Friday, April 28, 2006

Another Try

Alright, I'm gonna save this draft every other sentence.

I mentioned plenty about what I don't believe or know, now for some of what I do.

Angela said that he loves me. This I know. As I was thinking about the Cross, I tried to find some loophole that didn't require Jesus to die to cover our sins (much like I'm eager for evidence that the "Spirit of Prophecy" isn't or doesn't have to be Ellen White.) After coming up empty there, I thought about why God sacrificed his son. It is because he loves us and wants to have us live with him forever, so much that even if no one accepts his gift, he still gives it. Which love is greater, requited or unrequited? I'm guessing that the love that is rejected is greater. What makes us worthy of God killing his son for us? His love. We are valuable because God loves us. Here is where I depart. I find his love quite literally pathetic. I have a hard time respecting a God that kowtows to measly humans like a puppy. Our value comes from God's love, but his love is greater if we reject it? I don't believe I get my value from who loves me. I believe any value I have comes from who I am, what I'm capable of doing, thinking, and becoming.

Labels: ,

11 Comments:

At April 28, 2006 9:14 AM, Blogger Cerise said...

"For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Revelation 19:10). I think that should count as evidence that it doesn't have to be Ellen White--in whom I don't believe either.

 
At April 28, 2006 12:35 PM, Blogger Ellen said...

you're over thinking this. if there is a god and a heaven and if you wind up at the gates of god's heaven, just say you were joking about the whole "over thinking" thing. i'm sure god will understand and have a good laugh with you.

 
At April 28, 2006 1:59 PM, Blogger Daniel said...

I still believe in God, just not the Christian one. And I am also just saying what I believe, I disagree with how I understand Christianity, but that doesn't make it wrong. I'm fine with being wrong, burn me up.

 
At April 28, 2006 2:00 PM, Blogger Daniel said...

I meant to say, I disagree with the Christianity I understand.

 
At April 28, 2006 5:33 PM, Blogger Voth said...

This is a little late, but I think it will explain easter to your liking...

http://www.paulandstorm.com/sounds/easter.mp3

 
At May 01, 2006 2:07 AM, Blogger Jeff said...

A few questions & comments:

1. LOVE
"I'm guessing that the love that is rejected is greater."
"Our value comes from God's love, but his love is greater if we reject it?"

I have a hard time accepting this view of love. I'm more comfortable with, "We can't earn God's love because he already loves us completely. We can't lose God's love because he'll love us the same even if we reject him." Unconditional love has to be just that, unconditional (whether accepted or rejected). However, I do see a difference between unconditional love and unconditional forgiveness, but that would like to a previous discussion that I don't want to pursue right now.

I think the Bible teaches us to love our enemies because our Creator does the same. Love him or hate him, hug him or nail him, he's still offering all the love he has.

2. RESPECT
"I have a hard time respecting a God that kowtows to measly humans like a puppy."

I don't understand this part. If you have time, I'm interested to read an explanation.

3. VALUE
"I believe any value I have comes from who I am, what I'm capable of doing, thinking, and becoming."

But isn't the capacity for doing, thinking, and becoming given by the Creator (Christian or non-Christian Gd)? So the value would still ultimately come from God. Either way, how does the consideration diminish God's love, or God's character, or our value? I'm don't see the connection yet. Did I misunderstand where you were going with it?

 
At May 01, 2006 12:07 PM, Blogger Amy said...

When I read your statement about God in His pathetic love kowtowing to us humans like a puppy, what I imagined you thinking was this, "If I were God, I wouldn't kowtow to measly humans." By "kowtowing to humans" I assume you mean that He allows us to influence Him, He withholds judgment, He allows us to ignore what He says and choose to go another way. A God that did not do this would not be a God of love, but a god of power. The Christian God is, of course, a God of limitless power, but power without love is self-serving power. He wouldn't have created us to choose, He would have created us to serve Him against our will. If Satan were God (I don't know if you believe in Satan either, but go with me anyway) he would not "kowtow" to anyone I am sure. You can imagine for yourself what a world ruled by that kind of god would look like. (I think of Aslan v. the White Witch in Narnia, somehow.) You can respect power, but limitless power and limitless love is a combination that quite literally brings tears to my eyes.

All I have to say is thank Goodness for pathetic love.

P.S. According to the following definitions, I don't agree that God kowtows to anyone. Perhaps if you could offer examples or explanations, as Jeff suggested, it would clarify things. Also, if I mistook your meanings or feelings feel free to set me straight.

Kowtow (according to bartleby.com)
1. To kneel and touch the forehead to the ground in expression of deep respect, worship, or submission, as formerly done in China. 2. To show servile deference. See synonyms at fawn1

Fawn (ibid)
1. To exhibit affection or attempt to please, as a dog does by wagging its tail, whining, or cringing. 2. To seek favor or attention by flattery and obsequious behavior.
SYNONYMS: fawn1, apple-polish, bootlick, kowtow, slaver1, toady, truckle These verbs mean to curry favor by behaving obsequiously and submissively:

 
At May 04, 2006 7:38 PM, Blogger Karen said...

I think you're saying that you're fine with being wrong because secretly you believe you are right.

 
At May 07, 2006 6:39 PM, Blogger Angela said...

i look forward to your return to writing. i miss you.

 
At May 08, 2006 9:26 AM, Blogger Terri said...

Daniel, yesterday in talking with Amy she told me I should read your blog because she was quite disturbed at your announcement that you were a "seven day agnostic". And I have to say I was quite shocked. You and Scott have always held a special place in my heart and I felt as if one of my children had told me that they didn't believe in Christ. I didn't know if I should comment in your blog or not. I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words but when I went to have my devotions this morning my Bible fell open to I John 5 and as I started to read it I just felt that I needed to share it with you. I love you and will be praying for you.

 
At June 06, 2006 3:55 PM, Blogger Piiwite said...

Posting to a dead thread, take 2.

Another point you might want to consider is the nature of a god who relies on "covenants".

A covenant, per Webster, is "a solemn and binding agreement", or "a written agreement or promise usually under seal between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action". In other words, a contract.

Generally, when one thinks of spiritual contracts, the phrase "making a deal with the devil" comes up. Christian theologians try to explain away the contractual nature of "salvation" with words like "love" and "gift", but the contractual aspect cannot be avoided because salvation is always tied to fullfilling certain requirements, primarily the surrender of your will to another entity.

Covenant based christian theology essentially posits that you have no choice but to surrender your life and will to either god or satan, you will always be somebody's pawn, and spiritual "growth" occurs through allowing another entity an ever increasing depth of control over your mind, body & spirit.

Maybe this YHWH character isn't the "one true god" he claims to be...

 

Post a Comment

<< Home