Basic HTML Version
L
E
.Jews Are a Nation Again
The Egyptian-lsraeli peace efforts need thc
clarification of the ancient background of
the Arab-Jew situation you give in your
article ["Jews Are a Nation Again" ]. Such
information is much better than the emo–
tional terrorist approach.
Edna Kennedy,
Ukiah, California
Please discontinue sending me further
issues of
The Plain Truth .
l am particu–
larly outraged with your biased anti–
Arab and pro-Zionist article "Jews Are a
Nation Again. " l pray for the victory of
the Arab and the final destruction of the
illegal state of Israel!
Wan Muda Wan Yahaya,
Stillwater, Oklahoma
1 believe your article to be somewhat
misleading.
lt
stated: "The Jews in Pales–
tine declared themselves a nation." Nota
mention that the U.N. voted for the es–
tablishment of two states-one to be Jew–
ish, one Arab (the latter rejected it).
However, another
Plain Truth
article,
' 'Mideast Treaty: Peace or Empty Prom–
ises?," very fairly presents Israel's dilem–
ma. Mr. Armstrong warns that only the
"give" principie will produce results. To
whom is that warning applied? Israel?
What if the present Egyptian govern–
ment is followed by another with oppos–
ing viewpoints? Then, it seems, Israel will
have given away much-for nothing·!
Why wasn ' t Mr. Armstrong's "giv.e" plea·
addressed to Egypt ?
B. Brodsky,
Brooklyn, New York
A Jewish neighbor of mine saw your
February
Plain Truth.
'The plain truth,"
she said, " is that many Christians could
never let us live· in peace with our Ju–
d~ism."
She pointed out that the beauti–
ful paragraph by Stanley Rader ("only
God 's laws, laws based upon love óf God
and !ove of neighbor, will permit what all
people of goodwill so avidly yearn for–
peace and prosperity, health and happi-
The
PLAIN TRUTH June-Juty 1979
T
ness for people everywhere") contradicts
all the bigotry about the Jews having to
confess their sins, loathe themselves for
ignoring God, etc., on the next page. As
my rieighbor said: "They always want to
convert us. Don't they realize that we are
very content with our religion?"
Iris McDonald,
Baltimore, Maryland
Simon the Sorcerer Repentant?
On page
S
of the January 1979
Plain
Truth,
Mr. Armstrong states: "By A.D.
33 the Pater-leader of the Babylonian
mystery religion, one Simon the Sorcerer
(Acts 8:9-24) , falsely claimed Christiani–
ty and applied that name to his religion."
After searching the Scriptures, and espe–
cially Acts 8:9-24, 1 find the last words
recorded seem to show Simon to be re–
pentant. Mr. Armstrong's statement is
probably correct but ñot thoroughly
shown to be true. Could we have a clari–
fication of this in the next
Plain Truth?
Ken Bryant,
Port Credit, Ontario, Canada
Editor's Note: "/
perceive." said rhe
apostle Peter, according to the King
James Version, "that thou {Simonj art
in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond
ofiniquity." But what he real/y said was:
"/
see you are a bitter poison and a
bundle of iniquity" (Goodspeed; the
Moffat translation is very similar). In
other words, Peter was in effect prophesy–
ing oj Simot:t's future role as a deceiver
anda snare
to
Christians. The following
verse does not indicateSimon repented, as
onemight think atfirst glance. Notice that
·
instead of changing his attitude or his
actions or seeking real contact with God.
Simon mere/y responded,
"You
pray for
me, that the things you said won't happen
ro me,"while he kept onfollowing hisown
ways.
Later history shows sorne oj what
Si–
mon did do. The fourth-century church
historian Eusebius mentions repeatedly
that Simon and other fa/se teachers who
followed his lead and started their own
churches al/ called themselves Christian,
but did not teach rhe doctrine of Christ .
E
R
S
Justin Martyr, who lived in the second
century, also brands Simon as the arch
heretic, as do other early writings.
Onions for "Orchids and Onions"
One of the letters in the March
Plain
Truth
caught my attention.
lt
was from a
lady named Norton who asked why Mr.
Armstrong visited foreign dignitaries but
not American leaders. 1was disappointed
that you did not answer the letter since 1
have asked myself the same question.
Why even print letters if you are not
going to answer them?
William Callisto,
Reading, Pennsylvania
1 have to take issue with the "Orchids
and Onions" page. ! 've never cared for
the debating .approach on doctrinal sub–
jects or subjects based on principies of
the Bible. Now l 'm not saying questions
should not be answered, but 1 prefer the
question-and-an~wer
approach. Almost
every day many of us are subject to opin–
ions like the ones in the April issue of
The
Plain Truth
wherethe readers' minds are
only open to evidence that fits their mold
of the Bible. We have it enough without
The Plain Truth
printing opinions of
people who just don't understand. Let's
print the "plain truth" and say it like it is ,
correct ourselves when we' re wrong, and
leave the debates to the world.
Chris Holding,
Kalispell , Montana
Editor' s Note:
"Orchids and Onions."
like similar features in other magazines.
is devoted primarily to the expression of
reader opinion. We try to balance varied
and opposing views, believing that one
person's comment or expression is usual–
/y the best response to another's opinion.
Many questions are only rhetorical, be–
ing used jor the purpose of expressing
praise (or its opposite). or offering a
suggestion. as in Ms. Norton's letter
mentioned above. So general/y we engage
in dialogue only when a response from us
can ser the record straight or prevent
obvious doctrinal error f rom passing
it–
self off as truth.
45