Dear Theophilus, 

It was so nice to hear from you and to hear that things seem to be picking up. Its funny how in life our situations undulate so that of every occasion and instance we can say with some surety - this too will pass. There is much wisdom in these words for times of trial as well as for times of joy.

You ask me abut the terms that I used in my last letter about love and prayer and charity and you say to me that you have heard all this before and there is nothing new there - it all seems so cliched to you. I understand what you are saying and, believe me, I sympathize with you because we all have felt what you are saying. I think that what we need, and need desperately, is to hear a fresh restatement of the great truths of our faith in language that is meaningful to us in the times that we live in and in the world which confronts us.

I hasten to say the following to you. I cannot convince you of any profound truths through argumentation - I can only carry on a dialogue with you and, in a sense, remind you, bring to your consciousness, things that you probably know already. Keep in mind that as no-one can conclusively prove that God exists, neither can anyone prove that God does not exist. This is impossible and anyone who claims to the contrary is not being totally truthful. Remember that I had alluded in one of the earlier letters that mankind hangs on a cross? This is one of those crosses - we live with a question mark at the center of our existence and this is not easy to do and we relieve this pain by sliding into more secure positions - fanaticism or atheism. Both, I think are wrong.

Fundamentally, I try to live my live trustfully. The sun rises every day, there is continuity in my life, even science tells me that nature is not deceptive but predictable and laws can be devised to describe natural phenomena. All this strengthens my belief in the trustworthiness of life. But the question arises as to the basis for this reliability of nature and the best answer I can give you is that God is behind it. This, of course poses the question which you alluded to in your letter. Fine, there is a God, but what kind of God? An impersonal force? A God who consists of the total of creation? A despotic tyrant?

This is where the importance of revelation comes because if we were to try to decide what God is like from nature, we would run into serious problems. And the reason for this is simple - nature herself is fallen and flawed and therefore does not give us clear guidelines as to what God is like but enables us to see as if we were looking through a darkened glass. Nature will not teach us what is right or wrong. The only law in nature is the law of the strongest or, sometimes, the wiliest. There are many glorious aspects to nature but there are also many sordid sides to her. Just as our laws of morality must come from outside of us, so must our knowledge of God.

I will not deign to speak of other religions or faiths because I am not as knowledgeable about them as their followers are. I will therefore limit myself to the faith that you and I share.

The central source of our revelation is the Bible, a compendium of many writings of different styles. It would serve us well if we both considered this influential book and its role in our religion. There has been much written about this book, some that is not so complimentary, but in order to discuss the Bible we must read it and not take somebody else's opinion of what is or is not in the Bible. One of the problems here is that the Bible is not always easy for us to comprehend. I would therefore suggest to you that you read a copy with some explanatory notes in it to make your readings more intelligible. There are parts of the Bible that would not be that useful for you to struggle through, such as sections in the Old Testament on specific laws or other details of similar type. Don't get bogged down with these considerations and give up the whole enterprise because you simply didn't see the point of it. The other thing is that as with any work of literature, you must read it once and again and again before you start to grasp it more fully. Thus, the key word here is persistence.

If any story is to make sense (and bear in mind that the Bible is a book of stories to a large extent) to us, we must consider its beginnings and this is also true about the Bible. The first book, the book of Genesis, is of crucial importance for us to grasp everything that follows its depiction of how it all began.

And here, with the first words we run into a problem. Is what is written here true or is simply some imaginings. How can we reconcile what we read here with what we know in science? In a sense, this question is of secondary importance (we'll consider it more fully a little later) which clouds some crucial statements made in Genesis.

What it tells us, and in a way different from writings in other cultures or religions is that the world did not come into being by pure chance. There is a being behind the existence of the world and this being is God. And, the world did not come into existence from some reforming of matter that was already there but it is indeed something new that has never been before. But this creation suffered a terrible calamity whose repercussions we are still feeling in all aspects of our live. In fact, it is impossible for us to escape these consequences. What I am referring to is called the fall. Thus we can take the eating of the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden as a symbolic representation of the truth of creation that has gone awry, that has somehow alienated itself from its creator. And this has brought with it the terrible consequences of murder, death, suffering and struggle that have become the norm for much of human life. This much we can attest to - much of human history has been sheer hell, so much so, that the poet Byron has referred to human history as Satan's Scriptures. But there is something else in the Book of Genesis that offers us a promise. That puzzling creature, the serpent, is going to be crushed, but his crushing will come at a price of a death. And so it begins, the litany of murder, of injustice, of deceit, of betrayal interspersed with heroism and bravery and faithfulness. The Bible, above all is a book about humanity in all its glory and in all its depravity. It does not pull any punches and this is sometimes not to the liking of those who would like to see only lofty ideals and good things written about mankind. But this would be an illusion and that is the domain of the Prince of Liars, Satan.

But, as the Scriptures paint a picture of humankind, they also portray God for us, and one of the problems that atheists raise and give as cause for their unbelief, is the kind of God pictured in the Old Testament. What kind of God is it that would demand that a father (Abraham) sacrifice his son (Isaac)? What kind of God is it who changes his mind and at a whim annihilates people for such seeming minor things as approaching too close to the Ark? What kind of God is it who answers with vengeance, making "sport" of the Egyptians So that Israel will witness the fact that Yahweh is Lord? What kind of God is it who does not allow pharaoh to repent? In 2 Samuel, God tells David to number the people and we are informed that this is a transgression of David's. Isaiah writes about God saying that He creates light and darkness. What kind of God is this, then? These are all serious considerations and cannot be swept aside and have caused many sensitive people to turn their backs on religion and to declare that they do not believe God exists. We must not answer these people with derision or attack - the points they raise are important and by wrestling with them honestly, our faith and understanding will grow. We must never, never resort to deception or half-truths but must always bear in mind that it is not as important that we defend truth as that truth defend us.

The questions that have been raised above are dealt with in the area of theodicy - explaining, at least trying to explain, why evil exists if God is all powerful and Almighty. Many theologians have wrestled with these questions and answers have been attempted. None of them is totally satisfactory on the intellectual level. But, and this is important, maybe the question of the continued existence of evil is not a question to be answered on a strictly rational level but must be addressed and answered in a different manner. And surprisingly, what you will find in my next letter, is that this very question provides strong support for our faith. But, since that is an involved topic, which will take some time to explain, let me defer you to my next letter.

Sincerely,

Bar-Abbas

Return to Index