Answers to a cynic

Post Reply
User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Answers to a cynic

Post by _Steve » Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:45 am

Dear Walt,
I have received your “questions” forwarded to me by a mutual friend, who asked if I would respond to them. While I doubt that you really were seeking answers, but rather, simply trying to make a cynical statement, I will treat the points of your letter as if it was written in sincerity. You wrote:
A Bible-reading friend has posed some interesting questions, and has asked for some advice on interpretation. I am (was) a lawyer, not a theologian, so I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them.
Your "friend" must get around! The list of questions he has asked you seems to pop up everywhere! Did he post them on the Internet, by any chance? I notice that all of his "questions" are taken from the books of Exodus and Leviticus—books of Hebrew law that stand as the foundation of the legal codes of Great Britain and America. It is a sad commentary on today's law training that a degree in law no longer equips a man to understand the laws (i.e., those in the Bible) that are the foundation of both British Common Law and of the American legal system. The American lawyer-turned-evangelist in the 19th century, Charles Finney, was converted to Christianity through the study of law. He kept noticing that "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Law" (the standard authority on British and American law at the time) continually referred him back to the Bible to clarify or illustrate legal principles. Finney decided that he ought to read the Bible, in order better to understand his professional field, and ended up becoming a Christian.

In the end of your letter, you wrote: “Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.” Your confusion on every point raised in your letter arises from your mistaken premise that the word of God is in every sense unchanging. The word of God is never invalidated, but it undergoes fulfillment. That is why Jesus said, “I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.” When a child becomes a man, the child has not been invalidated or destroyed. He has simply reached maturity. The Bible teaches that the ritual temple laws of Judaism were like an instructor to humanity in its childhood, being needed until the arrival of maturity (that is, the appearance of Jesus Christ in history). Until Christ came, the Jews were given instructive rituals to perform that anticipated their fulfillment in the Messiah. When he actually arrived, the anticipatory rituals were replaced by the anticipated reality. “When I became a man, I put away childish things.” The coming of the New Order in Christ has definitely brought a change in the laws of the Old Order (“For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law”—Heb.7:12), but the change is one that the Old Order anticipated from the beginning (Rom.3:21).

Of course, people who have no genuine interest in understanding God’s concerns will forever seek for ways to misunderstand the Bible, and will not even discern their own transparent hypocrisy in extrapolating from the acknowledged repealing of the ritual laws a corresponding repeal of ALL biblical laws, including those that define moral absolutes.

While those laws governing temple rituals were provisional and temporary, God’s moral absolutes do not change, for the simple reason that they are the mere reflection of the character of One who Himself never changes (Mal.3:6).

All of your “questions” are easily answered once this principle is recognized, so that I am glad to respond to each one individually, even though I do not have the advantage of a legal education.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

Your mockery of the King James English (in using the archaic word spellings) does not testify to sincerity on your part, but merely a desire to make fun of the Bible. The Bible’s veracity can hardly be impugned on the mere basis that it was first translated into English at a time when English words were spelled differently than they presently are. If you are not mature enough to get around the old English without offense, you should be informed that modern English translations are available where the words are spelled just as you would normally spell them.

The system of animal sacrifices is one of the many rituals that has, according to Christianity, become obsolete, since those sacrifices were intended to foreshadow the offering of Christ as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of the world. In the Old Testament, when these things were still being practiced, the sacrifices were offered by priests at a temple site, not in every man’s back yard. I do not know whether neighbors complained about the smoke. Do your neighbors actually complain about the smell when you have a barbecue? Are they vegetarians or something?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I suspect that it is slavery itself that you are actually objecting to. It is an evidence of our cultural provincialism that we find slavery itself (as opposed to the abuse that sometimes accompanied slavery) objectionable. Every society in the world (until about a century ago) had slavery as a feature of its economic life, and many countries (Muslim and African nations) still allow trading in slaves. It was the Christian conscience of western civilization that eventually led to the abolition of slavery here so recently. In ancient Israel, as in other nations, some people became so poor that they had nothing left to barter for food or for the repayment of debts except their children’s or their own freedom. The laws of Israel, however, unlike those of many nations, did not allow an Israelite to be held involuntarily as the property of another for longer than seven years. “Slavery” was thus more like a case of indentured servitude. Though it was indeed lawful to keep foreign slaves (who were generally captives taken in battle) for longer periods, the laws insisted upon just and humane treatment of the slaves, in contrast to that which the laws of other nations allowed. I hope you may not fall upon such hard times financially as to need to sell members of your family into servitude. If you do, you may wish to consult your nearest Sudanese slave merchant as to the going rates.

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell ? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

It is not clear why you would find it necessary to have physical contact with any woman other than your wife. I would be surprised if your wife never lets you know when she is having her period. How does she conceal this from you?

4. Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

If it were legal, and if Canadians or Mexicans were taken as prisoners of war, then it would be as “kosher” for you to own them as slaves as to own those of any other nation. Likewise, it would be equally ethical for them to own you, if the tables were to be turned.

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

The observance of the Sabbath was required of the people of Israel as an evidence of their special covenantal status as a nation chosen by God (Ex.31:16-17). America does not bear such a status with God, and thus is under no obligation to legislate Sabbath observance, or to punish Sabbath-breakers. Relax.

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Fortunately, the laws restricting the eating of certain foods, being rituals associated with temple cleanness, are no longer applicable, since all such temple ritual passed away along with the temple itself in 70 AD, and will never return. Both Jesus (Mark 7:18-19) and Paul (Col.2:16-17/1 Tim.4:4-5) tell us that what we eat is not a matter of importance to God any longer (and never was an issue for Gentiles nations, anyway).

Homosexuality, for obvious reasons, is an issue of a different order. Oh, the reasons are not obvious? I forgot, we moderns have forgotten the difference between normative and aberrant sexuality. Here is a refresher course: The Bible tells us that God created sexuality for the purpose of procreation in heterosexual couples bound to each other for life in a covenant relationship (Gen.1:27-28; 2:24/ Mal.2:15). All sexual behavior that does not conform to this norm (e.g., premarital or extramarital sex, sodomy, beastiality, etc.) is a violation of God’s design and of his commands. Such deviancy is a moral disorder.

I am sure, for example, that you would consider it a moral disorder if the lady next door were to engage in a sexual relationship with her own grandson, or if your neighbor’s daughter were to engage in the same with the family pet (If these cases would not seem immoral to you, perhaps the gang-raping of your own daughter by thirty Hell’s Angels would awaken your moral senses). There are certain sexual behaviors that everybody recognizes as immoral. Since there must be some proper place to draw the line in such matters, we Christians feel that God’s word is a higher authority than is that of a subjective, sex-crazed, self-justifying society in finding that line.

In any case, the Bible itself directly answers your question in 1 Corinthians 6:13. If you have any difficulty understanding this verse, feel free to follow-up with me.

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some room for negotiation here?

You needn’t worry about this. The altar of God has not existed for over 1900 years, and it won’t be coming back.

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

The practices of cutting the body and sculpting the hairline in a certain manner were associated with the occult practices named in the same passage you cited (Lev.19:26-28). God forbade his people (Israel) to practice any of the magical and occult arts that were associated with the religions of neighboring nations or to adopt their styles. God was “married” to the nation of Israel by a covenantal bond. For Israel to worship other deities was tantamount to committing adultery against her true husband (God). God’s objection to this, in principle, would be analogous to your objecting to your wife’s wearing a T-shirt around town that said “I love Harry! He’s great in bed!”(Harry being your obnoxious neighbor who breaks everything he borrows from you). If you would not find this objectionable, then the first lesson to be observed is that God is not much like you (which was already evident).

9. I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

Once again, the uncleanness of the pig (and other unclean creatures) was associated with the temple ritual cleanness, which has no continuing relevance to those who live beyond the end of the temple system (ended 70 AD). The ancient Jews had not yet discovered the gridiron, so the ethical dilemma you pose would never have come up. Had they faced this issue in their day, it would have been appropriate for them to decline to touch the football.

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

The laws forbidding the sowing of various crops in one field, of wearing garments of mixed cloths, and of plowing with an ox and an ass together were among the ceremonial restrictions that were intended to convey spiritual truths under the Old Testament Order (which is no longer defining of our duty). The spiritual lesson that these particular restrictions were meant to teach is that things that are fundamentally unlike one another (spiritually) should not be joined together. Hence, alluding to the restriction concerning the ox and the ass, Paul wrote, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers”(2 Cor.6:14). The clean beast (ox) was not to be joined under the same yoke with the unclean beast (ass), even as believers (clean in God’s sight) are not to be united with unbelievers (who are unclean in God’s sight).

If you have further difficulty understanding the Bible, you may consider the following remedies:

1. Paul wrote that “The natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (2 Cor.2:14). The problem may be that you are a “natural” (i.e., unsaved) man. The solution would be to repent and become a humble follower of Christ.

2. Paul wrote, “Knowledge inflates the pride”(1 Cor.8:1), and Jesus said, “I thank you, Father, that you have hidden these things from the wise and the prudent, and have revealed them to babes!”(Matt.11:25). Perhaps, your much learning has made you too arrogant to understand the things of God. The solution would be to repent and become a humble follower of Christ.

3. Jesus said, “If anyone is WILLING to do God’s will, he will know concerning my teaching, whether it is from God, or whether I speak on my own authority” (John 7:17). Perhaps your problem lies just here. I have found by experience that this is the most widespread defect among those who claim to be baffled by the Scriptures…they simply do not want to obey the will of God for their lives, and thus remain incapable of knowing the truth. God follows his own instructions, and he has said, “Do not cast your pearls before swine, and do not give what is holy to dogs.” We may find the metaphors unflattering, and they do certainly seem a bit unfair. After all, to compare a person who despises and rebels against the benevolent One who has created him and has protected and sustained him throughout his whole life with a pig or a dog is an insult to the latter, since pigs and dogs never do anything contrary to what they were created to do.

According to God’s word, we have all been pigs and dogs in this sense. That is why we needed to be rescued, and that is why God sent his Son to accomplish the rescue. In dying for our sins, Jesus paid the penalty owed for our rebellion and by rising from the dead, he demonstrated that he was who he said he was, and became forever available to govern the lives of those who wisely place their confidence in him. I suspect that it is for lack of your doing this that you find God’s ways perplexing. The solution would be to repent and become a humble follower of Christ.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Sat Apr 02, 2005 12:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

_liquid_duaneo
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:25 pm

Post by _liquid_duaneo » Wed Apr 21, 2004 5:32 pm

Heh...I recognize a lot of Walt's "questions" from an email that circulates occasionally among my friends and family (one of those emails with about a million "forwarded message" lines), so it's no suprise that they pop up everywhere. Back before I became a christian myself, it was a part of an arsenal of philosophical weapons I would use to beat up christians, Jehovah's Winesses, Mormons, or anybody else whenever they tried to evangelize me.

I used to read the Bible extensively back in those bad 'ol days, but I was reading to seek knowledge, not truth. I read it to try and discover inconsistencies, prejudices, and hypocrisies; because for the longest time the only christians (and JW's and M's) I knew were Inconsistent Prejudiced Hypocrites, and their God was a warmongering mass murderer who punished faithful servants by giving them to Satan on a bet. I used to LOVE knocking them down and mocking their faith. The thing that amuses me now is that all the christians I know are still IPHs, to some degree or another. So what's the difference?

I now know that I am one of them, and I have repented, and become a humble follower of Christ.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In life, pain is inevitable.
Misery is optional.

User avatar
_DavidR
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:55 pm

Slave beating

Post by _DavidR » Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:56 pm

Hey Steve,

I have a friend who has a similar objection to a similar passage:

"If a man beats his servant or his maidservant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished for he is his property." Ex 21:20-21

To my friend, I guess this sounds a little inhumane an unfair. Why does it matter when your slave dies, didn't you still beat him to death? etc..

What do you think?

God bless you,

David Reichert
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

User avatar
_Steve
Posts: 1564
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 12:07 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA

Post by _Steve » Sun Jul 25, 2004 11:18 am

Hi David,
Corporeal punishment of slaves (as well as children) is an idea that is distasteful to modern sentiments, but the fact remains that "beatings" have in all societies been viewed as legitimate means of bringing rebellious and troublesome slaves (and children) into subjection to their masters/fathers. Even if I can give a solid and reasonaable answer to your friend's specific objection, he is not likely to be satisfied, since acceptance of slavery as an institution lies at the root of this legislation, and few modern Westerners haved any stomach for that institution at all.

In many ancient societies, slaves had no human rights at all and were simply items in a man's estate. To beat a rebellious slave was not viewed as being ethically different from beating a stubborn donkey. In pagan societies, a man could beat his slave to death on the spot with impunity. This was not the case in Israel. God's law condemned a man who beat his slave to death, because God had regard for the humanity of the slave.

If the slave lingered after a beating for a couple of days, and then died, the owner was not treated as a murderer, since he obviously did not intend to kill the slave. Had he intended to, he no doubt would have done so. That the slave lived on after the discipline proves that the owner was not employing what he considered to be lethal methods of punishment. He simply miscalculated and overstepped the limits of the slave's health or hardiness. Such a miscalculation was not considered necessarily good, but neither was it treated as premeditated murder.

We tend to be far too provincial in our thinking. We forget that ancient societies did not share all of our socio-political presuppositions—nor were they obligated to share them. Modern man assumes that his values are the most enlightened of those of any age. In some repsects, thanks to the influence of Christianity, this is true. In other respects, due to the influence of humanism, modern values may be, in fact, less enlightened than those of former ages.

The ethics of the Old law do not rise to the level of the Sermon on the Mount, it may be, but a society that does not punish the physician who brutally kills an innocent unborn baby in the womb can hardly claim to occupy higher moral ground than a society that does not punish the disciplinarian of a stubborn or rebellious servant. The critic of the biblical law is simply being selective (and somewhat arbitrary) in his outrage.
Last edited by FAST WebCrawler [Crawler] on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve

User avatar
_DavidR
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 8:55 pm

Thank you

Post by _DavidR » Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:06 pm

Hi Steve,

Thank you for your promt and clear response. I must confess now (as perhaps I should have in my previous request) that I was also a bit stumbled by this verse. My friend had called it to my attention when I shared his agnostic worldview, so we used it then to poke fun at Scripture. But even after my spiritual birth in Christ, I was not totally at peace with this verse.

Thanks for the word of edification and encouragement. I count it as a great blessing from our King Jesus.

God bless you,

David Reichert
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

_conceptualizer
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:54 am
Location: Maple Ridge

If I feel I should say

Post by _conceptualizer » Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:32 pm

I have been sent this list of questions too, some thought I would be amused by it's witticism. I post after Steve has given an appropriate response, that will if view with an open actively engaged mind, see sensibility in the answers found in scripture. This is an alternative (no scriptural references), answer to the same questions.

Cynic, Steve is a kind and generous man, and he would like you to understand the message, the whole message. These questions have been around for years, and I believe started when a certain commentator, said on a radio program, homosexuality is and abomination to God. Something to that effect.

Needless to say, everyone needs to have their nose into other peoples stuff, telling them how they should live and talk, but most of all how they should behave. Holding others to virtue, of which we ourselves can not aspire. These questions are a result of that beehive of activity, truthfully the cynics best response. These questions do not focus on anyone issue, they propose to show the complete absurdity of the bible, making laws, of what seem ridiculous today.

Steve expresses it as sad commentary, that a degree in law leaves one unequipped to understand the foundation of law. Steve is a kind and generous man. It is not sad, it is pathetic. But there are 'good' reasons why it is so, not all depend upon the information imparted, some can only be measured by the information received. It is however typical fashion to pull things away from where they belong, and hold them up to the light and cry - see this is wrong. Context and logic are not always good bed-fellows.

When the mountains are gone, and the hills are no more, when boulders and rocks have eroded, there is still the sand of which they once were. Do you think the mountain is gone because you can no longer find it? In the course of our lives we can see mountains move. It is not hard, they do it of themselves, it just takes a long time. When I think of the difference between Gods logic, and mans context; I compare all the galaxies of the universe, and the rule that holds them together, to any one of those grains of sand.

Every grain of sand is different, but in the end there is only one rule that binds them all to the same purpose. If we have difficulties understanding that, well I am not surprised. If you are going to hold up a few sentences out of books and books of information and say - see this is wrong; more is the pity. If you are going to bet everything on an insisted view, taken out of context, that is worse, it is self disillusionment.

I hear others say they have read the bible and they know Gods word; ha, when we understand Gods word, there will be no more questions of science and philosophy, because we will know the rule that binds us all. We read the bible to understand as best we can Gods path for us. But the bible is more than this it is a history of the world of men on the journey; the bible is the best of books because it give us other peoples lives as examples, both good and bad, of the walk that leads to answers.

We only ever see how men have reacted, to their interactions with God, their inspired side of the story. God did not write Genesis; God inspired Moses to do that, it is Moses writing of his journey, and the things he has been told and the things he has seen and been shown. What a journey it was too, I tremble to imagine it, to see those things, to face those challenges, this grain of sand is happy to sit on the beach and read about it instead. Thank you very much.

We know Moses is some kind of writer, people have been reading his stuff for thousands of years, and the scary part is that it still makes sense; how many other ancient writers can make that claim - get out the fingers of one hand, you won't need more. There is more; Moses was educated, we all know this and he tells us so. He also tells us a lot of things that correlate just fine with secular history. Thing is, even educated, he had no business knowing some of these things. Scholars could do much, if they could pull fact and breath-taking insight out of thin air, the way Moses seems to.

Moses was just some guy with an unusual resume. If you can hold it all in your head as Moses did, you too will be remembered for thousands of years. For the things you can do, and the things that you say. If the books of information stopped here, they would be secular history, with a couple of unexplained events, but not more.

Somehow, though it is easy to see how time has robbed us, of the details of our histories, the writings of the times, these writing have made the journey. These writing always seem to escape fires and earthquakes and flood, and famine and war and persecution, the rise and fall of cultures and civilizations, and a few other minor things; to show up here, so that scholars of your prowess dear cynic can pick it apart, hummmm. So here we are walking again, through these books, and the interesting thing, is that when they speak out of time; that is prophesied, and funny, history bears them out, more of the thin air stuff for the cynic to ponder.

I read sci-fi, but I know it is not true, no matter how amazing the characters are, you and I could't do that here and now. It is tougher when secular history say, hey yeah that happened there is some evidence. Some evidence can be argued, is inconclusive. Absolutely, that is the way it is - if we knew all.... But a great deal of what we know is less conclusively proven to be true. If you are looking for evidence, you must look to the whole, and not pick at the parts until you know how they fit into the whole. Even then, what will you have; a bunch of stories about a bunch of people long a go and far away; what is that?

Once you have read the books, then what? Perhaps you look around and think; this is something big, how do I go about understanding it all? Now that would be a good question. But if you choose to pick it apart, then it's just a bunch of words, and your time has been completely wasted, because you went looking for meaning of the words, and missed the story.

As I said, Steve is a kind an generous man; he gave you some valuable answers, but you would know that if you read the story, and had the handle upon it, that your words claim for you. You have selected a fine set of orders of ritual laws; what's it mean? Being quick as you are to find what appear flaws, perhaps you might be willing to share the truths of your careful gleaning.

I am just a guy, Steve gave you, what I think is spiritual rebuttal to spiritual issues, that might truthfully disturb anyone, who would focus on them only. God is too big, Christ may just be within me. I am thankful for the book of books. In law you would be familiar with collated volumes, that together form a whole, and the parts must always be consider within context of the whole, otherwise they loose their meaning. Simple stuff; if you are a lawyer, you are insulting.

If you would begin to understand the bible, and the only way I have found to apply what passes for common sense between my ears; is that first, I must know people in the context of history, in the context of whole, lives lived. It works for me because, then I can see when people jump out of the context, in which they are written, and become real people. Then I can wonder about the things they are doing.

It is like being any of the people in Pompeii, when Vesuvius cleared her throat. Not just on that day, but on any day; what was it like. Where did I go to the bathroom - it is an important question. Where did I get my food and how did I go about doing that? When we start to answer questions like that then we are thinking of people living in that time - then we can look at the lives that have been past down to us. How you then view the life of Moses or Christ, as people of their own time first, and then to the things they did and said.

When Moses went before Pharaoh; it was just two guys having a chat, but if I had been Moses, without the faith in a living God. Truthfully the chances of getting out - zero. Moses walked into Pharaohs hand in a very real sense; you are the cynic with a eye for chinks, where in armor of Pharaoh, were the chinks that Moses exploited. I imagine the plagues seem like hocus-pocus; so how did Moses walk out again, with exactly what he came for, even though Pharaoh was dead set against it? A real cynic would find all the things that Pharaoh did wrong, and then say - see, that's how come Moses waltzes out of there so easy.

Simply if you can not find that kind of evidence, you don't have much. Oh look at what this guy said, see the whole thing is wrong. What's that? Find out how the world was for people of that time, and then explain away with all the rationality you can muster, how these people did the things they did, live the lives they lived in those times with those people. Better, some of them still found time to document these events in 'history proof' packages so we could see what fools they were.

I love human history, it is a rich tapestry. The bible, whether anyone likes it or not, have woven itself all through that history, it has become a key thread. History is a resource I use for context; it is my way, it is not useful for everyone, we all have unique insights. So, by all means smite your neighbour, sell your children, but don't think for a second that you will not be held to full account. You can hide yourself and your deeds here on Earth. Do you think your secrets are safe, are they buried deep, so deep, even you forget; are you so sure?

If I were a cynic of the bible, I would spend my time trying to tear down the 'myths' that make ordinary people appear out of time. That is define their lives into the ordinary, the trouble is, history is no help there. So perhaps dear cynic it is time to take a different approach, If you could walk in their path perhaps you could see what happened. That I think will go along way toward appreciated 'what happened.'

Because try as you may, mans rational self can not wrap itself around this; it does go out side the bounds of what we understand. How do you walk in that path, see what you see and not say, oh my God, and really mean it. I am a fairly secular person, I affirm Christ in my life as my guide and friend, but I am not what I call Christian, or a lot of others would call me for that matter, though they pray for me.

I thank them all for that; but, be that as it may, the question I close with: in spiritual matters you are either tearing down, or building up your own personal relationship; in which camp are you? I do not pose the question in a wish to see you squirm, or enjoy your possible discomposure, you are most in my prayer, that we may all do what we are able to heal each other.

Sincerely
Steven Maurice
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:

Post Reply

Return to “Christian Evidences & Challenges”