we can let in who we want. At that point, I would be one in favor of very generous policies. However, as Traveler said, this seems to be a fantasy. And if controlling our borders truly is a fantasy, then this whole debate is a cynical diversion meant to prepare us for a meaningless 2006 & 2008 congressional and presidential campaign seasons.
-
Ahem!
Corrections are in order......according to LDS Doctrine.
2. Rule and reign with Christ? He has His Kingdom, we will have ours. We can enjoy His perfect presence based on His judgement of our actions or inactions in pursuit of His Gospel plan. The Plan of Salvation is available to all who partake of His saving ordinances from His Church.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. KJV
3. We'll judge angels? No, Christ is the Judge. They will have their reward according to His perfect judgement. We will have our own work to do.
1 Cor 6:3: 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
KJV
4. Earth was created in six time periods. We don't know how long those periods were, but we are told that one day is like a thousand years in Heavenly reckoning. Since creation the Plan has been in place to bring His children back to His Presence, according to their obedience to the Plan. 2000 years? Just a blip in time in the eternities.
Genesis speaks of 6 days. One possible understanding is that the days are periods of time. I wasn't aware that the LDS took that as an official interpretation. Regardless, I doubt anyone will be complaining about our new residence.
-
Alot of us are familiar with the concept that those in heaven recline on perfectly puffy clouds and strum dreamily on harps with glistening strings. I never really had the chance to know what others think we'll do in heaven (provided we get there).
For the purpose of this thread, I guess heaven can mean "being with God" whether we're coming from an LDS or non-LDS standpoint. For example, any Lutherans here? If so, what do Lutherans think their time will be occupied doing in heaven? Methodists? Roman Catholics? Baptists?
I'm not so much interested in interpretation of scripture, but moreso in what people think personally. Any thoughts?
It's a big question mark, but here are some thoughts:
1. We'll have glorified bodies, probably like Jesus has post-resurrection.
2. We'll rule and reign with Christ. How? Fun speculation here.
3. We'll judge angels.
4. The place Christ is preparing has been in the making for 2000 years. It only took six days to make earth--which was much more wonderful than it is now.
5. We'll experience most natural processes directly, rather than via nature. For example, we'll not need the sun or moon, because the light of God will directly illumine heaven.
6. This one's a bit speculative, but I would guess that every breath we breathe will be like the first "breath of life" God breathed into Adam & Eve.
7. Imagine being able to relate to God and each other without second-guessing, interpreting, worrying about motives, etc.!
8. We'll work, and our work will be richly meaningful.
I'll spare everyone the bandwith reading of posting a lesson I did on this topic. B)
-
Hello, I'm Dr. T. and I'm a webaholic.
"Hi Dr. T." (said in flat, sing-song)
Or we could also follow the Platinum Rule:
Do unto others as they want done unto them.
I guess we'd better stay away from "The Rule of the Jungle": Do unto to others BEFORE they do unto you!
-
I got a letter in the mail today asking me to follow other LDS members in the San Diego area in voting for Eric Roach in the special election on April 11th. ... Is this wrong, or is it just me? This is almost as bad as Living Scriptures mysteriously showing up at my door trying to strong arm me into buying their videos.
Just some thoughts from one who first engaged in polical activism due to moral concerns.
1. Courts have determined that churches cannot publish "voting guides" that specifically endorse particular candidates. The Moral Majority did so for a time, but bowed to the directives of the courts. Likewise the Christian Coalition.
2. The Christian Right did try to recruit LDS during the early 1980s, and I would be surprised if such efforts were not on-going.
3. There are certainly sincere believers in both American parties, and in most of the parties of Europe and Canada, etc.
4. There are connivers, willing to use religion for their own purposes in all major parties.
5. I agree that churches should avoid too directly jumping into the political fray. On the other hand, there are times when issues of import arise, and churches can "speak the truth to power." Slavery and Civil Rights in America were two obvious ones. Many believe that abortion is also.
6. It enrages me to hear folk say that churches have NOTHING to say in the public square, or that religious leaders should never address political leaders.
7. I will never endorse a political party that makes religion itself a platform item (i.e. an American Christian party).
-
And btw, I’m not trying to be offensive to you here, and I’m also not trying to cause any bad feelings within you, but I do feel the urge to say what I am saying because I want to help you know God even better.
Having come to know your online persona, I appreciate the spiritual confidence that sense of urgency you have about souls. We've not reached the same conclusions, but we both approach faith as something that is primary in life, and we both wish to aggressively share the truth and joy we've found. So, I'm not offended, nor am I feeling bad.
So PC, you're thinking about joining the LDS church? Congrats, I suppose.
I like your avatar--always smiling.
You've probably noted that my religious identification is clearly labeled. Me thinks Ray's "rock rolling" reference is more to the point that he sees me as a God-seeker with an open heart (well...I hope he does...I believe I am), and so, will eventually embrace what he believes is true.
I'll restate what I said back in October, when I joined: I'm hear to learn and share, and am grateful for the ample opportunity I have had to do both.
-
Hey PC, good to talk to you again. Consider the following verses of scripture.
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:"
"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:16-17)
What does the phrase "glorified together" there mean to you?
We need to start by looking at presuppositions. Non-LDS Christians start with the assumption that the early church creedal developments were directed by God, by "some called to be teachers." Thus, we agree with the following beliefs:
1. Our existence began at birth. We did not exist as premortal spirits.
2. Jesus was not created by the Father. He is co-eternal with the Father, both backwards and forwards.
3. There is only one God, period. There has only been one God. There will always only be one God.
So, what does it mean that we will jointly inherit with Jesus? That we will be glorified together with Him? We believe that we shall indeed become more than we are. We shall see as Jesus sees. We will become eternal beings. We will rule and reign with him. We will judge angels.
We will not become part of God. We don't even like the term gods. By some of the six definitions that have been offered, the term might work--but we'd avoid it for the same reason Traveler spells our Master G-d.
"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelations 3:21)
In your opinion, what does "sitting with Christ in his throne" mean? Or perhaps, in what way did Christ sit down in his Father's throne?
There is an understanding that we shall indeed "reign with Christ." What this means, we can only speculate. Perhaps we will, like Joseph, be placed in authority, as ambassadors of Christ, over groups of people (planets?). However, as wise ambassadors, we'll know our limits, and always defer to the Sovereign.
I'm not asking this as a trap. I'm sure you know how I interpret them, I'd honestly be interested in knowing how you read them. Thanks.
AK, you've earned the benefit of the doubt with me. :)
-
I have hesitated posting a response because of I do not want you to think I am attacking you personally or your beliefs (you deserve better of me) but I believe there is a problem with a paid clergy along with certain other professions. The problem is money. Money is tied directly to earthly treasures and power. This tie to earthly treasures creates not only doctrinal and behavioral problems and contradictions but it also clouds spiritual vision with what appears to be earthly necessities.
You've earned the benefit of the doubt, Traveler. Your heart's cry is for the purity of the gospel, and your justified concern is that money (filthy lucre) can so easily corrupt it. I disagree that having full-time clergy necessarily leads to corruption, but I can see the connection. Here are some other concerns:
1. Religious advertising in which the smiling believers are all clearly middle/upper class. Is the message that poor folk do not make good Christians? (Trust me, factions within Pentecostalism deserve SEVERE scrutiny along this line).
2. The opposite extremes of, on the one hand, coddling Christians into believing that since money is taboo, they need not worry whatsoever about how much they give to God. Just give "as the Spirit leads." Somehow it ends up averaging at about 2%. On the other hand, so adamantly demanding that anything less than 10% of the gross = robbing God, and if you don't give to the special appeals your love for God is lacking, you don't care about lost souls, etc. to the point that people believe it's all about money, not about giving time, a listening ear, a friendly smile, visiting the prisoner, the sick, etc.
I could go on, but this issue of money and material corrupting the gospel message is huge. IMHO saying that clergy, teachers, etc. should not be paid because of possible corruption is a way of building a fence around the danger. It may prevent some trouble, but it may also prevent some good work from getting done. The issue goes to the heart, and it is a matter that cannot be simply solved. On going reflection, meditation, communion with God are essential to prevent such failures.
Take for an example (as you have often talked) of a teacher called by the L-rd to feed his sheep. As soon as money is involved thereby creating a salary a teacher is no longer called by the L-rd but called (or hired if you will) by a committee that will also determine the worth of the teacher. There is no direct link from the L-rd’s calling and the hiring of a paid congregational teacher. Qualification for being a hired teacher becomes the same as becoming a worldly teacher. That is because there is no formal method of demonstrating a divine call but there are educational methods of proving a completion a worldly teaching certification.
There are no objective means of testing a divine call. On the other hand, beyond the objective standards of church training, experience, and presentation, those who serve on "pulpit committees" do pray for God's direction. It's not only a question of whether the candidate has a divine call to ministry, but whether this particular location is God's specific calling for this time. And, it's more common than not that when there is a vote on the matter and the candidate "wins" by a small margin, s/he will refuse the post due to the lack of spiritual consensus and confirmation.
Now, pull the money out of the equation. Service is still an honor, and the same issues would still arise. How to determine if the person is called? Is s/he called to this particular service at this time? The issues are the same.
The second has to do with determining a pay scale. Are all teachers paid the same as they were called by the L-rd? Rather it appears to me that the pay scale is define and motivated on the principles of worldly treasure and methods of compensation. How could a Christian congregation turn away or fire any teacher with divine charge? How could they pay them even a hundredth part of their real value? It appears to me a teachers pay is more closely associated with their popularity than the divineness of their call.
You don't get paid for being called, you get paid for the service you provide. As a rough explanation of how salaries get decided in most cases: What is the training? If Bible college, then the pay of a public school teacher would probably be similar (nobody confuses ministry with high-end professional pay). If the M.Div is required, perhaps the pay would be similar to a low to mid-grade lawyer. Also, the community being served factors in. If the community is poor, and the church is a "mission." regardless of training, the pastor may have to work. My seminary colleague took a church in Lakawana, NY. He got 12 of 13 votes. His starting salary: $0. After a year, the raised it to $600 per month. Generally speaking, ministers' incomes would fall in the 40-60 percentile of the congregation. They make too much, and of course people feel the chuch is being taken advantage of. They make too little and the leader ends up looking like a welfare project of the church.
Money does strange things to people - even is small amounts. For one it terns a protector and care taker of sheep into a user, merchant and devourer of sheep. It is a means of bondage and control. Some think it is economy but that is a deception. It is co present with power and as I said - money is based on worldly treasures rather than heavenly treasures. One of the best examples of how money distorts spiritual vision is a discussion Jesus had with one “Rich Young Man”. Because this man had become bonded to money he could not hear the words of Christ. He knew the scriptures but could not comprehend the words of eternal life. Few realize that most of the parables given by Christ involved money. We may remember the sin of Sodom but few remember the sin of Gomorrah.
There is no doubt that the pursuit of money can bring all kinds of evil. I'm not convinced that supporting clergy for fulltime service leads to this sin. It might be argued that paying too little or too much could offer temptations. But support itself need not be an issue.
The spiritual method of avoiding the pitfalls of money are taught in the scriptures beginning with the creation. It is one of the most consistent themes prevalent in both the Old and New Testament of the Scriptures. Interestingly it is also a major theme and warning from the Book of Mormon concerning our day.
In short, a paid clergy is a worldly thing that we must all learn to live without if we plan to live with the L-rd in heaven or here when he comes - “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.”
I understand Traveler's concerns, and agree at least that all Christians need to meditate seriously on how money effects their walk with God--whether leader, or member, teacher, or janitor. On the other hand, salaried, trained, ordained clergy who are supported in a generous yet frugal manner by churches are no more likely to be corrupted by materialism than volunteer bishops, who, in addition to the normal pressures of modern life with large families, add the equivalent of an additional part-time professional position, with no added material support.
-
I think this is another one of those issues in which we need our Lord to direct us, because even our Church pays some teachers with money, so as “general” rule we can’t say it’s all bad, as that is a good use of that money.
I appreciate this comment. Money is a tool. Used well, it can be most helpful. However, if the tool becomes the goal, corruption and destruction result. We need not 'throw out the baby with the bathwater,' but caution is necessary.
And btw, in Tommy's defense, I don't think it is his church which pays him,
True. I'm a full-tither, so I pay it (or, to be theologically and spiritually correct, I pay the Lord via his agent).
because he works for a prison, which is an institution of the state of Washington, so it is those taxpayers who pay him... and I believe one of his "bosses" is LDS. :)
Close. I'm actually with the feds, so probably 90% of the 70% of ldstalk members who are LDS probably have a part in my salary.
-
What are your opinions on that, as an evangelical? Do you think that sort of hope/expectation is blasphemous against our God/Jesus Christ/LDS Heavenly Father?
At first glance the notion that we could become gods, might some day be worshipped, my actually share a place in the godhead, etc. certainly does attract serious biblical scrutiny. Such claims might ultimately be determined to be blasphemous.
On the other hand, there are some who have tread similar ground, particularly in the Word of Faith/Prosperity gospel camp. We are children of the king, joint heirs with Christ, we will see like him for we shall be as he is, etc. LDS are not the first, and will not be the last to traverse the theological landscape of humans becoming 'little gods.' Indeed, the Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus was created, and is a little god. I suppose this teaching takes that one step further, saying, in essence, "us too."
-
Hello Shan and Outshined,
Shanstress, I was intrigued by that comment too. I don't know if there is a thread on this topic yet (I would bet that there is) but I haven't looked into it. I didn't know that LDS held a Trinitarian view of God. In fact, I thought Smith (or some other church leader) spoke out against it. Something to the effect of "what a monster of a god that would be." Anyone wish to start a thread on that?
Thanks
I've been led to believe that that the LDS believe in a Trinitarian view of God, but reject the interpretations found in the early creeds. See the following attachment by BYU Religion professor, Stephen Robinson (co-author of the book, How Wide the Divide: A Mormon Evangelical Conversation).
http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/respons...stians/ser7.htm
-
No, we are not, but that is our goal, and I know our Lord STILL prays about that.
If I'm not mistaken, here in lies the answer to this whole controversy about the JS' sermon: there is an eventual point in exaltation when union with the nature of God takes place. If I've understood correctly--if this is the goal--then after such a union, we would receive worship WITH the Heavenly Father.
Have I accurately digested your point and LDS aspirations, Ray? Others?
-
And btw, our Father in heaven is also not “jealous” of His son Jesus and our worship of Him either.
Since we're all Trinitarians here, I'm not sure this is an apt solution to the question. The Father is not jealous of his Son because they are truly one. Three persons--one God. Whether our souls had a premortal existence or not, we are not one with the Father in the same way Jesus is, are we? If so, we'd have an odd mix of polyunitarianism and self-worship.
-
I merely pointed out the fact that a Christian, professing adherence to tenents of the Mosaic Law, the Ten, isn't living what they profess, that is the Gospel. Then saying "it's all good" to deflect the point..............well, let's just say that I do not suffer that easily.
Again, the Ten are the basic tenents. A Christian lives more than the basics. The Mosaic Law is a schoolteacher, per Paul. The Gospel is much more. For a Christian to claim that it is sufficient only to live by the Ten, is deluding themselves.
Okay, I think I understand what has you so passionate. To clarify:
1. I do not believe that the 10-Commandments are the be all and end all of the gospel, of Christian practice, nor that they are the core of what Christian adhere to. If you carefully read the lesson I posted you will NOT find any such assertions. So, perhaps this is a misunderstanding.
2. I was not deflecting by saying "it's all good." Please read my post carefully. I was saying that the Ten Commandments, being a part of the Bible, are a good topic. Again, you've misunderstood my intent.
3. I am a Christian, and I never did claim that the Ten Commandments were sufficent to live by. That is not in the lesson, the title, or any subpoints.
Our miscommunication seems to be that I was defending my choice of topic, and your were speaking against some ideas that the very topic of the Commandments arose in your mind. I'm not even sure we disagree about this subject.
-
My intent here is to convey my position that living the "Ten Commandments" is not enough. They are part of the Mosaic Law, which was fulfilled. Let me say again, it is not enough. If it were, then Christ would not have given the Gospel, and fulfilled that law.
Enough for what? Salvation? Holiness? Sanctification? To please God? You may have read much more into the lesson than was there. The purpose of the teaching was to explain how Christians relate to the 10-Commands, not to suggest that they and they alone are the key to spiritual enlightenment, salvation, or holiness.
For someone to claim that "it's all good" in regard to the Ten Commandments cast doubts that the same person takes the Gospel seriously, and actually believes Jesus.
My point was that it's good to teach about the 10-Commandments, the Two Great Commandments, Salvation, etc.--they're all good topics. They're all biblical topics. You've not criticized the content of my lesson, but rather the topic itself. I'm frankly baffled.
Note that I said believes Jesus, not believe in Him. Believing Him means that we actually take what He said as truth and live by it. If I misunderstood your intent, then I apologize.
I believe you have, and I'm not sure how...but WOW. To recap, I posted a lesson on the 10 Commandments, explaining a Christians understanding of them, and you responded by condemning the commandments and my choice to teach about them.
I am direct in speech and sometimes rather frank, especially on discussion boards. I take my faith seriously, and although I am flawed, I expect others to do the same.
You're serious about something, but I'm not sure what it is that has you stirred up. The 10 Commandments were given by God, and there is still good direction for us in them. There is nothing in my lesson to suggest that they are the be all or end all of salvation, holiness, or sanctification. So I'm not sure what your "serious response" is based on. Likewise, I'm truly dumbfounded as to what would give you cause to question my seriousness about the gospel or my faith in Jesus.
-
Hardly an invitation to post your "lessons". In fact I would venture to say that you could learn something in here.
When I came here back in October I was asked "Why are you here?" My answer: to learn and share. Yes, I've learned much. Yes, I've had liberty to share. Some here have expressed appreciation for what I've posted--including occasional lessons.
"it's all good" is a phrase used to justify one's actions, or lack of same when an obvious change is in order.
Your language here is curious. "Justify?" Well, I've tried to explain my 10-Commands post, because you seemed to find it troublesome--more because of the topic, than the substance of my post. It'd be a sad day when any Christian, LDS or otherwise, would have to justify any biblical topic s/he might offer discourse on.
Sorry if you found my invocation of a colloquial phrase disconcerting.
-
Thanks Shanstress..I thought that might be a delicate subject to raise with the LDS as on some forums some LDS posters appear to be trying to deny that they expect to inherit planets of their own etc.
I feel almost certain that there will be some non LDS Christians who will regard this as a blasphemous hope and will have scripture (non LDS of course!) to back up their claims. I would be interested to hear LDS and non LDS thoughts about this.
If I'm not mistaken, LDS religion Prof. Robinson (BYU) says that writings about exalted LDS inheriting planets and becoming gods of them falls within the realm of speculation. In other words, it might be believed by many, and even taught by some, but that the beliefs are not official doctrine based on clearcut scripture. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.
-
Now, my point is that Christians should be more concerned with the Beatitudes than the Ten Commandments, in that the Beatitudes are the basis of the "higher" law or the Gospel. Just because someone is living the Ten, or the bare minimum, doesn't give them the blessings of living the Gospel.
Jesus said that if we would love God and neighbor we'd fulfill all the law and prophets--and those two come out of the 613! Hey, bottom-line, it's all good. The Ten are good, the Two are good, the Beautitudes are good (by the way, were you requesting that I submit my series of lessons on Matthew 5-7????--okay--look for it). Everyone else--blame Warrior Chief for inviting me to eat up the bandwith!
-
So YOU are Tommy C Ellis!
Maybe I should hand you another roll of dimes to throw out.
Were you really that impressed with "The Woodsman"?
Perhaps the combination of working with offenders (usually internet purchasers--the mildest form, if such an adjective is appropriate to the subject), and the fact that I have three little girls, made the topic so compelling. My wife is a tough sell, and she agreed with me. We're still not sure if we'll let our soon-to-be kindergartner ride the bus the first year or not.
And I hope someday you'll ALSO be a "Book of Mormon Christian" too. :)
God's will be done.
-
Having a little knowledge of Hebrew (reading and writing) I have to point out that Judas's last name is nothing more than a geographic location. The Hebrew word "ish" (pronounced eesh) means "man." And Kerioth was a city in the Holy Land (since OT times). So his last name ish (man) + Kerioth (city) means simply: "Man from Kerioth." I think you'll find many Biblical commentaries (non-LDS included) agree. Just another tidbit for the interested. :)
I did a check of several commentaries and Bible encyclopedias, and, yes, the name Iscariot almost universally is thought to refer to Kerioth. Nevertheless, I've also heard the theories about Judas being a Zealot, so it is at least plausible. I guess I wouldn't base to many Scripture lessons on the notion though.
-
PC, I am curious as to why you would post this, in that Christ fulfilled the law when He came. The Ten Commandments are a part of the Mosaic Law. The Gospel, as taught by Christ, is much deeper that the ten basic commandments as given to the Children of Israel. Although the Ten are quite appropriate, they are not the only Commandments given. To concern oneself with only the Ten, tends to detour one away from what the Gospel is.
Christ came to fulfill the Law, not to destroy it. My purpose was to take what may be the most familiar set of Old Testament Laws and show how Christians relate to it. We often speak about obeying not the rituals, but the spirit of the Mosaic Law. This sermon shows how that plays out. We don't have to walk up stairs during the Sabbath (elevators use energy, thus = work), but we do have to keep not only from murder, but even speaking hatefully towards someone, for example.
I'm not just a New Testament Christian. I'm a Bible Christian. The Old Testament is inspired of God. It helps us understand the NT. This lesson was meant to be an example of how that works.
-
Just to give credit where due, the original article can be found HERE.
And the Archie Bunker quote was right on.
Just so you know I'm no plagiarizer--that sermoncentral contributor be me.
-
<div class='quotemain'>
I guess that guess is about as good as any other, but I'm a little more partial to the idea that Judas may have been trying to coerce Jesus into taking the role that Judas thought Jesus should have... with the idea that Judas may have been a zealot with a family connection to the Macabees (sp?).
Interesting. Where does this zealot connection come from? And interestingly, as a useless or maybe not-so-useless bit of trivia, Judas was the only one of the twelve apostles that Jesus chose who was NOT from Galilee...he was from Judea. <cue the X-Files theme music>
I got this from Wikipedia--Ray might be right here!
Some have speculated that the name of Jesus' disciple Yehuda Ish-Kerayot (Judas Iscariot) means that he was a sicarius, "daggerman" - "Judas the Zealot". However, the Latin and Hebrew words for "zealot" sound very different, so it is hard to conclude definitively.
-
Dr. T and PC, if I understand correctly, you believe that Jesus created our spirits or "us" as well as every other thing in existence. If so, that is why you interpret the scripture the way you do.
Dr. T. has not divulged what he personally believes. He's only explained how he interprets the passage. And, I would suggest that he "interprets" the passage to say Jesus created all that is, because such a reading is the most obvious understanding.
In my case, yes, I am biased, and read the passage that way, in part, because that is how the Church has understood the passage throughout history. Such an understanding conforms with mainstream Christian teaching, creedal developments, etc.
Ray, and I think I understand you, you believe that God fathered our spirits and hence this scripture cannot include "us" as the "things" Jesus created.
I think you hit on a key point: Ray's doctrinal understand REQUIRES the passage to be read differently.
Instead of debating what the scripture really means, if might be helpful for y'all to discuss the viewpoints behind your interpretations. Just a thought.
I think we know what's behind our interpretations, and what we are discussing is which understanding is the most natural and correct.
Job's Solution
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Job is a fascinating book--especially for people of faith in prisons. It's easy to relate to one who has lost much.
It dawned on me, just today, that when Job went to prayer, after his many losses, he did not pray for the restoration of family, material, or even health. He simply wanted to hear from God--to know that God was still there for him.
Perhaps Job already realized that it was not the big family, the possessions, or even physical vitality that made life meaningful. It was communion with his Creator.
Instead of trying to recapture what we once had let us simply seek the Creator, and his kingdom.