This man is not from God for he does not fit out standards, therefore he is a sinner.
Aren't we church people singing the same old tune today?
If your beliefs are different, it is not seen as just a difference, even a lack of
faith, but any works of faith must be discredited. why do we do this?
Here Jesus chose not to see things in terms of sin but this threatened the belief
system so the witch hunt was focused on Jesus.
The interesting point is, I think, that the blind man gains sight as the story moves on
while our Pharasee's slowly lose their sight. One is moving from literal to spiritual, the
others are moving from a spiritual to a literal. Jesus sits in the middle, a catalyst for
exposing both.
The accusation of 'sinner', in the scripture, on this web page and in life, is used as
a way of dismissing another (of course, we also have more polite ways of accomplishing
this!)... much like one might say, when losing an argument, "Oh, you don't know what
you are talking about!" or, to be blunt, "Shut up". "Sinner" is
used a rude religious way of saying you want that person to be quiet while you tell them
the truth.If we are honest, we are all sinners... but who wants to admit that about
themselves?
It is easy to say, "You are a sinner!" and, to the accusers advantage, in
most cases it shuts people up or, at the least, drives them away.
It is far harder to say, "God has blessed you" or "I am wrong" or
even "You might be right".
Notice also, how abandoned our hero becomes- parents, neighbors, friends....
everyone.... abandons him to the trial... except Jesus. He hangs in there... and gets the
last word!
I babble.... my apologies!
TB in MN
If the man was BORN blind, how could the blindness be due to his sin?
In response to the question, "If the man was BORN blind, how could the blindness
be due to his sin?"
I have been reading "Does the Soul Survive? A Jewish Journey to Belief in
Afterlife, Past Lives, and Living with Purpose" written by Rabbi Elie Kaplan Spitz. I
had known---but pretty much forgotten===that Judaism allows for the possibility of
reincarnation. Jesus was questioned one time on his opinion re: life after life
("Whose wife will she be in the resurrection?") Perhaps this question was to ask
his opinion re: reincarnation.
I am thinking about v2 as a text to talk about "medical" and
"social" aspects of disability, and the attitudes Christians ought to take to
this debate. It is a curiously good parallel.
"Who sinned? This man, or his parents?" is a very good parallel to the modern
disability debate. "This man sinned" is in essence the "medical
model": the disability is located within the individual, it is a weakness/disorder to
be cured (or, worse, for which the individual should be excluded/rejected). "His
parents sinned" is an (almost) equally good parallel to the "social model":
the disability is located in society's attitudes which say that only people with certain
ranges of ability are allowed to be full members of society, so the correct approach is to
change either the attitudes or their physical consequences (e.g. by ensuring that ramps
replace stairs so that being in a wheelchair does not disable an individual).
This debate tends to polarise along predictable left/right lines: conservatives will
adopt the medical model as "realistic"; liberals will adopt the social model as
"progressive".
That makes it interesting that Jesus chooses to cut through the debate and focus on the
individual. In effect he rejects both arguments. He takes on board the realism of the
medical model, and cures the man. But equally he takes on board the progressiveness of the
social model, and takes the man seriously as an equal within society, whose voice should
be heard and whose needs should be met.
Questions:
Is this an illegitmate "reading back" of a modern debate into an NT text, or
a legitimate application of an enduring lesson to a modern context?
If it is a legitimate application, what might count as a "disability"
nowadays? Sensory disorders, mobility disorders, mental disturbance - all have gospel
warrant. What about ethnic minority status? minority sexual orientation? lack of
intelligence? moral weaknesses? What are the limits?
Even if it is a legitimate application, what is the "good news" in it for a
sermon - is it more of a house group discussion?
I have some ideas on these but would like to hear others' thoughts unprejudiced by
mine.
Thanks for your opinions.
Stephen in Exeter UK
thanks for the thoughts re. Rabbi Spitz. It is really helpful to be reminded that
Jewish thought allowed for the possibility or reincarnation. It explaines an excuse some
people have for blaming people for conditions into which they were born. Thi s is not so
antiquated. This kind of thinking is actually on the rise because of the New Age over
emphasis on "free will" which assumes that people always choose any fate which
befalls them. Manzel
MTSOfan,
Posting this for next week because you might not look at this week at this late date
(I'm often still mulling over my sermon until Sat. night when I generally write the final
version). You said you were in the Poconos? Anywhere near Kirkridge? It's my favorite
place to go for spiritual renewal.
RevSophia
I'm looking for a "tie" with the OT lesson from 1-Sam. and I think I find it
in this verse from that lesson:
16:7 But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look on his appearance or on the height
of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the LORD does not see as mortals see;
they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart."
It seems to me that the Pharisees are looking on the man-born-blind through human,
rather than divine, understanding.
Still working on this.... now to tie it into my "elemental christianity"
series (earth is this week's element).
Blessings, Eric in KS
To TB in MN
Actually, I found your babblings interesting... about how the two parties (the man and
the Pharisees) moved.
On the Rabbi Spitz comments, I also thought they allowed for the concept of
"original sin" and wondered if this were considered a consequence. I suppose it
doesn't matter, because no matter what notion the disciples had in asking the question,
Jesus put it off instantly.
Now, for my own comments:
Last week, I had to do a funeral for a baby who died at 2½ months. I'm sure many of
you have had to do this. The parents are an unmarried couple. The mother has not been to
church in some time. The father has never been to ours, but may have been elsewhere, I
don't know - he's clearly not churched now. The maternal grandmother has been away from
church for some time. So, to some, this question rises - is this a punishment from God? Is
God taking this child because of such a (supposedly) "sinful" situation?
During the funeral message, I addressed the feelings of those who would be "Job's
friends" only briefly, but they were dismissed.
I feel that here, we have the disciples being "Job's friends," attempting to
analyze pain rather than seek to minister to it.
Job ended up with no answers. Jesus answers simply. Why is there suffering? Why 9/11?
Why did the baby die? Strangely, so God could be glorified. God was glorified in Job, in
the man born blind, and yes, in the 9/11 tragedy. And in the baby? I only pray He will, in
the end, be glorified in ways I cannot now see.
I do know this much; God's plans are greater than my comprehension.
JG in WI
JG in WI: "Why is there suffering? Why 9/11? Why did the baby die? Strangely, so
God could be glorified. God was glorified in Job, in the man born blind, and yes, in the
9/11 tragedy. And in the baby? I only pray He will, in the end, be glorified in ways I
cannot now see. I do know this much; God's plans are greater than my comprehension."
Please, please, don't blame God for these things. Yes, God IS glorified in them, but
they don't happen SO God can be glorified. God is glorified IN SPITE of them. They happen
because of evil, or chaos, or the fallen nature of the cosmos, or call it what you will...
but they don't happen for any reason remotely resembling any "plan" of God's.
God works within the chaos and the evil, but God doesn't cause chaos and evil. When it
happens, God certainly has a plan to deal with it, but that doesn't mean God wants it to
happen.
Your questions, JG, are very much like the questions about the blind man -- Is it
because he sinned, or because his parents sinned? -- both lay the blame at God's feet ...
but, in truth, his blindness is not God's doing at all -- his sight IS! In the midst of
the chaos and disease, God works, but God hasn't cause the chaos and disease.
Blessings, Eric in KS
JG in WI --- My heart and prayers go out to you. Such a funeral has not yet been my
experience. I can only imagine the struggle of it. But we praise God that God can and does
fill in all the blanks in God's time.
Eric in KS --- Elemental thought - Mud is a mix of earth and water. This earth was
powerless until mixed with the living waters of Christ.
Kat in PA (poconos, too!)
I agree with Eric. Bad things don't happen to us so God can be glorified. But God can
be glorified even when bad things happen. God can use bad things and turn them around to
accomplish good. i.e. a church member of mine lost her daughter in a tragic drunk driving
accident. The drunk driver left her to die instead of calling 911 for help. The result was
that this quiet woman was motivated to join MADD and speak out publically, even becoming
president of the local chapter. God was able to use this trajedy for good. PH in OH
Who sinned? Jesus sees an opportunity "that God's works might be revealed in
him." If we witness suffering and do nothing then we adopt the sin as our own. Keith
in SC.
Several translations of verse 6 use the word clay - That Jesus made clay from the dry
(dust) ground. There are other instances of Jesus restoring sight and he doesn't resort to
this type of physicality. It makes me think that the cause of this man's blindness was
that he was born without eyes, Jesus, in making clay from dust was creating eyes where
none existed before.
Having no Greek, I am well aware that this might be a total misinterpretation of the
text. However, today is the first time that I've been able to come up with a possible
reason for Jesus' strange behavior in this story.
My thinking divides personal sins from SIN. SIN is the great divide or divorce between
God and humanity. When it came into the world SIN caused a fatal flaw in all of creation
of which we feel the effects daily. The perfection of creation is spoiled and to such an
extent that when God's plan is fully implemented all must be new - new heavens and new
earth, the old must pass away. The bodies of the resurrection will be like these but not,
just as Jesus after the resurrection.
Jesus in making clay, then was recalling our creation from clay, and made an act of
re-creation. He was placing in that man something that was never there but should've been.
SIN is deeply woven in us even at the level of our genes confusing the plan that is
plainly written.
This man like all men and women is born to give glory to God. His physical blindness is
a symptom of the spiritual blindness common to all of us.
I'm not preaching this week, at least I don't think so, and I hope my musings are
eye-opening and not leading chaos. Certainly the words above could be arraigned in a more
coherent manner. --- Deke in TX - Pace e Bene
Sybil from somewhere in KS wrote: "With the snow I think you got last week, you'll
probably be surrounded by mud if it gets to be spring up in northern Kansas!"
When the temp gets above 30 (late today or tomorrow they say) we will indeed have that
good black stains-everything-it-touches northeastern Kansas mud...
And, yes, it was the mud of earth and spittle in today's story that led me to use this
Gospel as the entree into considering, as one writer has put it, "the spirituality of
dirt"...
Here is an interesting bit from a physician who writes about non-traditional healing:
There is so much suffering in this world and I feel it. Yet what I feel is my own. I
weep inside but the tears will not come. What does this mean? We live in the west in our
great modern comforts while the rest of the world, the bulk of the world, lives in squalor
as what some might call primitives. Yet those whom we might be so arrogant as to call
primitive are closer to the source than we are. Their own deep struggles with day to day
survival bring them close to the universal source within themselves and all that exists.
Their toil in the dirt gives them the spirituality we have abandoned or ignored in the
west. Perhaps the closer we get to the dirt the closer we come to returning to whence we
have come. It is said we come with nothing and we leave with nothing. Those who dirty
their hands in the dirt of the daily struggle just to find food and water, to stay alive,
are closest to that state of having nothing. Is this why they are closer to the source or
is it their emotional pain and daily struggle that pushes them closer, just as you do with
me now? Is this why they can so often be happy, so pure, so spiritual and thus so much
like an untainted wise child? Is this what happens once they abate with the struggles
borne of the flawed being of humanity that inflicts such outrage on others out of
vengeance for what has been cast into their own oceans? Is the purity of the intuitive
child within what we are brought to when we grovel in the dirt to survive; when we return
to our origins, our source? Does the detriment, the waste, the feces of life drive us
here? Do indeed the most beautiful flowers spring from the deepest excrement?
"Unfinished Business, Healing, Emotional and Spiritual Growth," _Spirituality
and Non-traditional Healing_, by William E. Field II, M.D.
Blessings, Eric in (Olathe) KS
Deke in TX - "Pace e Bene" to you too (Are you a Franciscan? My parish is
"St. Francis of Assisi Parish".)
I really like your discussion of "clay" and the possible explanation of
Jesus' "odd behavior"... I had never even thought (odd for me) of refering to
the Greek in this instance.
The word in Greek is "pelos" and its first (preferred) translation is
"clay, such as potter's use!" Its secondary meaning is "mud" and even
in this sense it means "wet clay".
I do not know if the "clay" used in the creation story in Genesis is
"pelos" in the Septuagint -- I don't have a Septuagint handy (only the Greek
N.T.) but I suspect it is... probably also the term in the Septuagint version of
Jeremiah's famous "house of the potter" prophecy.
Blessings, Eric in KS
I don't think we can approach anything in John the way we do the other gospels. He
starts from a whole different place - not an orderly account (like Luke claims to offer)or
historical record, but a series of brilliantly crafted vignettes that show Jesus to be the
revealer of God, and hence our Savior. I think the key or cenral point in this passage is
Jesus' question in v. 35 and the man's reply - his declaration -I believe. It is the same
as for Nicodemus and the woman at the well in the past two lectionary passages. It is
John's big big big theme, running thru his testimony like an electric current. The blind
man had done what any reasonable person would do before Jesus' question - he recognized
Jesus as a prophet, and as having authority from God. After those easier steps the
question becomes deeper, a more life-at-stake matter - Do you believe in the Son of Man? -
not in some abstract, future, from-the-clouds way, but as right here in front of you,
working in your life, calling you now. This is the question for all of us - to
"see" in Jesus the living God, the living WORD, the source of real life. Only in
believing do we begin to "see" all that Jesus is about. If we won't believe
(like the Pharisees, and others too - even Thomas until he finally gets it without having
to touch) then we are not comprehending, perceiving, "seeing" God and we are
shutting God out - thus passing judgement on ourselves as "in the dark" and
"blind." We talk about blind faith, but Jeus might say that it is unfaith that
is blind. Bultmann's commentary of John is great. Jim in CT.
OK .. I found a Septuagint
The word "clay" isn't used in Genesis.... (Popular songs about "a
hundred pounds of clay" notwithstanding). The word used in Gen. 2 is "dust"
("choos" in Greek).
However, the word "clay" ("pelos") is used in Jeremiah (18:6) and
also is found in Isaiah's use of the "potter" metaphor as well -- Isa. 29:16.
So, Deke, I hope this helps you; it helps me -- thanks for the clue.
Blessings, Eric in K
No, I can't see any reason to look for a (naturalistic) physical explanation in this
healing. No cataracs. He was born blind.
Spit was thought of to have healing properties. There is spiritual meaning in the
blindness and dthe healing.
Re: the healing qualities of MUD and the primeval connections with our origin (in
science as well as Genesis?)--- Yes, there is a reversal of values going on in this story
that the use of earth contributes to. Not only do we more highly value people who stay
clean in their vocation as opposed to getting dirty, we also rank people according to
their distance from the earth. You know, the tall executive office bldg thing. A basement
level job may be just as important but not respected like the TOP level office. We climb
the ladder to success. the presidency is the highest office in the land.
Even when we wear the white shirts we have a fear of dirt. Remember the horror of
"ring around the collar"? Embarrassing as sin!
Bill Herzog says that the closest thing to NT miracle stories are television
commercials. Modern miracle workers dazzles us with how they get out stains. Mr. Clean, I
hear, is making a comeback. Remember the tide knight with his lance (miracle wand) and the
look of delight on the woman hanging the laundry? Even today, we look with amazement as
the beaker of ink water turns clear when you stir in the Oxy something or other.
Jesus put mud in the guy's eyes!
pHil
"Bad things don't happen to us so God can be glorified."
However, in this lesson, isn't that what Jesus says? "he was born blind so that
God's works might be revealed in him."? Why, oh why didn't Jesus say, "Bad
things just happen. Now, let's use this opportunity to let God's works be revealed in
him."? Did Jesus not know that some bad things just happen? Or is there a reason for
all bad things, only we can't see the connections? If so, what was the reason for the
man's blindness, if not the reason Jesus noted?
I realize I am rambling, but sometimes I believe we try to rewrite the scriptures to
make God better fit our understanding of how God should be. God is God, and it is possible
that God did indeed cause the man to be born blind in order to have God's own glory
revealed by Jesus in this miracle. But only Jesus could make that claim, because we cannot
read the mind of God. We cannot make that claim about any evil that occurs today. We must,
with Paul, merely trust that "in everything God will work for good," no matter
how bad it is, or how evil the source of the horrors we experience.
Let us not assume that God did not make the man blind from birth. Instead, let us
preach the text, without making parallels too close to our experience of suffering.
By the way, we are not told that the man who was blind was suffering. It is possible
that his family had the means to care for him without his having to beg. Maybe he was
sitting there with friends, telling stories. We do not know.
I said more than I intended, but maybe that's okay this early in the week.
Michelle
Does anyone know the origin of the phrase
"Here's spit in your eye"?
Pr.del in Ia
Date: 04 Mar 2002
Time: 14:44:19
Comments
pr Del: I think the expression is "here's MUD in your eye". I don't know the
origin, sorry. Michelle: I like what you said. Going too quickly to conclusions and
"re-writing the texts", as you say, are the two things that make for bad
preachers.
Surely this text has a lot to do with the structure -- a Johannine formula. Intrinsic
in it is the way it fits with the previous and the next one. All to reveal, vignette after
vignette, who Jesus really is.
It seems as if this is all about blindness and sight, or "darkness and light"
-- one of John's favorite themes.
Surely we preachers cannot miss the humor in the drama also. My favorite part is when
the man says "all I know is I was blind...now I see". Perhaps that simplicity is
the theology of life in the light of Christ.
Vancouver, B.C.
Pr. del: In England we say, "Here's mud in your eye" - which confuses things
further in considering this passage...
Now, on "that God's glory may be revealed". I am not sure how good a reading
of the original it is, but I want to try going down the line that EVERYONE is born so that
God's glory can be revealed in them... if they, and the people around them, are willing
(a) for it to happen and (b) to see it.
So, to return to my earlier posting (which obviously confused most people), what I want
to say is that the blind man was not "disabled" except by his society's attitude
to him - they labelled him as "blind" without considering what he might be
"able" to do.
Conversely the Pharisees (and perhaps the man's parents) were actually
"disabled": they were unable to see the glory of God, either in the blind man
(before or after his healing), or in Jesus.
Which is what everyone else is saying too, but I am trying to get it into the
context of some modern polemic. If this way of thinking about disability is
unfamiliar to you, try looking at the website of the US Christian Council on
Persons with Disabilities- their Statement of Faith is very
straightforward conservative evangelical, which doesn't happen to be my theology, but
their deductions from it about approaches to disability are simply excellent.
Stephen in Exeter UK
9:3 Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so
that God's works might be revealed in him.
Someone born with a gross handicap often finds ways around it. Someone blind may
increase his/her auditory skills, manual dexterity skills or a myriad of other sense
skills that compensate for the handicap. I believe that these folks become handi-capable.
Just last week a 7 yr old girl was visiting us with her parents. She was unable to use her
legs. She crossed them in front of her, somehow locking them. She then lifted herself with
the heels of her hands and "walked" across the room faster than I could on two
good legs.
I could see within her, God's blessing, a pure heart and steadfast love. These are
God's works revealed to me.
EF in GA
Just found two explainations for "Here's mud in your eye."
Here's Mud In Your Eye: This toast was originally made in the muddy trenches of World
War I, or in the cafes where English and American soldiers spent their leaves trying to
forget them.
Mud: Here's mud in your eye is used as a toast. The speaker is really congratulating
himself, for the saying comes from the world of horse racing where the winning horse will
kick mud into the eyes of those following.
The Blind man is out ahead of the Pharisees
Pr.del in IA
Early in the week...
and just read this story aloud in as many English translations as I could find.
I am thinking about contrasting the sightless, mud-covered journey to the pool (someone
must have been helping him) with what must have been a celebratory parade back toward the
synagogue. This man had never seen anything. I am sure he was in sensory overload! I can
also imagine the scene at the pool. It must have resembled a rowdy baptism!
Miracles always upset religious norms. It is easy to forget how miraculous salvation
is!
Anyway, right now I am considering a story-telling approach this week.
Ed in AL
As in last week's Gospel text, I am taken aback by the multiplicity of preachable
themes here. The one that leaps out initially is the nieve, child-like faith of the man
born blind. It both gets him into trouble, as the Pharisees interprit it as effrontery;
and it saves him as Jesus openly reveals to him his Messiahship. What was that Jesus said
about receiving the Kingdom as a child?
Pastor Andy, Ionia NY
Michelle makes a point about Jesus' answer to the question and his apparent use of the
words "so that...." A valid point!
The Greek is "hina" (or, actually, "ina" with an asperation). This
word does mean "in order that" or "so".... If the translators have
punctuated John correctly, the answer does suggest that the man's blindness was part of
some divine purpose.
But what remember that Greek has no punctuation. What if the translators have gotten it
wrong and added punctuation in the wrong places.
The Greek in transliteration of Vv. 3-4 is:
(3) Apekrithe Iesous oute houtos hemartan oute hoi goneis autou all'hina phanerothi ta
erga tou theou en auto (4) hemas dei ergazesthai ta erga tou pempsantos me
A word-for-word translation of the Greek of Vv. 3-4 would be
(3) Answered Jesus not this one sinned not the parents of him nevertheless in order
that manifested the works of god in him (4) we must labor at the works of the sender (of)
me
This could be punctuated in a variety of ways, but consider just one possible change in
the punctuation:
Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned. Nevertheless, so that
God's works might be demonstrated in him, we must labor at the work of the one who sent
me."
In otherwords, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned." Full stop, end of
answer. New thought: "Nevertheless, so that God's works might be deomnstrated in him,
we must labor at the work of the one who sent me." The manifestation of God's work is
through the work Jesus and his disciples will do, not through the blindness of the man.
This is what Leslie Weatherhead would refer to as the "circumstantial will of
God" rather than the "intentional will of God." That is, God takes
advantage of an evil situation and uses it for his purposes, but does not originally plan
for the situation to exist.
Just a thought....
Blessings, Eric in KS
As I worked my way through the commentary of the New Interpreters Bible there were a
couple things which come to mind in light of comments to this point.
First off - as someone has already mentioned, John's gospel is much different than the
other three. For onw thing as John writes, John also interprets. This story is lifted up
as one of the best examples of this.
Second - as many have already lifted up, Sin is central to this story. But in John sin
is defined by how we respond to Jesus, not in our actions which is the Pharisees slant,
but in how we respond to Jesus as the Son of Goed.
Third - central to the telling of this story is the situation of the Johanine
community, they have been tossed out of (or are in the process of being tossed out) the
synagogue. The story is told to speak to their situation and while it offers words of hope
it does it very indirectly.
Fourth - as some have already pointed out, the blind man has moved from darkness to the
light, while the Pharisees have moved in just the opposite direction. The blind man has
accepted Jesus, therefore, no sin. The Pharisees have rejected Jesus, therefore, sin.
Not sure where this is all going, but some very interesting background on the text.
Mark in WI
Paul talks about once things are exposed by the light it becomes visible...
This is long... bear with me...
I've seen my share of apparent miracles... but I've seen just as many miracles that
"I would have liked to see"... life is not fair. Pain comes to the just and
unjust, the righteous and not so righteous. Watched the video series the other night, it
is entitled, "Wrestling with Angels" the host last week was Philip Yancey,
author of many books as you know. A woman was interviewed that had breast cancer... she
said something like. She had heard people say that they had prayed and were sure that's
why the cancer went away in their loved ones family. She asked the question, "I
wondered why my prayers didn't work." or words to that affect... as if to say,
"Prayers worked for you, but not for me!" Now, do I think we should stop
praying... Heaven's no... what I'm getting at is... what Yancey later described...
"Don't confuse Life with God!"
I know what the scripture says... still, the Bible was written in a time where medical
miracles did not happen as often they do now, almost daily -- Hearts are repaired, cancer
is removed, eyes that couldn't see are able to now see, hearing is given back."
Still, tragedy happens... 5 children are drowned by a distraught mother... 9-11 came
and lives were ripped apart. Some told of "close calls" in their lives... while
others experienced the death of friends and loved ones. A 44 year-old parishoner drops
dead of a heart attack when she's out with her husband celebrating their 10th Wedding
Anniversary. A colleagues child dies of SIDS only to have parishoners "minister"
to his family with words, "You know, if you had more FAITH, your child would not have
died!" No, don't confuse GOD with LIFE... crap happens... as does grace.
Interesting that the Disciples asked who sinned, this man or his parents... the
neighbors didn't believe it was the same person... --- everyone is passing the buck...
"Ask him, he's of age..." they didn't want to get in trouble...so they asked his
parents if he indeed was born blind or how did he gets his eyes opened?
Then, they asked the man again, "what do you think, how is it that you see?"
"All I know is, I couldn't see, then this man spit in the mud... and put it in my
eyes and I can see..."
I don't worship a God who "selects some and not others"... so I don't believe
God works that way.
Spong was on the radio the other day... (John Shelby)... retired Bishop of the
Episcopal Church... I watch with disbelief as suicide bombers continue to take other human
lives... for their "God"...
If God is the God of Jacob, Abraham and Isaac... as God is the "father" of
the major world religions... how can God condone such behavior. We are brothers and
sisters of FAITH. The God of the OT... is the God of not just the Israelites, but also the
God of the Egyptians... still, God is given credit for parting the Red Sea for one group,
and drowning the other group... that's fine if you're Israelites, but if you happen to be
Egyptian, that's not a very nice image of God. (Thank you to Bishop Spong) for some of
those insights... I too think we need to get away from giving God credit for the evil WE
DO in THIS LIFE.
I know, this is long... thanks for reading it, if you did. :?)
pulpitt in ND
