to grasp spiritual matters. I have no training and relatively "late" began to try to make up for lost time. So, you have only my impression of your questions/comments which I hope to accurately synopsize:
1. Is a person bad who only parts with 1% of one's income?
I don't know. But one is a better person if it be 2%, and even better if 3%, etc. [Yes, it could be done for publicity, to generate double the business, etc., but all things being equal...]. I don't know at what statistical juncture one tips into the good from the bad category. I am happily relieved of making that judgment call by the 10-30% parameters bestowed.
2. Was the Bible a good reference point "once upon a time" which has now has been trumped by the wonderful progress the world has seen?
The Bible works when sincerely invoked, and even then, not always. At least apparently not always. The Hitlers and Stalins [and many others] felt it to be obsolete. Yet today, in no time as to the former and barely a century for the latter, Nazis are marginalized, the walls [Berlin and otherwise] have tumbled, etc., while followers of the Bible are, after 3 millennia, still motivated to spread the word, establish soup kitchens, visit the sick, tend people with aids, shop for the elderly, etc. etc.
3. Isn't the Bible so filled with contradictions that any people trying to follow it would not survive?
There are SEEMING contradictions, many of which when intently demarcated may be resolved, others remain, but the PROCESS of synthesizing these is in itself salutory. At the time of the cannonization of the [so-called] Old Testament, and then the New, there were many nations practicing idolatry, hedenism, epicurean... whatever. None of these survived for long. The nations following the Bible [including the Moselm nations, the Koran being an addition, not a substitution, to the Bible] have been around for a multitude of centuries [and more].
4. Can we "pick and choose" verses from the Bible and reject others and/or ought we spout it from the beginning to the end or else be still?
We stand for the reading of the Ten Commandments. I was told this was wrong [and agree] because it implies that some verse are more equal than others. To reject the validity of any part would, by logic, impugn the entirety. But if you come across someone who is, say, stealing, it seems to make sense to refer to those passages to which stealing is germane [otherwise you blow a chance at, excuse the expression, "reformation"].
5. Why would you [Mark] not trumpet equally the "obligation" to stone a woman who leaves her house without an appropriate male escort?
For one thing, I know not of this being in the Bible but have HEARD it was in the Koran. But I think what I have to say would be apt if it were in the Bible and, while far from an Islamist, believe the latter's scholars express similar sentiments. There are indeed parts of scripture which tend to be allegorical. Notwithstanding those who are [too succesfully] hijacking Islam, the import of that verse is a warning both at and even more FOR the gentler gender [notwithstanding that our next President will in all likelihood be female]. I need not tell you what happens all too frequently in this world to women who go out unprotected. [Nuff said?] You may find interesting the death senstence on a "stubborn and rebellous child". You know what, Ken Ken. It never happened [the death sentence; many an unruly kid.] For dozens upon dozens of offenses the death penalty is prescribed, and I mean, not in the Koran - albeit there also - but in the Bible! Yet despite this, during the centuries of San Hedrin rule, where once in 70 years the death penalty was imposed, that San Hedrin was denominated as "bloody". Kensky, almost anything taken out of context, seen in a vaccuum, or which appears without a familiar foundation will invariably have the apparency of being "ridiculous". [Can you imagine Attillah the Hun's reaction to a Shakespearian play?]
6. Mark, don't you realize that by alluding to the Bible to show how wrong the sale of camp had been results in many people finding it, as a result, acceptable?
First, I did not claim that the sale of camp was proscribed by Biblical principles. What I am saying is that since the standards set forth in that august [some would say "austere"] work are not violated, where do we mere mortal come to be so critical. I can say [from the Bible, I believe] "Do not criticize your fellow human being until you come into his place". Or, a Native American saying: "Do not criticize another until you have walked xx miles/kilometers in his moccassins". [Gary, where is spell check when I need it!] And for those of us who probably would have followed the same path had he/she been the owners of Clay Point, let me say [hopefully not too seemingly crudely] "If the shoe fits, wear it."
Best to my [Newish] Grand-Nephew.
Uncle Markie
mark@lgpltd.com