|
His covenant, which he commanded you to do; the ten commandments
, and he wrote them on two stone
tablets »(Deut. 4:13) 6).
Therefore, we believe that God’s book (the ten commandments), as well as Moses five books of Torah
(containing Moses prophecy), are the totality of the Divine revelation. And all other books can’t be
considered anything but optional commentary.
Thus, adding to the former books would amount to stealing a part of the Divine territory that, in the heart of
the believer are God’s ten commandments supposed to carve.
In other words, it would amount to using something else (the restoration of Israel, the reconstruction of the
temple, the coming of the Messiah, etc.) as an excuse to diminish, divide, or dilute the zeal that, for keeping
the commands of the covenant, ought to characterize all Hebrew believers: As is written: «
You shall not add
to the word that I command you, nor diminish from it, so that you may keep (the Lord) your God; andwithout the unnecessary
distraction that would arise from adding additional books) the commandments of Yah your God, which I
command you
” (Deut. 4:2).
278
“
People don't care how much you know, until they know how much you care”
Why do Reformed Samaritans use phrases like “Peace be upon him”? And why do they seem to speak
well of some people [or institutions] while at the same time criticizing them? Isn’t that a veiled form of
hypocrisy?
If Reformed Samaritanism (R.S.) isn’t a veiled form of Islam, why would it’s literature include phrases like
“peace be upon him”?... And if R.S. isn’t another “flavour” of Christianity, then why do we find it using
expressions like “Christianity is a perfectly valid religion”? Finally, if R.S. isn’t another branch of Judaism,
why would it make use of Jewish and/or Talmudic literature?
The reason for all of the former is quite simple. You see, Reformed Samaritanism demands the pursuit of
honesty, as well as intellectual integrity; and that's why it’s literature includes ideas like, “truth, though
severe, is of all friends the most sincere”, “The illusion that exalts us is dearer to us than ten thousand truths“,
“the truth is always less interesting that the fiction”, and “I'm for truth, no matter who tells it”).
And of course, the natural result of such commitment is that R.S. opposes any kind of “binary” ("black or
white", "all or nothing", etc) theology. In other words, we are discouraged from blindly embracing all that is
said [or done] by any great religious establishments (since the establishments first commitment isn’t truth,
but rather growth and power perpetuation). Thus, the Reformed Samaritan is expected to follow godly moral
principles, and not religious establishments.
In short, R.S. teaches that we should embrace goodness, and reject evil [regardless of their respective
sources]. How can we tell apart one from the other? Very simple! Goodness is whatever is [directly or
indirectly] in agreement with God's Ten “sayings” (or commandments)-- whose spirit is none other than to
“sow” honesty, integrity, respect, high moral values, holiness, justice, mercy, and humility. On the other
hand, evil is whatever denies, opposes, or undermines God’s commandments.
Why are we asked to “sow” goodness? We are commanded to do so because God’s judgment is executed thru
the Divine law of “sowing and reaping”; whereby we are eventually forced to “reap” the same goodness
we’ve “sown” [as well as the evil we have willingly planted, without ever repenting from it].
And from whence do we know Divine truth isn’t “all or nothing” [as flawed people and institutions often
feature merits that are actually pleasing to the Almighty]? We know it from Edom; whom, though having the
criminal intent to kill his brother, was nonetheless sensible enough to spare Isaac from unnecessary suffering
(delaying Jacob’s execution, thereby honoring his aged father). As is written: «… and Esau said in his heart,
“The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I slay my brother Jacob”»- Genesis 27:41, King
James Bible.
Thus, though a potential criminal, Edom did have the merit of honoring his father. And since Edom honored
his father, the Heavenly Father considdered Edom worthy of reaping the same honor he had formerly
bestowed. How? First, by letting him accumulate so much wealth that he could afford having a 400 men
strong army. Secondly, by giving him [during his own lifespan] the power to conquer giants, thereby
inheriting the giant's country (Mount Seir); a country bordering the promised land.
As is written: «… and Esau said in his heart, “The days of mourning for my father are at hand; then will I
slay my brother Jacob”»- Genesis 27:41, King James Bible.
279
Thus, though a potential criminal, Edom did have the merit of honoring his father. And since Edom honored
his father, the Heavenly Father considered him worthy of reaping the same honor he had previously
bestowed. How? First, by letting him accumulate so much wealth that he could afford having a 400 men
strong army. Secondly, by giving him [during his lifespan] the power to conquer giants, thereby inheriting the
giant's country (Mount Seir); a country bordering the Promised Land.
As is written: “And Esau took his wives, and his sons, and his daughters, and all the persons of his house,
and his cattle, and all his beasts, and all his substance, which he had got in the land of Canaan; and went into
the country from the face of his brother Jacob. For their riches were more than that they might dwell
together; and the land wherein they were strangers could not bear them because of their cattle. Thus dwelt
Esau in mount Seir: Esau is Edom”- Genesis 36:6-8...
... And also says elsewhere, “The Horims [a race of giants] also dwelt in Seir beforetime; but the children of
Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead; as Israel did
unto the land of his possession, which the Lord gave unto them”- Deut. 2:12, KJB).
Thus, it is proper for Reformed Samaritans to pay their respect to Edom’s merits, by evoking him using
phrases like, “peace be upon him”. Likewise, it is not hypocritical [but rather intellectually honest] to state
that, though an awesome example of being a caring son, Edom was also a violent person; one who “lived by
his sword” [in other words, a person whose safety depended upon the shedding of someone else blood!].
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
