|
|
Post by Far Rider on Nov 7, 2005 0:04:06 GMT -8
People usually refer to a "fundamentalist" as one who believes in the fundamantal founding principles of a body of thought, rather than the modern reinterpretation of those principles. I know what the dictionary definition is. I wanted to know what you meant when you said that. Need I remind you that Jesus was a Jew? Here's a description of the return of Christ as described in Mark 13:14: When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' (Jesus is quoting the OT here, where a lot of prophecy is contained) standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down or enter the house to take anything out. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
"But in those days, following that distress,
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[d]
"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens. These are Christ's own words. How does this square with the description of the third day (which you are trying to say is the "second coming") in any one of the gospels? Also, can you post the Bible verse that contains the phrase "second coming"? I am having trouble finding it. Because it's a red herring? |
|
|
|
Post by talkswithbeagles on Nov 7, 2005 17:32:40 GMT -8
Okay, now we've got a discussion going!
I don't think that the term "Second Coming" is in the Bible, that's just what people have called it over the years. Some of the scripture you guys have quoted seems to confirm my assertion that Jesus was supposed to return to the Earth. He actually did return, if you count the Ressurection. What He did not do was establish God's kingdom on Earth. This is what was supposed to happpen after all the tribulations, signs, and anti-Christs had played their part. This is why the early Christians, and some Christians today, tell us that Jesus is going to come back again and fullfill the prophesy. Obviously, all Christians do not believe this, or attach as much importance to it as others. It is, nevertheless, in the Bible; and not just in a few obscure references either. Therefore, it seems to me that it is fair game for a theological discussion.
Religions, or denominations of religions, that believe in the literal establishment of God's kingdom on Earth are sometimes called "apocalyptic". This comes from the Greek word "apocalypse", which means "revelation". This is why the Biblical book of Revelation used to be called "Apocalypse".
Apocalyptic theory actually pre-dates Christianity. Many Jews believed that the Apocalypse was imminent even before Jesus came along, which is why He was called the "Messiah", which means "Savior". Of course, institutional Judaism does not accept Jesus as the Messiah, and believes that the Messiah is yet to come. Many individual Jews, however, must have believed it because they started the Christian religion. Of course Jesus was a Jew himself, as were the original 12 disciples and Paul, who is sometomes called "the thirteenth disciple".
While reading the Koran one day, I was surprised to find that Islam is also an apocalyptic religion. In their version Jesus doesn't come back and do it, or even Muhammed. I think that God does it personally, but I could be wrong about that. I found the Koran to be even more obscure than the Bible, but that's just me. I could tell you more about the Koran, but let's not go there tonight.
I never claimed to know all the answers here; in fact, I don't think I even know all the questions. I have no particular axe to grind, I'm just searching for the truth. That's what philosophers do; isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by tits on Nov 7, 2005 19:46:33 GMT -8
People usually refer to a "fundamentalist" as one who believes in the fundamantal founding principles of a body of thought, rather than the modern reinterpretation of those principles. I know what the dictionary definition is. I wanted to know what you meant when you said that. Need I remind you that Jesus was a Jew? Here's a description of the return of Christ as described in Mark 13:14: When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' (Jesus is quoting the OT here, where a lot of prophecy is contained) standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down or enter the house to take anything out. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that this will not take place in winter, because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again. If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
Because it's a red herring? According to "The Bible Answerman" Hanergraaff, the abomination was the Temple to Jupiter that was erected by Hadrian in 131 AD. This temple was built upon the foundation of the Herodian temple which was destroyed by Titus in 70 AD. Hanegraaff proposes that the traditional date for John's writings of 85 AD was actually around the late 50s based on archeological evidence. If this is correct then Jesus claim that "this generation shall not pass" would be true for many of the Apostles and the 120 key disciples would have seen the destruction. The general Titus used four Roman legions to sack Jerusalem after the failed Jewish "Zealot" revolt of 66 AD. In 165 BC, the Romans under the leadership of Antiochus Epiphanes sacked Jerusalem and put an end to the Macabee revolt by placing an alter to Zeus in the "Holy of Holies" and sacrificing upon the alter. One big reason while I have lost the Apocalyptic millenialist view is that the big items for Jewish worship were lost when Nebuchadnezzer sacked Jerusalem and destroyed Solomon's temple in 586 BC. How can God accept the "Chosen People" if they cannot worship him in accordance to His law? Have any of you heard of any Levite offering sacrifices for atonement in Jerusalem since they have moved back to the Israel? Me either. IF! IF, they were to discover the Arc of Covenant with everything intact. If the Jews were to offer a sacrifice by genuine Levite priest. If they were to hold to the Torah and Talmud, then I would be very afraid. That would me a restored biblical Israelite nation and that Jesus was a lie and we, as Paul wrote: “ But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Nov 7, 2005 20:20:21 GMT -8
Question folks!
After the Assyrians destroyed and dispersed the 10 Northern Tribes in the late 720s BC, all records of their genealogy ceased. Under the Torah, a Jew is not a Jew unless he could prove that his mother is a Jew. Without the record the “remnant” of the Northern Tribes were truly the “lost tribes.”
When those scatter peoples began to return with the 3 Southern Tribes in 538 after King Cyrus issued the decree to permit Zerubbabel to rebuild the temple, only the Jews who could prove to be Jews returned. Of the thousands of Jews taken by Nebuchadnezzer in 580 only 42,360 Jews from the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi plus 7,337 servants returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and Ezra. These people brought with them the records and religious artifacts (less the Arc) to rebuild the temple. However, I have not found any record of the “glory of the Lord” returning to either Zerubbabel’s or Herod’s Temples.
At the time of Christ the Jews living in the North were not considered Jews because they could not prove their lineage. Therefore, the Samarian woman by the well recognized that Jesus was a Jew and knew that she was a second class citizen even though she knew that her forefathers worshiped with Jeroboam I at Samaria. Though the 10 Northern Tribes had built a temple in Samaria, it was not recognized by God and there are no records of the "Glory of the Lord" even descending upon it. Prior to the Assyrian conquest, the Northern and Southern tribes did have a common heritage and worshipped the same God. Now, these were a people without a nation.
There was a huge superiority complex among the Jerusalem Jews over the Samarians at the time of Christ. This is why I believe the Chief Priest challenged Nichodemus in John: "Search the scriptures and you will see that no prophet has ever come from Galilee”. Galilee was the northern most territory in the Samaria. I believe this is also why they were so often amazed at the knowledge of the Scriptures that Jesus possessed. They did not know that he could prove that he was of the Tribe of Judah and could prove His Jewish heritage.
Question, could this superiority complex have been why the Apostles so often refer to "the Jews" as if they were not one of them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Nov 8, 2005 0:46:44 GMT -8
He actually did return, if you count the Ressurection. What He did not do was establish God's kingdom on Earth. I don't count that, for reasons I have already mentioned. No. Philosophers try to discover what they can know. There are things you can know and things you can't know. These days people say that the Bible is not true, then will make up some absurd speculation about it and use that for their argument. That's not philosophy. Hermeneutics is using the Bible to interpret itself. On THC where we came from you will see people pulling things out of their asses with no Biblical justification. They will assign attributes to things that don't belong there (this is called a category error). The most common one is to assign human attributes to God. I recommend Thomas Aquinas for a philosophical treatment of the Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Nov 8, 2005 10:14:47 GMT -8
He actually did return, if you count the Ressurection. What He did not do was establish God's kingdom on Earth. I don't count that, for reasons I have already mentioned. No. Philosophers try to discover what they can know. There are things you can know and things you can't know. These days people say that the Bible is not true, then will make up some absurd speculation about it and use that for their argument. That's not philosophy. Hermeneutics is using the Bible to interpret itself. On THC where we came from you will see people pulling things out of their asses with no Biblical justification. They will assign attributes to things that don't belong there (this is called a category error). The most common one is to assign human attributes to God. I recommend Thomas Aquinas for a philosophical treatment of the Bible. Like the blanket statement: "More people have died in the name of religion than all the wars put together." I challenged CRW, Buzz, and Lep on that with the hard facts that in the 20th Century alone, there were 130 million killed in wars and roughly another 105 million killed in genocide. Further that almost all were for politics and not religion. They responded with: "didn't the Nazis claim to be acting in the name of God?" This from the same people who claim that Hitler was a Christian and that that fact alone is sufficient to denounce Christianity. I tried to explain what Hitler's own writing said about the weak mind of the Christian, but they would not listen. I then offer that the evidence states that nearly 180 million died in the 19th century due to war and genocide. That the numbers from just these two centuries totaled up to nearly half a billion people dead for political or ethic purification. They responded with some absurd number of a billion killed in the crusades and that Napoleon was acting in the name of God. Mike you are correct, Paul said it best. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen..  |
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Nov 8, 2005 13:02:35 GMT -8
Right you are. That particular instance is just plain anti-religious bigotry, but as time goes by I am more and more convinced that 90% of the so-called "liberal" worldview is not a positive assertion at all, but an anti-religious reaction to whatever is going on. How many times has Shaowen got up on THC and demanded that religion be banned when something happens?
The others are not honest enough to say that, so they cloak their bias in bogus arguments like the one you just mentioned.
By the way, I don't know why the narrators of the gospels refer to Jews as though they were a separate group. I have been puzzling over it, but haven't had time to get the Bible out.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkswithbeagles on Nov 8, 2005 17:32:26 GMT -8
Wow! you guys have coverd a lot of ground here, and there is no way I can address it all tonight. I will try to skim some of the main points.
First, I wish that you guys would stop trying to equate me with THC. I do not frequent that site, and if I did I'm sure that I would disagree with a lot of what is said there. I have been arguing with atheists on the internet for the last four years. My experience has been that they are just as fanatical about their non-belief as many religious people are about their belief. They seem to think that, if they can find something to criticize about organized religion, it proves that God doesn't exist. My position has been that God and religion are two different things. If all the religions in the world were proved to be 100% false, it would not prove that God doesn't exist. Religion is a human activity. God was here before we were, and He will still be here when all of us are gone.
It is possible that Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. When He spoke of the Apocalypse. It is also possible that He was talking about the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th Century. To the people living in those places, it must have indeed seemed like the end of the world. So the timing was a little off, but that's the least of our problems. The problem I have with it is that the Last Judgement and the establishment of God's kingdom on Earth, which was supposed to occur at the end of the Apocalypse, just didn't happen. Or did it?
I believe that Christianity holds the world record for being the most rapidly and extensively spread religion in history. In a few centuries, it covered most of the known, or "civilized" world. It assimilated other religions and belief systems without losing its core principles. It even became the official state church of the Roman Empire. When Rome fell to the Barbarians, it was the conquerors who were converted to the religion of their subject people. This was the opposite of the way it had usually worked in the past. In a manner of speaking you could say that God's kingdom was indeed established on Earth, although God did not personally assume command, as was predicted.
I once read a book called "This Believing World" by Isaac Azimov. He was an ardent atheist, and in this book, he soundly trashed the major religions of the world. Nevertheless, he did say that, in all fairness, you can't blame religion for all the wars that were fought in its name. War is part of human nature. If those people hadn't had religion, they would have surely thought of some other excuse to fight. Who knows? It is possible, even likely, that religion actually softened some of the atrocities and brutalities of war. If those people had been atheists, the wars they fought might have been a whole lot worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Nov 9, 2005 3:06:29 GMT -8
First, I wish that you guys would stop trying to equate me with THC. I do not frequent that site, and if I did I'm sure that I would disagree with a lot of what is said there. I have been arguing with atheists on the internet for the last four years. My experience has been that they are just as fanatical about their non-belief as many religious people are about their belief. They seem to think that, if they can find something to criticize about organized religion, it proves that God doesn't exist. My position has been that God and religion are two different things. Of course they are different things. God is God and religion is the expression of worship. In Leviticus, where God says He wants us to build Him a Tabernacle, make it this high and no higher, this wide and no wider, this long and no longer. God was very specific about where He would enter in to meet with us until the New Covenant, where we became the Tabernacles. This is "organized religion", proscribed by God. The Catholic mass is a stylized Hebrew sacrifice. Believers are called to this. Am I saying all are called to be Catholics? Paul writes: It is clear, though, that God holds you accountable for the things you do know, not necessarily for what you don't know. It is one thing not to know things about God, it is quite another to dismiss the things you do know about God like gathering with other believers, alms for the poor, and other offices God has called us to. |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Nov 9, 2005 10:56:22 GMT -8
Great question Wolfman. Here is my take on the Gentile v Hebrew v God v Religion question. Bikeman said it correctly; GOD IS!
I have been puzzled for many years as to why God chose Abram to give his blessing. Even after that He still heard and used people such as Balaam who were clearly worshippers of Baal. Why He chose Jacob’s 12 sons to fulfill His blessing, for they were quick to turn away. Why He told Moses: "I know man and he will turn away" and yet gave Moses the law knowing that we could not keep it? Why did He chose to create and bless man knowing that from the Garden on man would not obey and that He would have to offer His Son for our salvation? Both God and Jesus are recorded as making the statement: John 7:41-43 "I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him."
My studies have convinced me that there are no Jews alive today who practice "G-D’s Law". Jesus himself often made the distincition between's God's law and man's law (Moses). There are no atonement sacrifices, no thanks offerings, and no official "alter" on which a national sacrificial bull, ram, 2 goats, 7 yearling sheep, 7 doves, grain, and wine offerings are made. There are no known Levites to offer such a sacrifice. Further, the Israelite nation is still looking for a worldly Massiah to restore the Biblical Israel of Moses, Josuah, and David to its glory. They are looking a return to David's kingdom because the kingdom fractured immediately after Solomon.
However, much of the Mosac Law contains instructions for the practicing God’s love to the “orphan, widow, and alien”. Paul wrote time and again, Peter wrote, John wrote time and again, and Jesus’ brother James wrote “to love your neighbor." James wrote is simply: James 1: 26 – 27 If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
Paul wrote to the Roman church, which was mainly pagan with a minority of Jewish Christians concerning God’s gift to the Gentiles: Romans 11: 10-12, 25&26 Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. …I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
And then in Romans 15:14-21 I myself am convinced, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another. I have written you quite boldly on some points, as if to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
Therefore I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God. I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done—by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation. Rather, as it is written:
"Those who were not told about him will see,
and those who have not heard will understand."
By this I believe that we have been given a great gift with only two strings attached.
1) Believe that Jesus is He who was spoken of by the Prophets. That we will be recognized by our obedience, which is an outward sign of our love for God, Christ, and our fellow man.
2) That outside of the acts of worship, that pure religion is to visit the fatherless and the widows and provide for their needs.
Throughout history, mankind has confused the acts of worship, belief, and faith to a point where we now use the acts of worship as a mark of faith. We leave the acts of pure religion to the government and we use our faith as a yardstick. Many of those who are quick to denounce religion and blame God have lost their hope because they know that they cannot measure up to the yardstick of faith we demand of them.
Sorry for the preachiness.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkswithbeagles on Nov 9, 2005 17:05:57 GMT -8
Okay, the problem I have with all this stuff is that it is unverifiable. Throughout history, many people claimed to have personally spoken with God. We are supposed to take their word for this, since there are no living witnesses. Sometimes these people reinforce each other's testimony, and other times they condradict each other. Every religion claims that it was started by God Himself, but truth be known, they were all started by human beings.
I am not an atheist, because an atheist believes that God doesn't exist. I believe that God exists, but I can't prove it any more than an atheist can prove that God doesn't exist. I just believe it because I want to believe it, and that's good enough for me. I am not an agnostic either. An agnostic isn't sure whether he believes in God or not. I believe in God all right, it's my fellow man that I am not so sure of.
God may or may not have spoken directly to other people, but He has never spoken directly to me. I think that if God wanted to speak to me, He would do so. I can see no reason why God would need to resort to a third party to get a message through to me. The only reasonable conclusion I can come to from this is that God wants me to figure things out for myself, which I have been trying to do all my life.
|
|
|
|
Post by tits on Nov 9, 2005 18:29:49 GMT -8
And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. Matt 16:17
My Lord and my God!" Thomas exclaimed.
Then Jesus told him, "You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who haven't seen me and believe anyway."
Jesus' disciples saw him do many other miraculous signs besides the ones recorded in this book. John 20:28-30
You and I are Jews by birth, not `sinners' like the Gentiles. And yet we Jewish Christians know that we become right with God, not by doing what the law commands, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be accepted by God because of our faith in Christ--and not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be saved by obeying the law."
But what if we seek to be made right with God through faith in Christ and then find out that we are still sinners? Has Christ led us into sin? Of course not!
Gal 2:14-17
But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" onsequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did:
"Their voice has gone out into all the earth,
their words to the ends of the world." James 1:16-18
and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.
Phil. 2:11-16
Talks, congratulations, you are a normal Christian.
|
|
|
|
Post by Far Rider on Nov 10, 2005 1:03:42 GMT -8
Okay, the problem I have with all this stuff is that it is unverifiable. Throughout history, many people claimed to have personally spoken with God. We are supposed to take their word for this, since there are no living witnesses. Sometimes these people reinforce each other's testimony, and other times they condradict each other. Every religion claims that it was started by God Himself, but truth be known, they were all started by human beings. I am not an atheist, because an atheist believes that God doesn't exist. I believe that God exists, but I can't prove it any more than an atheist can prove that God doesn't exist. I just believe it because I want to believe it, and that's good enough for me. I am not an agnostic either. An agnostic isn't sure whether he believes in God or not. I believe in God all right, it's my fellow man that I am not so sure of. God may or may not have spoken directly to other people, but He has never spoken directly to me. I think that if God wanted to speak to me, He would do so. I can see no reason why God would need to resort to a third party to get a message through to me. The only reasonable conclusion I can come to from this is that God wants me to figure things out for myself, which I have been trying to do all my life. There have been numerous points in my life where people have said to me "If it was easy, anybody could do it". The insinuation is that if it can be done by anybody, then you have accomplished not much of anything. With all the proof in the world at their disposal, anybody could believe anything. Jesus alludes to this when talking about loving your enemies. He points out that even the tax collectors love their friends, so for you to love your friends is no feat. |
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Nov 10, 2005 5:56:38 GMT -8
"Okay, the problem I have with all this stuff is that it is unverifiable."
Which is why it's called the Christian faith and not the Christian suggestion.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkswithbeagles on Nov 10, 2005 17:34:31 GMT -8
First of all, I resent being called a "normal Christian". I don't mind the "Christian" part, although I prefer to think of myself as a Deist. It's the "normal" part that's got me worried. I don't believe anybody ever called me "normal" before, and I'm not sure that I like it.
Okay, we are not so far apart after all. You guys seem to believe in Jesus Christ the same way I believe in God. I believe in the "Jesus" part, but I'm not so sure about the "Christ" part. I'm not denying it you understand, I'm just not so sure I believe it. Still, I try to keep an open mind about things like that. Some people will tell you that Jesus is the Son of God, while others will tell you that Jesus *is* God. Jesus usually referred to Himself as "The Son of Man", but he did hint otherwise from time to time.
All that we know about God and/or Jesus we learned from other people. It has been my experience that other people are not always reliable. Sometimes they lie, sometimes they make mistakes, and sometimes they just don't know what they're talking about. Not that I'm perfect, you understand. It's just that if anybody was going to be perfect, it would be me; and since I'm not, I'm reasonably certain that nobody else is either.
Of course, you have to take some things on faith, or you would never get anything done in life. If I had to know everything there is to know about computers before I bought one, the internet would still be deprived of my insightfull commentary. I plug this thing in, I push a button, and it starts up. If someday it doesn't start up, I wouldn't just throw the thing away, I would try to find out why it didn't start and what, if anything, could be done to fix it. I am reasonably certain that it will start up tomorrow just like it did today, but I don't know that for an absolute fact.
If your best friend came up to you and told you that he just had a direct verbal conversation with God, you would likely refer him to a psychiatrist; but if you read about somebody who lived 2000 years ago making the same claim, you assume that he was a true prophet of God. I never claimed to be a prophet or anything like that. I have enough trouble getting people to believe the routine Earthly things that happen to me.
Moses talked with God, and people said that he was a prophet.
Paul talked with Jesus, and people said that he was a prophet.
Muhammed talked with the Angel Gabriel, and people said that he was a prophet.
I talk with beagles, and people say that I have been out in the swamp too long.
Why do you suppose that is? I mean, it's not like I'm the only one who can *see* the beagles!
By the away; about all those sacrifices and other acts of worship: A long time ago I read this in Reader's Digest. It's supposed to be a true story. A Sunday School teacher had just finished telling her young students about the animal sacrifices that the Jews used to make to God. She then asked if there were any questions. One little girl raised her hand and asked: "What does God want with a dead sheep?"
|
|
