An interesting idea in Bruchko for me was his understanding of what God wanted him to do. At times it seemed as though the reasons were in his head and created by him, such as when he kept trying to leave the jungle and was physically unable to (his donkey kept throwing him off of his back), or when he was locked out of his house. However, at other times Bruchko seems to be communicated to by God beyond a shadow of a doubt. Examples of these instances are: when Bruchko escapes the natives (and later finds out that was to be killed the day after he escaped), and when he was spared his life be the revolutionaries.
Whichever viewpoint one takes in examining and evaluating the events, the idea of God’s communication and the validity of this require much contemplation. It is obviously impossible to tell with any degree of certainty which view is correct. However much the skeptic wants to doubt, he cannot prove it was not God’s voice. At the same time the believer can not prove beyond a doubt that God did contact Bruchko. Finally even Bruchko himself can not necessarily claim he was certain that God was talking to him. This controversy of divine communication provides an interesting complication.
In conclusion it seems to boil down to the idea of belief and non-belief. Each subscriber will hold their views and in their eyes may be most fully justified in their convictions. Bruchko’s balanced examples of his divine intervention, where some examples seemed evidently sacred, and others not so much, really made me think about this issue.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment