"... Many things I could say on this, Lord, to make me understand that I do not understand me; but as I know that You understand them, what do I speak for? For when I was awake and see my pittance, my God, and my reason was blind, I could try to find her here on this paper written by my hand. As many times I see myself, my God, so vile and weak and fainthearted, that I go to find what your servant did herself, the one that thought that already had got favors from You to fight against the tempests of this world. No, my God, no, no more confidence in thing that I could want for me; let You want for me what You wanted to want, that I want that, since all my good is in pleasing You. And if You, my God, wanted to please me, fulfilling all that my wish asks for, I see that take my loss.

How misserable is the wisdom of mortals, and how insecure is their providence! Let You privide by yours the necessary means for my soul serves You more at Your like than at her like. Do not punish me giving to me what I want or wish, if Your love -- let it live in me forever -- did not wish. Let die this me, and let live in me other that in greater this me, for I could serve him. Let him live and give me life, let him reign and let me be captive, that my soul does not want another freedom. How can someone be free being strange to the Almighty? What is a greater and more miserable captivity than a soul being free from the hand of her Creator? ... "

(TO BE CONTINUED)

 
I forgot to mention the origin of this text:

¡QUERED VOS DE MI LO QUE QUISIEREDES QUERER!
(Let You Want For Me What You Wanted To Want!)

Teresa de Jesús, 1568.

ooopppss .... I meant: 

"Let this me die, and let live in me other that IS greater THAN me" ....

The English imperative tense is turning me crazy !!! LOL ...

These faults of spelling and grammar bring me some unpleasant moments: I remember once that I forgot to type the particle "NOT" and I said:

"Cause God commands us to sin" .... LOL

When I read the title : And God replies NO to God ... I could understand that God says "NO TO GOD!", as it was a negation against God (as of the sort of a slogan like NO TO WAR!) ... But what I mean is that God replies NO to a petition from God .... Perhaps a better title would have been "God Replies God NO" ... ????? or maybe "God replies Himself NO" ... ??? or "God Replies NO To Himself" ... ??? ....

 ??????????
 
 Could you help me ???
 

Alvaro,
I understood what you said the first time.
If one doesn't understand the Trinity or Godhead then it does sound like a double negative.
Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are all aspects of the Father.
We all know how fathers tell their sons, No. lmao

Mutt

Well, the problem is that that Father and that Son have a relation that goes beyond human paternity... Surely God uses the words "father" and "son" to try to make us understand what the thing is about more or less, knowing our limited inteligences, and we believe that God really knows how to describe Himself .... Yes, in this case we are not talking of a human father that says NO to his human son, being both independent individuals, separated beings; but of a Being that presents 3 aspects or personalities (we say personalities, cause they are the most simmilar to personality: will, inteligence, memory, mind), and an episode that relates an event between 2 of them:

The 2nd Person first asks the 1st one to liberate Him from a trouble, but at the same time, that 2nd Person admits that He wills to do what the 1st one wishes, no matter what it was... Then, which is the sense of this prayer of petition? In 1947 C.S. Lewis arrived to the conclussion that the sense of that prayer is about getting a comfort: the comfort of a man having someone that at least hears him  though one knows his petition would be denied. But Teresa of Jesus got that same conclussion pretty before, in 1566: (This often happens, we pay attention to modern authors, when actually the old ones already got everything!!!):
 

[...]  "Would it be better not to tell You my necessities waiting for You to solve them? No, by the way, that You, my Lord and my Delight, knowing my necessities would be many and THE COMFORT THAT IS FOR US TO TELL YOU OUR NECESSITIES, say us to ask You and that You will not stop giving..." [...]
 

I think that would be as when someone tells you his troubles and actually one (man) is unable to solve them .... At least the first man gets a comfort from the very fact of opening himself and speak ....

We could think that God, that is omniscient, really knows his problems without needing the man to speak about them .... but ... is the same that God freely enters the inner being of man than that man OPENS himself voluntary (through a petition prayer) to that seeking that God does into him ???? When Teresa defines prayer she says "It's about treating of friendship with God" .... Is not that what friends do too? To tell their troubles each other? Of course, God is not human, goes beyond a human friend ... He has properties that human friends have not ....

What do you think ??


(Am very glad that got the meaning of the title at the first time! I was afraid that my ex teachers of English persecuted me till the end of the world kicking my ass!)