It's Holy Week, so I'll complain about ALIENS!
Hey, everybody.
I'm sorry it's been a while since I have posted anything on the blog. I'd like to say I have been busy, but that's not true. I have been lazy. But I'm back. Hopefully I'll be a little more faithful from now on, but I know that if I were to promise to write more regularly, I would find excuses not to, so I guess I'll just start writing and see what happens. I have a story in mind that I plan on starting as soon as I am done with this thing, and (no promises) I'll try to get the first part of it up this weekend.
Anyway, now to the thing that inspired me to finally get back behind the keyboard:
This weekend I caught a showing of the movie Aliens, the second in the Alien series. Although the movie doesn't provide much in the way of spiritual edification (unless you’re one of those guys who likes to tear apart every frame looking for the tiniest hidden message that was hidden so well even the writers didn't know about it), but I recommend it as a good movie. The special effects are amazing for the late 80's, the acting and the writing are excellent and it is a thoroughly enjoyable picture. That is, unless you've seen Alien 3. Let me explain. I like that movie too, but there was something about it that had bothered me ever since I first saw it. If you've seen Aliens, you know that a major part of the story is Ripley's relationship with the little girl named Newt. The writers do a great job making you like Newt's character. She is tough, but cute, able to survive alone on the planet for weeks with the aliens, but still vulnerable and even though she likes to act like she can handle anything, she is still a very scared little girl. I read a MAD MAGAZINE spoof on Jurassic Park 2 once that explained why Dr. Malcom's daughter showed up on the island. It was said that audiences like to see children in danger. That's true, as long as they survive in the end, which, of course, Newt does. In the end, Ripley is faced with a choice: get off the planet safely, which she could easily do, or go and rescue Newt, who has been captured by the aliens. She goes to save Newt in one of those countdown moments where the audience is one the edge of their seats knowing that they all get away, but still unsure how. But the writer's aren't completely heartless. They have Ripley save the child, herself, the only other character you really like, and even the android who is in pieces and barely operating, but manages to reach out and save Newt from being sucked into space. In the end, they all go into their stasis chambers to sleep until they get home to safety. A very nice and satisfying ending.
Then comes Alien 3 and in the first few minutes, a stowaway alien kills Newt! Remember how I said that the writer's weren't completely heartless? Well, it seems they were! They spend two hours making you fall in love with this helpless little character, and they make you hold your breath for the last half hour of the movie waiting to see if she survives, and then they make you sigh a huge sigh of relief when she does, only to kill her off in the first scene of the sequel! What is the point? I know there were certain plot points in part three that wouldn't have worked with a child running around the prison, and of course the actress would have been years older, but Newt's death seemed like a big let down. Why, you find yourself asking, would Ripley risk her own life and the lives of the others on the ship to save this little girl if she's just going to die anyway?
This reminds me of another movie series that did practically the same thing. This one has bothered me ever since I was a little boy. Anyone old enough to remember the Ewok movies that followed Return of the Jedi knows what I am talking about. It's been a while since I have seen these and the only character whose name I can remember is Wicket, but I'll tell you the jist of it. In the first movie, The Ewok Adventure, there are two human children whose family's star cruiser crashes on Endor and while the kids are taken in by the kind and gentle Ewoks (those teddy bear things from Jedi who help Han Solo and the others blow up the shield generator), the parents are taken by a gigantic monster who wants to eat them. So the Ewoks and the children spend the entire movie on a quest to save the parents, which they do in the end and everyone is happy. Until, of course, the second movie called The Battle for Endor or something like that. In the first scene of this movie, both of the parents and the older child are killed in a battle. I remember watching this movie as a child and getting very upset that the parents died. It made the whole first movie seem pointless.
Another example of pointless rescue is Titanic where Rose goes back down into the ship to save Jack and the two of them end up going down with the ship. Yeah, you can see how Jack saved Rose and saw her through the crisis, even finding something for her to float on while he freezes to death in the water, but if Rose hadn't gone back down in the ship, Jack would have died anyway (probably a much easier death too) and she would have been safe on a life boat. And don't tell me she would have ended up marrying that horrible other guy because she had learned so much from Jack during their two day relationship that she wouldn't have succumbed to the marriage. But, because I happen to despise Leonardo DiCaprio (okay, I know that's not Christian, and it's not the person I hate, but the concept behind the person. He's the Backstreet Boys of movie stars) I won't complain about this one.
My point is, why do writers do that? Why do they spend so much time in one movie making you care about a character and then kill them off in the first few minutes of the sequel, or even in the end of the movie itself? What if there was a sequel to Man on Fire where Pita gets hit by a bus in the first scene? It's like all of the hero's actions were for naught! It nullifies everything that the first movie accomplished! As a writer, I can't conceive of doing something like that unless I wanted to really tick off my readers.
But I have another point. For those of you who have sat and read this rant of mine waiting for whatever it is you know I'll eventually get to, here it is, and I'm going to warn you know, I know it's kind of tacky, predictable, and almost clichéd, but it was something that occurred to me while watching Aliens and I needed to write something to get back into the swing of things and to make sure that I could still produce a coherent thought after nearly six weeks of nothing.
What occurred to me was this: As Christians, we believe that Jesus came down to earth to die for our sins and to give us salvation. In essence, He came to rescue us. He not only risked His life, He gave it up for us. Yet, by our own actions, we nullify His heroic rescue. By recognizing what Jesus did for us and still going our own way, it's not much different then the pointless killing of Newt or the Parents in the Ewok movies. The real difference is that while those are just movies and those characters don't really matter in the long run, our lives, nay our souls, are infinitely more important.
This week, around the world, there are presentations of the Passion Play, which is the dramatic portrayal of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, mostly focusing on the death. I remember as a child growing up in Rochester, NY that it was a yearly tradition for our family to walk the Via Dolorosa, which a local church put on every year on the city streets. All I remember from that was watching a man dressed as Jesus walking down the street with a fake looking cross on his back while two other men dressed as Roman soldiers periodically hit the cross with short ropes that were meant to be whips. There were other people in costumes crying and hundreds of people turned up every year to watch. But, since I was so young and had yet to fully realize the significance of Christ's sacrifice, my main memories are walking around with my friends and looking for "treasures" on the street.
But later, especially after participating in a local production of a Passion Play for four years, it became more real, more personal, and more important. I realized that I couldn't just go on living in sin when that kind of sacrifice had been made for me. Of course that didn't stop me from sinning altogether, but whenever I begin to slip into my old life, I remember the image of Christ on the cross, His sacrifice, and His passion for my soul and I remind myself that if I continue in sin, I nullify that sacrifice. Although I know that nothing I can do can truly nullify it, in my life, it's like He never came to save me in the first place. I might as well have stayed in my sin. In my wallet I carry a thorn I found that is about two inches long. I imagine that this thorn is about the size of the thorns pressed into Jesus’ skull in the crown He was so cruelly forced to wear. The thorn is a reminder to me, as is the Crucifix I wear. I don't want to forget the price He paid to save me, because when I consider that, my sin becomes even less appealing to me. He died to save me, so I should live in such a way as to honor that sacrifice.
This week there will be many chances for you to witness the Crucifixion in one way or another. Whether you watch one of the many movies made about it (King of Kings, The Passion of the Christ, or even Jesus Christ Superstar) or go to see a dramatic presentation on stage (check and see if there's a Passion Play in your area. I recommend He’s Alive! the one that's currently going on in the Four Corners, Denver, and Las Vegas, among other places) please look at it as a hero sacrificing it all to rescue you. (Michael Tait's rock opera was aptly named Hero. Check that one out too) Then think about your own life. Are you living in such a way as to honor that sacrifice? Are you honoring His precious gift, or living as if it never happened?
That's all I wanted to say about this. I'll try to get a story up this weekend (next weekend by the latest. I promise!!!) Happy Easter. (yeah, Wanderer I know, but since this week is Passover, it is also the anniversary of Christ's death and resurrection, so it can be both!) But now, it's time to make the donuts.
Arthur B Roberts
I'm sorry it's been a while since I have posted anything on the blog. I'd like to say I have been busy, but that's not true. I have been lazy. But I'm back. Hopefully I'll be a little more faithful from now on, but I know that if I were to promise to write more regularly, I would find excuses not to, so I guess I'll just start writing and see what happens. I have a story in mind that I plan on starting as soon as I am done with this thing, and (no promises) I'll try to get the first part of it up this weekend.
Anyway, now to the thing that inspired me to finally get back behind the keyboard:
This weekend I caught a showing of the movie Aliens, the second in the Alien series. Although the movie doesn't provide much in the way of spiritual edification (unless you’re one of those guys who likes to tear apart every frame looking for the tiniest hidden message that was hidden so well even the writers didn't know about it), but I recommend it as a good movie. The special effects are amazing for the late 80's, the acting and the writing are excellent and it is a thoroughly enjoyable picture. That is, unless you've seen Alien 3. Let me explain. I like that movie too, but there was something about it that had bothered me ever since I first saw it. If you've seen Aliens, you know that a major part of the story is Ripley's relationship with the little girl named Newt. The writers do a great job making you like Newt's character. She is tough, but cute, able to survive alone on the planet for weeks with the aliens, but still vulnerable and even though she likes to act like she can handle anything, she is still a very scared little girl. I read a MAD MAGAZINE spoof on Jurassic Park 2 once that explained why Dr. Malcom's daughter showed up on the island. It was said that audiences like to see children in danger. That's true, as long as they survive in the end, which, of course, Newt does. In the end, Ripley is faced with a choice: get off the planet safely, which she could easily do, or go and rescue Newt, who has been captured by the aliens. She goes to save Newt in one of those countdown moments where the audience is one the edge of their seats knowing that they all get away, but still unsure how. But the writer's aren't completely heartless. They have Ripley save the child, herself, the only other character you really like, and even the android who is in pieces and barely operating, but manages to reach out and save Newt from being sucked into space. In the end, they all go into their stasis chambers to sleep until they get home to safety. A very nice and satisfying ending.
Then comes Alien 3 and in the first few minutes, a stowaway alien kills Newt! Remember how I said that the writer's weren't completely heartless? Well, it seems they were! They spend two hours making you fall in love with this helpless little character, and they make you hold your breath for the last half hour of the movie waiting to see if she survives, and then they make you sigh a huge sigh of relief when she does, only to kill her off in the first scene of the sequel! What is the point? I know there were certain plot points in part three that wouldn't have worked with a child running around the prison, and of course the actress would have been years older, but Newt's death seemed like a big let down. Why, you find yourself asking, would Ripley risk her own life and the lives of the others on the ship to save this little girl if she's just going to die anyway?
This reminds me of another movie series that did practically the same thing. This one has bothered me ever since I was a little boy. Anyone old enough to remember the Ewok movies that followed Return of the Jedi knows what I am talking about. It's been a while since I have seen these and the only character whose name I can remember is Wicket, but I'll tell you the jist of it. In the first movie, The Ewok Adventure, there are two human children whose family's star cruiser crashes on Endor and while the kids are taken in by the kind and gentle Ewoks (those teddy bear things from Jedi who help Han Solo and the others blow up the shield generator), the parents are taken by a gigantic monster who wants to eat them. So the Ewoks and the children spend the entire movie on a quest to save the parents, which they do in the end and everyone is happy. Until, of course, the second movie called The Battle for Endor or something like that. In the first scene of this movie, both of the parents and the older child are killed in a battle. I remember watching this movie as a child and getting very upset that the parents died. It made the whole first movie seem pointless.
Another example of pointless rescue is Titanic where Rose goes back down into the ship to save Jack and the two of them end up going down with the ship. Yeah, you can see how Jack saved Rose and saw her through the crisis, even finding something for her to float on while he freezes to death in the water, but if Rose hadn't gone back down in the ship, Jack would have died anyway (probably a much easier death too) and she would have been safe on a life boat. And don't tell me she would have ended up marrying that horrible other guy because she had learned so much from Jack during their two day relationship that she wouldn't have succumbed to the marriage. But, because I happen to despise Leonardo DiCaprio (okay, I know that's not Christian, and it's not the person I hate, but the concept behind the person. He's the Backstreet Boys of movie stars) I won't complain about this one.
My point is, why do writers do that? Why do they spend so much time in one movie making you care about a character and then kill them off in the first few minutes of the sequel, or even in the end of the movie itself? What if there was a sequel to Man on Fire where Pita gets hit by a bus in the first scene? It's like all of the hero's actions were for naught! It nullifies everything that the first movie accomplished! As a writer, I can't conceive of doing something like that unless I wanted to really tick off my readers.
But I have another point. For those of you who have sat and read this rant of mine waiting for whatever it is you know I'll eventually get to, here it is, and I'm going to warn you know, I know it's kind of tacky, predictable, and almost clichéd, but it was something that occurred to me while watching Aliens and I needed to write something to get back into the swing of things and to make sure that I could still produce a coherent thought after nearly six weeks of nothing.
What occurred to me was this: As Christians, we believe that Jesus came down to earth to die for our sins and to give us salvation. In essence, He came to rescue us. He not only risked His life, He gave it up for us. Yet, by our own actions, we nullify His heroic rescue. By recognizing what Jesus did for us and still going our own way, it's not much different then the pointless killing of Newt or the Parents in the Ewok movies. The real difference is that while those are just movies and those characters don't really matter in the long run, our lives, nay our souls, are infinitely more important.
This week, around the world, there are presentations of the Passion Play, which is the dramatic portrayal of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, mostly focusing on the death. I remember as a child growing up in Rochester, NY that it was a yearly tradition for our family to walk the Via Dolorosa, which a local church put on every year on the city streets. All I remember from that was watching a man dressed as Jesus walking down the street with a fake looking cross on his back while two other men dressed as Roman soldiers periodically hit the cross with short ropes that were meant to be whips. There were other people in costumes crying and hundreds of people turned up every year to watch. But, since I was so young and had yet to fully realize the significance of Christ's sacrifice, my main memories are walking around with my friends and looking for "treasures" on the street.
But later, especially after participating in a local production of a Passion Play for four years, it became more real, more personal, and more important. I realized that I couldn't just go on living in sin when that kind of sacrifice had been made for me. Of course that didn't stop me from sinning altogether, but whenever I begin to slip into my old life, I remember the image of Christ on the cross, His sacrifice, and His passion for my soul and I remind myself that if I continue in sin, I nullify that sacrifice. Although I know that nothing I can do can truly nullify it, in my life, it's like He never came to save me in the first place. I might as well have stayed in my sin. In my wallet I carry a thorn I found that is about two inches long. I imagine that this thorn is about the size of the thorns pressed into Jesus’ skull in the crown He was so cruelly forced to wear. The thorn is a reminder to me, as is the Crucifix I wear. I don't want to forget the price He paid to save me, because when I consider that, my sin becomes even less appealing to me. He died to save me, so I should live in such a way as to honor that sacrifice.
This week there will be many chances for you to witness the Crucifixion in one way or another. Whether you watch one of the many movies made about it (King of Kings, The Passion of the Christ, or even Jesus Christ Superstar) or go to see a dramatic presentation on stage (check and see if there's a Passion Play in your area. I recommend He’s Alive! the one that's currently going on in the Four Corners, Denver, and Las Vegas, among other places) please look at it as a hero sacrificing it all to rescue you. (Michael Tait's rock opera was aptly named Hero. Check that one out too) Then think about your own life. Are you living in such a way as to honor that sacrifice? Are you honoring His precious gift, or living as if it never happened?
That's all I wanted to say about this. I'll try to get a story up this weekend (next weekend by the latest. I promise!!!) Happy Easter. (yeah, Wanderer I know, but since this week is Passover, it is also the anniversary of Christ's death and resurrection, so it can be both!) But now, it's time to make the donuts.
Arthur B Roberts
posted by Arthur Brokop II at 7:45 AM
9 Comments:
Hey, you've been spammed. Now you're official. :)
Okay, so here goes. First, no complaint on the Happy Easter thing. Not sure where you were going, the only thing I can think of that is close would be the Eostre thing but I am not sure if you would be familiar with that, and it was a month ago. This is also a Christian blog, so Happy Easter would be appropriate anyway.
Next, there is a point to the saving scenes and the subsequent death scenes. As a writer I would be surprised that you don't recognize this, and hope that this was just the best way to lead into your questions. First, every moment is precious. If you commit a heroic act, you are not attempting to bestow immortality. Just another day or even another hour is something. Second, new movie or book, clean slate. Hero story has already been justified by the previous ending credits. Third, the audience needs to care about the victims to empathize with the hero. A well known character dying helps do that. In my book that I am well into editing for submittal, a character is developed through much of the book just so that character can die and in doing so bring the audience along with the protagonist and allow them to understand the pain. It's that important to the story. Finally, when your writing, sometimes things happen because it is the only thing that is right. When I told this series to my wife over the course of a year, there came a point where one of the characters was killed off that had been there from the first pages of the story. We stopped for two days, and we both mourned the passing of this character because she meant that much. I was the writer, but I couldn't change it. It was the course of things.
Now, in your Jesus connection. A couple of brief points. First, you are not powerful enough to erase what he did, no matter what mistake you made. Second, I don't think it even correlates. In movie form, a hero rushes in past enemy soldiers, fighting his way through and struggling to free a child strapped to a bomb that is ticking away, getting her free in the nick of time in one of those "the explosion throws them but doesn't hurt them" moments. Impressive. But then, if he dropped the remote that would have stopped and disarmed the bomb, and was functioning properly to go do that, then how impressive would that be?
Sure, the story of what God did is impressive because we can attach the metaphor to ourselves, but seriously, was the cross actually necessary? If ever an author tailored to an audience, God did right there.
So many things to say, so few keys on my keyboard...
I'm not sure where to begin, so I'll start with the one that raised my blood pressure eighteen points.
but before I do, a note to you, bt mostly to everyone else who reads this who may not be aware of our...
unique relationship.
As I have made clear many times before, I do not worry about offending people when it comes to the truth of Christianity. I feel perfectly comfortable coming right out and saying that if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your personal saviour, you will not get to Heaven (and the consequences of not getting to heaven are of course, very unpleasant indeed) because that is what I believe. You, Wanderer, know this, as I hope everyone else does. That being said, I do worry about offending Wanderer, not because I want to walk around on eggshells with him, but because we have a friendship that goes back years and I do not want to jeopardize that. But then I remind myself of two things. Even though Wanderer and his wife and many of their family members are friends, I shouldn't worry about offending them when it comes to my beliefs. In fact, I should care more about their souls than I do about their feelings. Blunt, but Steve understands. That's the second thing. Our friendship is, and always has been, an honest one. Ever since our first religious "argument" back when he was Catholic and we stood in his living room arguing, I believe, about lime jello (long story) and his wife and mother just laughed and laughed, we have been able to express our beliefs openly, knowing that everything we said would be taken in the spirit of love. That is why I am able to accept some of the things he says to me, as mean as they may sound to an outsider, and why I am able to reply to them just as honestly. (btw, Wanderer called me last night to apologize in advance if he may have offended me, which he didn't. Now, I do the same before I reply, and this maybe the longest blog comment on record...)
To my original point: "Was the Cross actually necessary?" You said yourself in your comment that this is a Christian blog. I know that you know certain things about Christianity, so you know that in that belief system, the Cross is indeed necessary, essential to our salvation. Without it, there would be no hope, redemption, forgiveness (uh oh, wrong blog for that one...) or salvation. The entire Old Testament was building up to Christ's sacrifice on the Cross and the entire New Testament revolves around it as well. His mission was to die. He came for that purpose. He is identified by John the Baptist as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," a reference that the Jewish audience would immediately recognize as the sin offering, a lamb killed in the place of the person to cover their sin. You take away the Cross and all you have is a bunch of nice stories about someone who taught us to share and be polite and not be mean to anyone. By that standard, you might as well place your faith in Barney the Purple Dinosaur. From the Christian's point of view, the Cross was the most necessary event in all of human history.
On a lighter note, I was complaining about the writers in my often misunderstood sarcastic way. To be honest, I was rooting for Ripley to save Newt even though I knew it to be practically pointless (much the same way I was rooting for Rose to "accidentally" chop off Jack's hand when he was cuffed to that pipe, but that's the horror writer in me...) and I enjoyed ALIENS, the Ewok Adventure, and other stories where I knew that a character you liked would die. I have been known to kill off some of my own beloved characters from time to time, though I haven't done so yet on this blog unless you count Nanny Cramblit. But I have to be honest, I enjoy ALIENS less knowing that those people die in the stasis chamber. Just a pet peeve of mine.
And I did say in my posting that I know that nothing I can do, have done, or ever will do will actually nullify Christ's work on the Cross. His work is done and I can't change it. But, say you gave me a present for my birthday (coming up in a few months...) and you put your whole heart and soul into it, knowing me so well that you know that I will love it, spending more money than you can afford, and presenting it to me in a momentous way that you know will stay in my memory forever. Then, I take the box and without even unwrapping it lay it in the highway in front of a passing semi truck and watch with glee as it is smashed to bits. Does what I do nullify the fact that you gave the gift or the motive behind the giving? Of course not, but you might as well have not given me a thing in the first place. In my opinion, and the point of the post, choosing to continue living in sin when such a great gift has been given to us is like pretending that the gift was never given in the first place. It's like saying, "Jee, thanks, Jesus." and then throwing it away without even opening it.
The correlation? If the Bible was a fictional book (as many believe it is) then the main hero would be Jesus. Well, God actually from a literary standpoint, but you know what I mean. Jesus comes down and accomplishes what the book states over and over again cannot be accomplished by any human effort, and then leaves again promising to return and take us to heaven with Him. He'd be the hero of the novel, if it were a novel. I believe that using the example of a hero in a movie or book is apt, if not a little weak (as I freely admitted it was in my post, as well as cliched), but then again, how is the Kingdom of God like a mustard seed? It really isn't, but that didn't stop Jesus from using it in a parable to describe it.
I almost considered just making this another post, but then I didn't. Let's be honest, these comment boards on Dawn are really just places for you and I to have conversations without running up our phone bills. Am I right? I mean, does anybody else read these?
REALLY, I WANT TO KNOW! LEAVE COMMENTS!
Talk to you later,
God Bless,
ABR
BTW, I was refering to all of the pagan references and symbols that we Christians have incorporated into our holiday, which we stole from you in the first place simply because it happened to fall on or around our own celebrated event. Us Christians are funny that way.
PS. NO OFFENSE!
Ah, sorry, I missed the symbolism train, mostly because I am not all that concerned about it to begin with. I thought that was an extension of the Happy Holidays debate we got into.
As for the cross. (You knew I was going to say that didn't you?) My point behind this was leading a little bit toward one of the points that I may or may not be getting to in the very near future in my own series. Namely, the "why" of the cross. Yes, I know he died so that our sins would be forgiven, but why? Why was it necessary for Jesus to die? Is God so limited in power that he cannot forgive us for being what he made us to be without some painful death on his part? I doubt it. As you pointed out, there was the symbolism of the sacrifice. It was done for aesthetic purposes, not necessity as so many people claim. If our sins were to be forgiven, if we were to be given a way out, then that was that. Jesus and his sacrifice would be no more than a powerful story to catch our attention. This is where I questioned the hero relation. God would have been the hero, Jesus on the cross merely the glaring graffiti that shouted "I was here."
interesting...
But Jesus' death on the cross was not symbolic of the OT sacrifices. Rather, the OT sacrifices were prophetic symbols of what Jesus would do. They were a sign. When John said, "The Lamb of God," he was telling the people that Jesus was the sacrifice that God intended all along. As it says in Hebrews, "the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins." So why did God demand those sacrifices. He did it to show the people that a sacrifice would be demanded and also to show by what manner He would proved redemption for mankind. The cross was essential because God is a God of Justice and that Justice demanded that somebody pay the price. Because we lowly humans are unable to do so, God did it for us with His own Blood (Acts 20:28). If you believe in Christianity, the Cross is necessary, beautiful, and the most important event in human history. If you do not believe in Christianity, the Cross was a foolish waste of time (1 Corinthians 1:18-25).
GB ABR
"The cross was essential because God is a God of Justice and that Justice demanded that somebody pay the price."
Again you are walking on dangerous ground here. Justice demanded that a price be paid for us being precisely what we were made to be? If this was the case, then obviously human beings couldn't pay the price. Why? Because it wasn't their crime.
If I fashion a landmine, and it goes off as intended, then you don't prosecute the landmine. You prosecute me. From this mentality it would seem the price would have to be paid by the perpetrator of the crime that is human nature. God. The one who made us that way.
Short of being some grandiose apology, the painful "death" of himself on a stage still seems to serve no purpose.
I have to say, and may get going on the tangent on my home turf, that the cross and the claim of its necessity was one of the major dealbreakers in my ability to believe what the church was selling.
Bottom line - It seems that the story proposed by the Christian church would be that God screwed up when he made us, and in order to set things right he had to send his son down to die, because he was so limited that this was the only way it could be accomplished. I am sorry. That just doesn't sit well.
You said that according to the Christian theology, it seems that God screwed up when He made us as He made us, i.e. with a sinful human nature. What God gave us was CHOICE (and if a certain someone is reading this, she is laughing now, and if another certain someone is reading this, I may have yet more comments on this one...). Many scholars believe that when God created us in His image, it means that He gave us free will and the ability to chose between right and wrong. Had God not given us that choice, we would be little more than robots walking around saying, "Praise God," with not real conviction or desire to do so. You have a child. Would you want her to love you based on your relationship or because you preprogrammed her not only to love you, but to respect, honor, and obey you. Very soon, she will be at an age where she can openly defy you with a complete knowledge that she is doing so. Wouldn't you rather have her love and obey you as a parent because she wants to than because you implanted her with those commands. God didn't make robots. He made living souls who could chose to love and respect Him.
And now, maybe for the first time, (even though this wouldn't be the first time I could have said it :)...) your example of the landmine was flawed. Maybe God did put a landmine in the Garden of Eden called the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but if that was the landmine, (I know this wasn't your exact example, but go with me) it was clearly marked, known as dangerous by all, and God warned His creations not to even go near it. He knew its dangerous potential, and I believe that He also knew that Adam and Eve would partake of it, but doing so was their choice. He gave it to them. Had He not, we would never have truly been capable of loving, honoring, or serving God.
The Cross was not God's apology for messing up on His creation (though that is one of the most interesting explainations of it I have ever heard, by the way...) but His ultimate act of love. I think it's Isaiah where God says that He could find no one to work Salvation for us, so He would do it Himself. That is what He did. While to, and I use this term in both the general and the literal sense, the pagan this is nonsense, to the Christian it makes perfect sense.
I can't wait to see what you come up with on your "home turf," and I know that this will spark a debate that will probably spread to a few other blogs as well. My fingers are itching to start typing! Right now though, it is hours past my bedtime and I have to crash out. I am enjoying this back and forth. Even if I don't win you over, being forced to defend my faith to such an evenly matched "opponent" sharpens my own belief and gets me more focused on my own walk. Thanks, friend.
I'll probably wake up, read this comment, and come up with pages more that I forgot to say.
BTW, to anyone out there wondering where my next story is, blame Wanderer for keeping my mind so busy on this! I will get right to it as soon as I wake up.
Happy Easter
GB ABR
See, you are still missing the point where it is claimed that God knew how things were going to work ahead of time. Let us go back to the tree. If I place my claymore (different explosive, same premise) as a booby trap to a door I know you will walk through, again I must ask who is responsible?
My example was referring to us as the explosive device. We do what he designed us to do, so how can we be judged for it? He built us. Would he condemn a dolphin for living in water? It still doesn't make sense.
Original sin. The concept that when I am born, I have already violated some sacred law, because I am human. What sense is there in this? Again, punishment for being what God made me to be.
God would have to consider our natures, our intents, our reasons, all of that in order to fairly judge us. Again you don't point out why he has to "die" a painful death rather than just, say, do the bewitched thing and wiggle his nose.
The teachings keep saying, "The cross was necessary for our redemption." Nobody satisfactorily explains why.
Maybe you know I am going to walk through the door, but what if you tell me, "Do not walk through that door. You will explode. You can walk through any other door in all of creation, but that one door is off limits. If you walk through it, you will die." Then, if I walk through it, who is responsible? I know someone mentioned C.S. Lewis's space trilogy to you recently. In the second of those books it is proposed by the author that perhaps God intended all along for us to eat of the fruit and know good from evil, but on his time, not ours. The sin, by that theory, was not in wanting to know good from evil, but in disobeying God and jumping the gun. We were not made to sin, we were made to choose. I believe that if a man or woman successfully navigates this life without ever committing a sin, he or she will be in no danger of Hellfire. I also believe that person would never die either. But I further believe that my theory can never be proved because man will sin. It's not fair, it doesn't make much sense, and it seems that we are being punished for just being us. In fact, this is an argument that Paul mentions in Romans. Then he goes on to say, "who the heck are you to argue with God?" (my paraphrase). I admit that I do not fully understand the entire process of sin, death, redemption, and so on. What I do understand is that by my actions, by my sins, I have condemned myself to Hell, and only by the Blood of Jesus shed at the Cross as my atoning sacrifice can I ever hope to be saved. It doesn't have to make perfect sense to me here and now. I am just a man, not smart enough to figure out all of the innerworkings of a Mind I could never hope to fully comprehend. I just know that the Bible calls Jesus death on the Cross the ultimate proof of God's love.
I heard it described in a philosophy class once. I was the focal point of the discussion because of my Christian beliefs, and someone told me that they didn't like the whole, "you're screwed if you don't accept Jesus thing." Then a guy who was about as far away from Christianity as you can get summed it up beautifully in a way I could never have done. He said, "It's not you're screwed if you don't, it's you're not screwed if you do." Small difference, but big enough to think about for years! And I am still thinking about it.
Sense? No. But I believe it. Many of the things in Scripture are only understood through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who mainly provides that guidance to those who are already in the family of God. I am not as skilled as He is at explaining this whole thing. My advice: ask the Source to help you understand it all.
GB ABR
"My advice: ask the Source to help you understand it all."
Bad advice to give. After all, that is precisely what I have done. (Perhaps you have seen the "Mother" posts on my blog? If not they are permanently archived on my sidebar.)
Your, "You aren't screwed if you do" argument doesn't hold water. If you run around your daily life, you are not guaranteed to never get hit by a bus. If you spend all of your life living in a hut, in an oasis, in the middle of a desert, then you are guaranteed not to get hit by a bus. Not a fulfilling life to live, though. Nevermind the fact that you lack proof sufficient to convince a believer of another faith to believe as a safeguard. (If you profess just in case, does it count anyway?)
I like the fact that you don't hold with the born in sin argument. I find it unlikely you could live your life without sin, as they are labeled in your book. Still, I have to wonder aloud again. Much of what we do is human nature. Who is responsible for human nature? Not the humans. I reference my final comment on this post. (The pot's responsibility argument.)
As for your pointing at the door. Your warning doesn't mitigate the fact that you created the danger. You still set the explosives to go off when someone walked through.
Finally, I am not trying to be antagonistic, but just want to know. Are you avoiding the cross question because you do not feel you can sufficiently answer, or do you feel that you have addressed it? Either is fine, but if you think you have addressed it fairly, I don't see it, and would appreciate another go. I equally respect a man who respects me enough to say, "I am not sure I can cover that one."
Post a Comment
<< Home