Heroes & Compassion

How do you define a hero?

Many here love their soldiers

 "Classical heroism clashed with the Bible because while the former valued power, Christ's heroism prized truth.  Other kingdoms fostered heroic deeds by cultivating racial, geographic, linguistic, religious, class, or caste pride and hatred. Jesus made love the supreme value of the kingdom of God.This love was not sentimentalism. It went beyond loving one's neighbors as oneself. Its supreme manifestation was the cross: sacrificing oneself for others, including one's enemies."

"I have set you an example..."

"Jesus' heroism replaced brutality with love, pride with meekness, and domination over others with self-sacrificing service.He exemplified this when he humbled himself, took a basin of water and a servant's towel, and started washing his disciples' feet. This, he said, is what the kingdom of God is all about. He was the King of kings and the Lord of lords. All power in heaven and on earth, he claimed, was his.  But he had come not to be served, but to serve, not to kill but to give eternal life.  These were not homilies delivered by a guru who sat on a golden throne. These teachings changed history because they emanated from a life lived in the public arena."  (pg. 134,135)

That was in a section on Heroes, but the following was on Compassion. I decided to post them together because I think self-sacrificing heroes such as Jesus display not how handy they are with swords and bombs, but how caring for others and compassion can change the world.


"Nietzsche was not alone in condemning Christian compassion. Many Hindus cannot believe that the poor are not the victims of their own karma and that God cares for the poor. They cannot understand why the West gives so much charity to serve the poor and destitute in India.They deeply suspect Western philanthropy and dislike the fact that Christians deliberately choose to serve, educate, and empower lower castes and the marginalized."  (pg. 300)

Dedicated to serving

The author then talks about how Christianity (eventually!) developed a culture of caring and compassion and how this relates to advances in modern medicine.  He speaks of the "tremendous heritage" of the Islamic civilization and its part in medicine especially Abu'l-Qasim Khalef ibn Abbas az-Zahrawi who "restored surgery to its former glory and wrote a medical encyclopedia."  He claimed plastic surgery developed first among his people, the Indians, because of the need for replacing noses that had been cut off when people acted shamefully such as committing adultery. He recognizes other civilizations' parts in medical history, however, he notes these things:

"With this tremendous heritage, Islamic civilization could have gone on to develop modern medicine, because Islam also believed in a compassionate God and respected Jesus Christ as a prophet. It failed to capitalize on its assets because it preferred to follow a military hero - Muhammad - in place of a self-sacrificing savior, Christ. Consequently, the Islamic tradition could not glorify self-giving service as a superior value."  (pg. 308)

Zorro ready to help!

Karma became another philosophical factor preventing a culture of care. A person's suffering was believed to be a result of her or his karma (deeds) in a previous life. In other words, suffering, was cosmic justice. To interfere with cosmic justice is like breaking into a jail and setting a prisoner free.  If you cut short someone's suffering, you would actually add to his suffering because he would need to come back to complete his due quota of suffering. You do not help a person when you interfere with the cosmic law of justice.

As human beings we Indians have as much natural empathy as anyone else in the world, but the doctrine of karma prevented us from turning  that natural empathy into institutions and traditions of caring.

Compassion from medical professionals

Buddhism did teach karuna (compassion) as a high value, but Buddhist compassion could not develop into a culture of care.  This was partly because Buddhism, too, believed in the doctrine of karma and partly because it taught that we must not get attached to anyone.  The Buddha had to renounce his own wife and son to find enlightenment. He saw attachment as a cause of suffering.  Detachment, therefore, became an important religious virtue.  That turned Buddhist karuna into compassion without commitment to another person.  Those whose commitment was to their own spiritual enlightenment did not have the motivation to develop a scientific medical tradition. (pg. 312)

Me and My Dad

I thought that idea of "compassion without commitment" rather interesting to consider. Is this like when we see some poor souls on television and feel sad for their plight,yet we do nothing to help? We hurt for their being raped (like in the Congo where rape is rampant) or their children starving or their families being bombed by soldiers yet we do nothing, we commit none of our time or money or energy into changing things.

What most stood out to you as you read this?  Any thoughts, comments, corrections, additions?


quotes from The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalwadi

On My Southern Belle Qualifications

So yesterday I was posting something on Facebook that made me find a picture of the Cowardly Lion for my friend, Nasr. 

I'll leave it to your imagination why I thought of cowardly lions.

Somehow that lead me to showing Samer a clip from The Wizard of Oz since he'd never seen this movie before.

This lead to our speaking of Gone with the Wind. Oh yes, I think we were talking about how people in old-timey movies had odd accents.  Samer showed me this clip from Citizen Kane and we discussed whether Americans still talked this way.

We decided no.

So that's what lead to Gone with the Wind.  Because Samer is enamoured with southern accents and I was trying to find a movie displaying this most charming characteristic of genuine Southernness.

I think he started reading more about this movie because soon he asked me what a Southern belle was. 

"Look it up and tell me what you find," says bossy Susie (who was on the floor recording some donations for work.)

Samer obeys.  (Who says men aren't trainable?)

"Susie, let me see if this describes you."  So he started reading the Wikipedia article out loud.

A southern belle (derived from the French word belle, 'beautiful') is an archetype for a young woman of the American Old South's upper class.

A southern belle had a lot of rules in order to behave. Pants/trousers were not allowed on girls; they always had to wear a dress that covered their ankles and their wrists. Not doing so would result in accusations of being a tomboy, a prostitute and in some cases a lesbian. These rules became more relaxed in the 1940's when most of the men were fighting in the war, and companies began to hire women to do the work in the men's absence.

Speaking to someone who was not white, rich, or properly dressed was taboo for young girls, as well as talking about bodily functions and sexual themes. Even the word "pregnant" was banned for little girls to say, considering the word vulgar.

Women could never raise their voices at all. [Here Samer inserted, "This stuff sounds like the Middle East!" and then, "Nope, Susie, this isn't you. You yell sometimes!"]  They always had to be kind and polite to everyone they meet. When talking to others, women had to use proper grammar at all times and to never say swear words. Getting into rough, physical fights was only permitted for young boys and never girls.

We concluded that I didn't fit the description and Samer was glad.  According to this article, I would not be allowed to talk to him since he's not "white."

My sweet Arab friend in Switzerland - March 2010

Amber did a cute post about Southern Culture for outsiders. It is a compilation of things she and her friends came up with one night as they were discussing the subject.

I just wanted to record this because I found the whole conversation rather cute. Especially when Samer reminded me that I sometimes yell.

Who meeee?

Bless his heart.

Doing God's Dirty Work: because it's obvious He can't keep us straight without help!

"Islam and Christianity share in common the idea of moral absolutes. The difference is that Allah is too majestic to come into a dirty manger or into a filthy heart. If God does not come into this world to save sinners, then other sinners -- dictators and tyrants -- have to do the dirty work of restraining our sinfulness. But by cleansing us from the inside, Jesus makes possible inner self-government, socio-political freedom, and clean public life."


Of course this statement discounts all the wonderful people who treat people fairly and with compassion without the help of Jesus, but this bit about others having to "do the dirty work of restraining our sinfulness" made me laugh as I thought about the religious police in some countries and posts I've read about them using black markers to cover parts of women's bodies, cross out pigs and such things they deem immoral for the masses to see**. 

Piglet blacked out due to his being a pig

Even the Hasidic Jewish newspaper that smudged out Hillary Clinton in the photo the other day due to the sexual suggestiveness of posting pictures of women...I guess that would qualify!  Don't want to lead anyone astray by seeing a female face!  Is this one of the reasons given for strongly encouraging (if not forcing) women to cover their hair and bodies in some cultures?  (While many say they do it for God, I've read enough to wonder if men are thought to be animals unable to control themselves when they see women thus the women must hide.  To this I say, maybe the wild dogs need to be chained until they can act like they would if God were standing right there beside them observing how they treat the women He created.) 


I know we have people even here who want to dictate our morals, but so far I've not known of any who go quite to this extreme. 

Piglet is still safe for us to love!

By the way I'm really enjoying The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalwadi and am so glad I got it for my birthday!


What morality police/political-control tactics do you find most alarming, silly or irritating where you live?






**Here are a couple of posts from 2008 touching on the subject of the religious police: from Clouddragon and Susie of Arabia.

quote from pg. 258-9 

Yearning for something more

It's uncanny how often at least one article in the InTouch magazine speaks to me each month. Often it's more than one. I have oftentimes thought God uses it to speak to my heart about certain issues. It's quite amazing how often articles in it correlate with things I'm struggling with or trying to understand better.

In the May 2011 issue, this article from Sharon Hersh was the one I dog-eared. I decided to look for it online and found it!  I'll only share this excerpt, but you can read the whole thing here if you'd like.

Take a moment to think about what your relationships would look like—especially the hard ones—if they were images hanging on the wall. Even if some evoke feelings of sadness, shame, anger, or disappointment, isn’t there something else within them as well? In and out, around, and through all of our foolish scheming, desire tugs at our hearts. We mistakenly believe this yearning is calling us to something merely external. It seems as though what we seek exists just around the corner, but when we get there, it’s gone.

Our longing for connection is so strong that even after turning the corner a thousand times, we’re compelled to hope with each new opportunity, even if in a small way, This is going to be the “one”—the experience that works, that will fulfill me.

Yet as Augustine wisely noted, “Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee, O Lord.” It’s humbling to realize that God designed this need to compel us toward His love. He created us with a thirst for communion with Him. But that desire often gets confused by life’s struggles and disappointments, especially when we rely solely upon others to satisfy it. Confusion, frustration, and disappointment remain constant in the midst of romances and friendships that come and go.

I don't feel I have a lot of painful past relationships that I need to work through, but I could relate to this yearning aspect and the thought that "if only I could do this, I would be satisfied."  Truly I know that's not what satisfies people, but isn't it crazy how we know this on some level yet keep hoping for more on the off chance that this one last thing, relationship or experience truly will be the key to satisfying our souls?

Does anyone else ever long for things or am I the only one?  Do you thirst for more or are you satisfied?

Limiting God to Holy Languages

In an age when some sought communication from extraterrestrials, ruling out revelation from God appeared to be arrogant bigotry. I decided to read the world's best-known scriptures to see if the Creator had given revelation.

My professor of Indian philosophy took pains to cultivate in our class a deep respect for the Hindu scriptures.  Yet, he never asked us to read the Vedas - the primary and holiest Hindu texts.  So I decided to study them. I went to the bookstall of the Gita Press, Gorakhpur -- the Bible Society's Hindu counterpart.  To my astonishment I was told that I could buy Vedic commentaries, but the Vedas themselves had never been published in Hindi, my mother tongue and India's national language!

"Why?" I asked the bookseller.  "Don't priests want us to know God's revelation?"

The bookseller gently explained that the Vedas could never be translated because they were too sacred and difficult to understand. Besides, understanding was not necessary. They were never written to teach truth. They were mantras to be memorized and correctly chanted with careful pronunciation, enunciation and intonation.  Their magic was in the sound, not in the meaning. To learn the Vedas, I must find a competent guru and spend years at his feet practicing the art of Vedic chanting, while performing prescribed sacrifices.

Next he wanted to read the Quran, but was unable to find it published in Hindi or Urdu despite the fact he lived in Allahabad "the abode of Allah."  Too bad this was before the Internet became popular because I'm sure he could easily find what he is searching for now.*

Several things stood out to me from this excerpt.

1. I like that he wanted to read leading world Scriptures to find out if it were possible that God had tried to communicate with man.

2.  Their magic being in the sound reminds me of some who say the Quran should be read/learned in Arabic because it just loses its oomph when translated. Indeed I remember Samer and me reading some passages of the Quran in English and his admitting to me that they seem so different when translated to what my heart and mind understand.  I guess the magic of the Quran is in its hypnotic sound when recited in its original tongue.  Not that that is magical to me.  Especially if the pretty sounding words in reality are telling me I'm going to burn in hell, boil in water and eat prickly fruit because I've committed shirk.  Know what I mean?

3. I'm thankful the Bible has been translated into the common languages. Sure nuances of words and idioms are lost in translation, but I think my God is big enough that He can convey His message for humankind in the heart languages of each of the people of His creation.  No need for me to learn Sanskrit or Arabic or Hebrew to know what God really wants. He knows English and can speak to me in English if He chooses! 

 I can understand powerful priests of old wanting to keep the Bible in the "churchy language" that the silly little commoners could never understand. What power to be the ones to tell the masses what God has said!  And how corrupting this can be - and was!

People who limit God to speaking in one language or communicating best in only one language are, quite frankly, limiting the Almighty God. Do they really want to go there?  And those who say it must be so for the sake of power and control over people are gravely mistaken as far as I'm concerned.

Don't limit God to your language! He can speak 'em all!




excerpt from pg. 44-45, The Book That Made Your World by Vishal Mangalwadi

*And maybe this bookseller just didn't want to admit that he did not have these books in stock!   :-)

Hear ye, hear ye ... I have an announcement to make!

So last evening, May 3, 2011 

Zach holding his daddy's finger

I got a new nephew to go along with the adorable one I already have, Michael!

Zachary Alexander  

about 45 minutes after Zach was born

Welcome to our hearts, little buddy!

Zachary means "the Lord remembers"  source

On Being God's "Other"

The other day I introduced Joseph's Bones by Jerome M. Segal. He writes the book which covers the first six books of the Hebrew Bible as one reading a novel. He tries to write with little regard for the traditional understanding, but just as one reading the Hexateuch for the first time.

I've already informed you of a few thoughts from the book. Here is a bit more for you to mull over.  Please let me know what you think.

First of all, you know how people say you can't understand light unless darkness exists? You can't appreciate joy and happiness without the days of suffering and pain?  Well, along the same lines, sort of,  the author says we cannot have a God without humans. Or God needs us in order to have the god/human relationship. We are God's "Other."  Oh, let me just quote it from the book.

"...It is only by virtue of being the God of a people that God can be God.  What is at stake for God -- and here I mean from the very beginning of the story, when he creates man in his image -- is the question of his own reality. God's fundamental project is To Be, and for this he needs mankind, and ultimately he decides that he needs a specific people, the Israelites.  The paradox is that a god that calls himself 'I Am' can only be if there are others that recognize him as God."   (pg. 111)

and

"Perhaps being a god involves having a certain position in a relationship, just as being a master or slave requires the existence of the other.  Perhaps a being is a god only if it is recognized as such, only if it is prayed to, only if it is seen as a god by a non-god."  (pg. 113)


Do you agree that we are God's "Other" and that He needs us in this way?  Do you believe God only exists if we recognize Him in a superior state of being than our own?



Also the book portrays God as having to restrain Himself from killing these creatures He made. Thus the rainbow given after the Flood.  Thus the reason He put Moses as a mediator between Himself and the Israelites.  Moses was His rainbow.  The reminder to not destroy all the people.  Leviticus was a covenant God gave to restrain His own behavior.




About God giving Moses His name as "I Am That I Am" -- "It suggests that God is saying that his nature, his way of being, is somehow different from that of humans, conveying a kind of self-sufficiency or independence of being." (pg. 105)  Which the author says is entirely not how God - who is portrayed as actively and emotionally involved in the lives of the Israelites - actually is.


OK, thoughts on any of this?