Pathian Hmuihmel Kengih Sersiammi Kan Si

Seem 1:27

Cuticun Pathian in milai * cu a seemsuah; Pathian in amah ih hmuihmel vekin a seemsuah. Pathian in mipa le nunau a seemsuah a si.

Thuhmaihruai

Leilung tlunah a hlawhtling zetmi pakhat tla na si thei men. Asinan, na nunnak hi Pathian ih a lo hmuitinmi ah na feh ngah hrih lo tla a si thei. Hlawh tlingmi nunnak timi le Pathian ih tumtahnak lamzin ih feh ngah hi a bang aw lo (Being successful and fulfilling your life purpose is not the same). Pakhat cio in zo ka si? Pathian in ka nunnak hi ziangtuah dingah I tumtah sak timi theih awk ding hi a thupi bik. Tuantein na nauhak lai ih na theih ngah le, nun thaw reipi le tampi in na ei ngah ding. Tlai hnupi lawng ih na theih ahcun, tlai hnu pi lawngah cuih nun duhnung le nun thaw cu tlai hnu pi lawngah na ei ngah ding.

Leilung tlun ih kan nunnak hi ziangruangah Pathian in in sersiam? Ziang tuah dingah, ziangti ih um dingah kan nunnak Pathian in in sersiam ti si pei ti ih theih hi a thupi tuk lawm lam. A tawi zawng cun, zo ka si (Who am I?) timi a si.

1. Pathian ih palai, a aiawhtu kan si.

Seem 1:27

“Cuticun Pathian in milai cu a seemsuah; Pathian in amah ih hmuihmel vekin a seemsuah. Pathian in mipa le nunau a seemsuah a si.”

Bible in Pathian ih hmuihmel keng ih sersiammi nan si tiah in sim. Pathian ih hmuihmel keng cu ziangvek a si pei? Mihrek in Pathian ih hmuihmel kan kennak cu kan thuruah theinak, thlarua neitu kan sinak ti pawl hi a si tiah an sim. Cucu ontological interpretation tiah ti a si. A sullam cu kan sungih thil ummi, kan neihmi lam zoh ih sim daan a si. Asinan, kei cun, functional interpretation timi nun daan ding lam thupi ah re in simfiang ka duh.

Mesopotamia ram ahcun, Siangpahrang pawl hi Pathian ih hmuihmel kengih sersiammi an si tiah an ti. An sim duhmi cu Siangpahrang pawl cu Pathian aiawhtu ah Pathian ih a sersiammi a si tiah an sim. Mesopotamia ram timi cu Middle ram pawl hmuahhmuah khi an si ko.

Mesopotamia timi cu Greek tong in a rami a si ih, a sullam cu tiva pahnih karlak ram tinak a si.[1]

Bible hi Mesopotamia ram sung ummi pawl lak ihsin Pathian ih a suah termi a si.  Bible cun, Seem 1:27 sungah, Siangpahrang pawl lawng Pathian hmuihmel keng ih sersiam an si a ti lo. Minung zate pi in Pathian ih hmuihmel keng ih sersiam kan si tiah a ti. Asullam cu minung pawl hi Pathian ih palai, kusale kan si tinak a si.

Kan sinak taktak, kan identity taktak cu England Siangpahrang ih palai, Obama ih palai vek men kan si lo. Pathian, lei le van a sersiamtu ih palai, amah aiawhtu sokhaw kan si.

Cui a palai pawl cun ziang si an hnatuan? Pathian aiawhtu, a palai ih an tuah dingmi cu Pathian in leitlun ah a tuah duhmi pawl kha leitlun ah kim tertu ding an si. Jesuh in hitin thlacam uh tiah in zirh, “Vancung ah na duhnak a kim bang in leitlun khal ah kim ter ve aw.” Cumi cu kan thlacam dingmi a si. Cumi Pahtian ih duhnak cu kan pumpak nunnak ah, kan innsang ah, kan Kawhhran ah, kan hnatuannak le umnak kip ah kim ter ding cu Pathian palai le Amah aiawhtu pawl ih kan hnatuan le nun mansan cu a si.

Curuangah, leilung tlunah Pathian in in nun ternak san cu kanmai duhmi kim ter dingah a si lo. Amah Pathian ih duhnak kim ter dingah in nun ter sawnmi kan si. Curuangah si Matt 6:33 sungah, Jesuh in nan ei in ding le sinfen ding hrangah khuaruah har in um hlah uh, Pathian in nan tul ti a lo thei. Cu hnak in, Pathian in ziang tuah ter I duh timi kha hawl hmaisa sawn uhla, nan tulmi cu a lo bet ding a si tiah in sim.

2. Jesuh thisen ih leimi Pathian fa kan si.

Asinan, a poi zetmi cu zozo khal Pathian duhmi hnak in kan maih duhmi kim ter dingah kan buai ih, zin kan hlo theu. Sualnak kan tuah ih, Pathian palai si lo in, Satan palai ah kan nunnak kan pe aw theu. Cucing khal ah Pathian in a palai pawl kha in hnong siang lo ih, kan sual zet lai cingah a fapa Jesuh a run thlah ih, kan sualnak a thisen in in kholhfai sak  (Rom 5:8). A thisen in ka sual kholhfai a si zo timi a zumtu pawl kha sual nei dah lomi nunnak neitu ah a can ter a si (2 Cor 5:17). Cuih tlun ah  Pathian fa sinak (Rom 8:14-17) le kumkhua nunnak khal in pek.

Eph 1:13-14 … Pathian amah ta nan sinak hminsinnak ah Thlarau Thianghlim in pek.

 Jn 5:24 … “Ka simmi a thei ih a zumtu cu kumkhua nunnak an nei”

1 Jn 5:13 … “Fapa a zumtu in kumkhua nunnak kan nei ti nan theihnak dingah, hi cakuat hi nan hnen ah ka ngan a si”

3. Jesuh Khrih thawn bang aw ding ih sersiammi kan si.

Pathian ih duhmi hi kan tuah dingmi a si ahcun, Pathian ih duhmi cu ziang a si timi hi kan theih a tul. Cumi kan fiang theinak dingah Pathian cu a fapa Jesuh Khrih sung in leitlun ah rung lang. A fapa Jesuh Khrih hmang in a duhmi le nun ter in duh daan pawl a langh ter.

Rom 8:29

Pathian in a hriil ciami pawl cu a Fapa hmuihmel keng dingah a thiadang cia hai; cuti cun unau tampi lakah a Fapa cu upa bik a sinak dingah a si.

Zumtu a simi cu Jesuh Khrih thawn bang aw ding ih sersiammi kan si. Jesuh Khrih thawn kan nunnak, kan thinlung put bang aw ih kan feh tlang ding hi a thupi bik.

Andrei Bitov, Russian noverlist in, “Kum 27 ka ti ah, nunnak timi cu tu a suak ih a cemhlo men ti ka ruat ih, nun ka paih nawn lo. Cu lai ah, Pathian ii pan ter tu catluan te cu, ‘Pathian tel lo ih nun cu sullam a nei lo. Without God life makes no sense.’” Pathian tel lo ih nun cu, fehtumnak um lomi mawtaw mawn vek men a si. Jesuh Khrih nun daan thawn artlaang ih feh lomi nunnak cu vur lak ih lam hlomi vek kan si.

Thunetnak

Unau pawl tuih sunah zo ka si ti na thei aw maw? Ka thinlung put le nun daan teh ziangtin a si ding ti na thei maw?

1.     Nang cu leitlun ah Pathian aiawhtu le a palai na si.

2.     A palai ti men lawng a duh lo ih, a fapa ah a lak zomi na si.

3.     Pathian aiawhtu ding pawl ih kan nun daan ding cu Jesuh Khrih thawn bang aw ding hi a si.

 by Sanno

---

[1] http://www.urkesh.org/urkeshpublic/history.htm

Midang Thawn Pawlkomawk Daan Phunli

by San No Thuan

1.     Midang thawn a zuam ringringtu pawl (Competition)

a.     Midang ih thiam lo mi kha thiam zuam

b.     Midang khal theihmi le thiammi hlawm tum lo

c.      Midang an tthanso ding thinphang ih um ringring.

2.     Midang kha ral vek ih a zohtu pawl (Confrontation)

a.     A kiangkap ummi pawl ih thu a el, a dokalh.

b.     Midang ih that lo nak hawl ringring.

c.      Miih hnen ah, midang ih thuhla sia rel le sim hmang.

3.     Midang khal ziang ziar lo ih, mahte um ih um (Avoidance)

a.     Midang ih biak tik khal ah thei lo vek ih um ih let duh lo.

b.     Maih ngaihmi minung lawng biak ih, midang biak duh lo.

c.      Midang ih thu an sim an ruah lai ah, tlaansan men.

4.     Midang kha a ttanpi ringring tu (Complement)

a.     Midang ih sambaunak te kha a khuh sak.

b.     An ning zak lo ding in, an thiam lonak kha a sim.

c.      Amai rual tha si ter tum lo in Amah kha an rual tha ah a cang.

d.     Midang ih thatnak kha a lawm thiam.

e.     Midang lam ttang in a ttong.  

Treating people as ends to themselves but not as mere means to an end?

San No Thuan

A sawh duhmi taktak cu, "Midang in kan parah tuah hngai seh ti na duhmi kha, midang parah va tuah ve aw" timi a 

Treating people as means: Na duhmi tuah ngahnak ding hrangah midang hrang ruat lo in tuah hlah tinak a si. 

Treating people as ends: Midang thatnak ding hrangah, nangmah sawn in tuan ding zuam sawn aw tinak a si. 

Caan tampi ah mi thawn kan biak awk tikah, kan thin a tawinaknak bik cu, midang in kan maih duhmi an kim ter thei lo tikah a si bik. Cu tikah, na santlai lo tuk tiah kan ti lohli ih, kan thin a tawi ciamco. Cu tikah, kan theih lo pi in, midang kha kan mai duhmi kim tertu ding pawl an si, kei cu “Boss,” annih cu “Servant” timi lungput tha lo neitu kan rak si sual pang theu.. 

Asinan, Bawi Jesuh in in fialmi cu, midang ih rianhmi si lo in, midang riantu sawn va si aw tihi a si (Mk 10:45).  Midang kha na thil tuah duhmi tuahnak ding men ah hmang hlah. Midang ih duhnak kim ter sawn ding hi a thupi bik ah ruat aw.

Kan maih duhmi tuah sak dingah, midang kha thil kan fial pang tikah, kan thinlung sungah kan ret dingmi cu, "Anih hi ii bawmtu ah Pathian in i pekmi Vancungmi a si tiah ruat aw, tihzah upatnak thawn zaangfah dil aw." Zaangfah tein, ii bawm thei pei maw ... tiah tangdornak thawn dil aw.    

Are men stupid?

By Frida Ghitis, Special to CNN

updated 7:19 AM EDT, Mon April 23, 2012

Former Sen. John Edwards leaves the courthouse after the first day of jury selection in his trial in Greensboro, North Carolina.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Frida Ghitis: Secret Service scandal is latest example of career-ending misbehavior
• She says men in positions of power and prominence risk everything
• John Edwards, a former presidential candidate, is on trial due to his misjudgment
• Ghitis: The common cause is arrogance, the belief they can get away with it

Editor's note: Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review. A former CNN producer/correspondent, she is the author of "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television."

(CNN) -- Are men stupid? How else can we explain the endless parade of otherwise successful individuals, who by all appearances seem intelligent and competent, and yet risk destroying their careers and their personal lives over the chance to have a sexual escapade?

John Edwards crashing from the heights of promise to infamy, from presidential candidate to defendant in a trial after a secret affair; Secret Service agents ending their careers in disgrace over dalliances with prostitutes in Colombia, all join that long procession of men who managed to self-destruct, pulling a pin on the grenade of their careers and perhaps their personal lives for the sake of a little fun.

The pageant of legacy-killing misjudgment includes a president, several might-have-been presidents, a few governors, a World Bank director, a former Dutch prime minister, an Israeli president and one of the top golfers of all time. And that is only a partial list.

Frida Ghitis

How to explain it?

The question has baffled women, mostly, since biblical times.

Perhaps the Secret Service agents thought their behavior, if discovered, would raise no eyebrows. But the stupidity was in evidence when one of the agents, who had earlier "protected" Sarah Palin, posted on Facebookthat he was "checking her out." Sounds like the claim of a 13-year-old boy. And the decision to post the comment displays the common sense of an 8-year-old.

But that level of maturity and judgment shines compared to the decision of, say President Bill Clinton, who risked his presidency to have an affair with Monica Lewinsky, and then lied about it repeatedly.

A brilliant man, everyone said about the president, but also one of only two presidents in American history impeached.

The Clinton experience almost numbed us to the epidemic scale of the problem. Over and over we hear stories that defy belief.

Men whose lives are filled with gifts and opportunity, men who have worked hard to achieve, risk it all and sometimes lose it all.

There's Edwards, of course, he of the winning smile, the heart-warming marriage, the beautiful children, and the gorgeous hair, still young enough to contemplate another run at the White House,now facing prison time after revelations that he had an affair, a child, and a complicated and foolish coverup during the last campaign

Another who might have reached the presidency, had he not succumbed to the same meltdown of reason is former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, the law and order guy who threw it all away to cavort with prostitutes. He might have known someone would take relish in turning him in.

Some try to explain it as biology, testosterone's fault, they say. Others blame complex psychological needs. "The appeal of hookers lies in the temporary psychic relief they supply to men struggling with conflicts about guilt and responsibility," wrotepsychologist Michael Bader.

But I believe the common denominator, the proximate cause of the irrational behavior, is arrogance; the belief by some powerful men that they can get away with it. That the world is still their unchallenged domain, as it was years ago, when few people knew about a president bringing women to the White House to have sex, as John F. Kennedy did, or pressuring his secretary to yield to sexual advances, as was common. It is willful ignorance that the world has changed.

The sudden-IQ-drop syndrome affects Democrats and Republicans, Americans and Europeans, people of all colors and professions.

Did Tiger Woods think nobody would even learn about his affairs, with more than a dozen alleged relationships?

Did former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican, who couldn't come up with an excuse so he simply disappeared to meet his Argentinian lover, think no one would find out?

Then there's the Democratic congressman who might have become mayor of New York. Anthony Weiner's tweeting ranks near the top of the stupidity charts.

But the competition is arduous. Republican Christopher Lee answered a Craigslist ad with a photograph of his flexed biceps, describing himself as a "fit fun classy guy."

Across the Atlantic, the man who almost everyone expected to become the next president of France, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, married to a multi-millionaire, may or may not have assaulted a maid at his New York hotel. (DSK denied the charges and the criminal case against him was dropped by prosecutors. He is seeking dismissal of a civil suit.)He now is under investigation in connection with procuring prostitutes for parties, a crime under French law.

The former Dutch Prime Minister, Ruud Lubbers, called it a "friendly gesture" after a woman accused him of "grabbing her behind." Lubbers had served as prime minister of the Netherlands, crowning a stellar career with a post as U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, when the accusations came. A U.N. investigation found no proof, but discovered a pattern of sexual harassment by the commissioner, which he also denied.

That we're finding out about these men, and that their political careers are in many cases ending, is a sign that society is changing. That it continues to happen, to seemingly intelligent, disciplined individuals, is a sign that the process will be slow. And that, in the final analysis, if it has to do with sex, some men really are stupid.

Follow us on Twitter: @CNNOpinion

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

A crowd gathers in Marion, Indiana, in 1930 to witness a lynching. This photograph inspired the poem and song “Strange Fruit.” April 21st, 2012 10:00 PM ET Share Comments (922 comments) Permalink America’s ‘angriest’ theologian faces lynching tree By John Blake, CNN (CNN) - When he was boy growing up in rural Arkansas, James Cone would often stand at his window at night, looking for a sign that his father was still alive. Cone had reason to worry. He lived in a small, segregated town in the age of Jim Crow. And his father, Charlie Cone, was a marked man. Charlie Cone wouldn’t answer to any white man who called him “boy.” He only worked for himself, he told his sons, because a black man couldn’t work for a white man and keep his manhood at the same time. Once, when he was warned that a lynch mob was coming to run him out of his home, he grabbed a shotgun and waited, saying, “Let them come, because some of them will die with me.” CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories James Cone knew the risks his father took. So when his father didn’t come home at his usual time in the evenings, he’d stand sentry, looking for the lights from his father’s pickup truck. “I had heard too much about white people killing black people,” Cone recalled. “When my father would finally make it home safely, I would run and jump into his arms, happy as I could be.” Cone takes on a theological giant Cone left his hometown of Bearden, Arkansas, and became one of the world’s most influential theologians. But the memories of his father and lynch mobs never left him. Those memories shaped his controversial theology, and they saturate his recent memoir, “The Cross and the Lynching Tree.” Cone, who once called himself “the angriest theologian in America,” is still angry. His book is not just a memoir of growing up in the Jim Crow era; it’s a blistering takedown of white churches, and one of America’s greatest theologians, Reinhold Niebuhr - a colossal figure often cited by the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Today, Niebuhr’s importance is acknowledged by both liberal and conservative Christian leaders. President Obama once called him one of his favorite philosophers. Niebuhr, the author of classics such as “The Irony of American History,” died in 1971 after a lifetime of political activism. Cone, however, said neither Niebuhr nor any other famous white pastor at the time spoke out against the most brutal manifestation of white racism in the 20th century America: lynching. Between 1880 and 1940, Cone says, an estimated 5,000 black men and women were lynched. Their murders were often treated as festive affairs. Women and children cut off the ears of lynching victims as souvenirs. People mailed postcards of lynchings. One postcard of a charred lynching victim read, “This is the barbeque we had last night.” But Niebuhr said nothing about lynching, little about segregation, and once turned down King’s request to sign a petition calling on the president to protect black children integrating Southern schools, Cone said. Niebuhr’s decision not to speak out against lynching encouraged other white theologians and ministers to follow suit, Cone said, because Niebuhr was considered the nation’s greatest theologian. “White theologians didn’t say anything about lynching,” Cone said from his office atUnion Theological Seminary in New York, where he teaches a course on Niebuhr. “I tried to find a white theologian who addressed it in a sustained way. No one did it.” Cone’s criticism of Niebuhr baffles at least one well-known Niebuhr scholar. Charles Lemert, author of “Why Niebuhr Matters,” said King often cited Niebuhr as an inspiration. He said he’d never heard that Niebuhr rejected a petition request from King. “It would be so remote from everything the man was.” Lemert said Niebuhr had established a long record of speaking out against racism, beginning when he became a pastor in Detroit. Niebuhr may not have spoken out against lynching and other forms of racism later on because of another reason, Lemert said. “He had a debilitating stroke in 1951,” Lemert said. “By the time the civil rights movement was full blown, he was retired and getting ill.” Why Cone is angry Cone has spent much of his career condemning the white church for saying little about slavery or racial justice. Yet his pugnacious reputation doesn’t jibe with his appearance. He is a slight man with a boyish face, cinnamon complexion and dimples. He has a high-pitched voice that drips with the Southern inflections of his native Arkansas. Cone first gained attention in 1969 with the release of “Black Theology and Black Power,” a book he wrote after urban race riots and King’s assassination. That book took theology out of academia and placed it on the still-smoldering streets. He became known as the father of “black liberation theology.” He said God was black (he meant it figuratively) because God was closest to those who were oppressed and despised - black people in America. Cone said his passion for justice comes from growing up in the black church. Cone blended the racial pride of the black power movement with an emphasis on social justice that had been a part of the black church since enslaved Africans first read the Bible. Jesus' primary message, he said, wasn't about getting people to heaven, but liberating people here and now from oppression - racial, economic and spiritual. Cone said he was tired of white theologians writing about an otherworldly theology while cities burned and blacks were murdered by racists. “I felt like I was the angriest black theologian in America,” he once wrote in his book “Risks of Faith.” “I had to speak out.” Cone inspired some and angered others. Critics say he developed a divisive, racist theology that describes God as black and whites as evil. They say he’s stuck in the '60s and never abandoned the bitterness of growing up in segregation. Supporters say Cone exposed the hypocrisy of white churches and gave voice to helpless, poor and oppressed Christians in places as far away as China and Latin America. The Rev. James Ellis III, an author who has been both critical and supportive of Cone, says before Cone, theology was interpreted through a white male perspective. Cone has inspired not only blacks but also women and other racial minorities to enter seminaries and the pulpit, he says. “Whether you agree with Cone or not, he’s definitely someone you need to deal with,” said Ellis, author of “OnThaGrindCuzin: The School Daze of Being ‘Incognegro’ in 1619.” “He takes the gloves off and gets down to the nitty-gritty.” Jonathan Walton, an assistant professor of African American Religious Studies at Harvard University, said listening to Cone is like “listening to a Hebrew prophet.” For many people, Walton says, Cone “exposed that the God that they were worshiping was more consistent with the Pharaoh in Egypt than the Hebrew children.” Cone said people still misunderstand his theology. He said he does not believe that whites are more sinful than others. “God made us all as brothers and sisters,” he said. “I’m mad when people don’t treat others as brothers and sisters. I’m concerned about the suffering of all people, not just black people. If anybody is being treated unjustly, I’m with them.” Singing about the ‘Hoochie Coochie Man’ Cone said his passion for justice comes from growing up in the black church. In his recent memoir, he describes how blacks relied on music and faith to deal with the cruelty of segregation. On Saturday nights, he said, blacks in his hometown would go to juke joints with names like Sam’s Place to hear blues songs like “Hoochie Coochie Man.” On Sunday mornings, some of the same people would go to church to sing spirituals like “Lord, I Want to be a Christian in My Heart.” Church comforted Cone, but it also made him ask questions. “My thing was, if the white churches are Christian, how come they segregate us? And if God is God, why is He letting us suffer?” The cross, he said, helped him find some answers. He said many white Christians “spiritualize” the cross, seeing it as a penalty Jesus had to pay for mankind’s sins. But black Christians, starting with the slaves who took up the Bible, also viewed the cross as a way to cope with suffering. Blacks looking at the images of lynching victims took heart from Jesus’ suffering on the cross and his resurrection, Cone said. He writes: “Black Christians believed that just knowing that Jesus went through an experience of suffering in a manner similar to theirs gave them faith that God was with them, even in suffering on lynching trees just as God was present with Jesus in suffering on the cross.” Cone also talked about his personal suffering in his memoir. He writes about his wife, Sandra, who died of cancer in 1983. He saw her on the night she died. He said they were joking and laughing as she chided him for not leaving her hospital room to get rest. He finally did leave, but she died at 3 that morning. Thinking about the cross helped him grieve, he said. “God talked me through that,” he said, his voice softening. “You look suffering right in you eye and say, ‘You may get me, but you’re not going to have the last word.’ ” Cone also talks about his parents, Charlie and Lucy, who inspired him and his two brothers. Charlie was a woodcutter who encouraged his wife to return to school, where she eventually earned a college degree. “I didn’t grow up with a lot of fear,” he said. “I just thought my mother and father would protect me.” One of Cone’s fears today, though, is that the contemporary black church is losing its distinctive theology. He said there’s less talk about justice and more talk about prosperity. “You go to almost any black church today, and you don’t hear spirituals anymore,” he said. “What you hear is this happy, ‘I’m prosperous’ kind of stuff. I’m not for that. You don’t come to church to be entertained. You come to wrestle with your spirit.” Cone may still be angry, but he’s also mellowed. He’s tempered some of the voltage from the language he used in his earlier books. And he’s accepted criticism from some black women theologians who said he didn’t include the perspective of black women in his works. Yet thoughts of his childhood and his parents never seem far off. In his books and lectures, he returns once again to them, especially when people compliment him for his boldness. In one essay, Cone wrote: “At most, what I say and do are just dim reflections of what my parents taught and lived.” John Blake - CNN Writer