Jump to content

He Doesn't Need Us


Dwayne
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know that this is often taught by Reformed Christianity (Acts 29ers, etc) but I'm curious if any spiritually abusive lines such as this were part of anyone's decision to leave Christianity behind.

 

Once again, I'm not trying to evangelize. I'm trying to understand.

 

I believe that it is a misportrayal of the love that Christians tend to brag about. Why cry love and then say "God doesn't need us" and then turn around again and say that His grace saves us if we accept it?

 

Perhaps a message isn't being appropriately transmitted? I'm not arguing the existence of god but a character flaw propogated by a 'loving' religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an ex-christian, I know fully what the various versions of the Christian gospel message are intended to communicate. What I found is that the message doesn't really have any kind of relationship with reality. I believe most ex-christians on this site understand the christian message.

 

This is a common assumption - that ex-christians somehow missed the "true" message and therefore have rejected the not-quite-so-true or complete message of god's love/plan of salvation. If they only knew the true message, they never would have left the fold.

 

And no, "God doesn't need you" was not a reason for me becoming an ex-christian. I really didn't have a problem with that concept. I don't know of anyone who had that kind of issue either.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an ex-christian, I know fully what the various versions of the Christian gospel message are intended to communicate. What I found is that the message doesn't really have any kind of relationship with reality. I believe most ex-christians on this site understand the christian message.

 

This is a common assumption - that ex-christians somehow missed the "true" message and therefore have rejected the not-quite-so-true or complete message of god's love/plan of salvation. If they only knew the true message, they never would have left the fold.

 

I disagree with the assumption whole-heartedly. I often find that atheists/agnostics/humanists are much more in tune to the actual message and are well learned in the field.

 

Perhaps the 'true message' somehow missed the atheists/agnostics. It is perplexing how Christians through the ages, myself included, have attempted to interpret and understand the response to God on behalf of the canonical authors.

 

And no, "God doesn't need you" was not a reason for me becoming an ex-christian. I really didn't have a problem with that concept. I don't know of anyone who had that kind of issue either.

 

Fair enough. How could it not bother you when you were a Christian? It bothers me and I'm a Christian. Well...Mormon-Christian. Cultist to some? Whatever...the point still stands. If God is love then why doesn't He in is ultimate perfection need something He created? Is this a narcissistic ploy? If we question the existence of God and His greatness...what sense does it make to have a God who wants to coerce His creation to love Him? Love or be damned? What love?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that for much of christian history, orthodox theology taught that god was impassible and perfect. He is complete in and of himself in the unity of the god-head. He cannot be moved by his creation. The theological vocabulary is more nuanced than that, but the idea of a god who sent Jesus because he needs us is fairly new to Christian theology. One of the struggles in evangelical theology has been moving away from this Aristotelian (or maybe Platonic?) view of god and base statements on what the New testament and Old Testament says.

 

However, this approach can be nothing but inconsistent given the inconsistent views of god provided throughout the Bible.

 

I don't think atheists/agnostics or humanists have missed any messages. It's not the content of the teaching that's in question it's the veracity of the contention. 1) Is it true 2) how do you determine it is true?

 

The Christian message, in its various denominational and sectarian forms, simply cannot pass the test for truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think atheists/agnostics or humanists have missed any messages. It's not the content of the teaching that's in question it's the veracity of the contention. 1) Is it true 2) how do you determine it is true?

 

I hope that I didn't come off as saying the above missed messages. I attempted to personify the 'true message' and make a claim that it missed the agnostics/atheists and humanists.

 

I do not see myself disagreeing with anything you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. How could it not bother you when you were a Christian? It bothers me and I'm a Christian. Well...Mormon-Christian. Cultist to some? Whatever...the point still stands. If God is love then why doesn't He in is ultimate perfection need something He created? Is this a narcissistic ploy? If we question the existence of God and His greatness...what sense does it make to have a God who wants to coerce His creation to love Him? Love or be damned? What love?

 

"God doesn't need us" is something that I was taught as simple matter-of-fact by my church/elementary school. God -> perfect -> self-sufficient -> doesn't /need/ anything. We've really got no idea why we were created, but we are durn grateful for the whole existence thing. The closest we got to a good answer is that some part of God's nature led him to create beings so he could love them and share goodness with them. But yeah, he doesn't need us, so he also doesn't /need/ to tell us truths or keep promises or care about us whatsoever. We don't truthfully know anything about the nature of God, so everything we say about it is a usually-optimistic guess.

 

I'm curious about the idea of "spiritually abusive lines". Can you give examples of a few?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough. How could it not bother you when you were a Christian? It bothers me and I'm a Christian. Well...Mormon-Christian. Cultist to some? Whatever...the point still stands. If God is love then why doesn't He in is ultimate perfection need something He created? Is this a narcissistic ploy? If we question the existence of God and His greatness...what sense does it make to have a God who wants to coerce His creation to love Him? Love or be damned? What love?

 

"God doesn't need us" is something that I was taught as simple matter-of-fact by my church/elementary school. God -> perfect -> self-sufficient -> doesn't /need/ anything. We've really got no idea why we were created, but we are durn grateful for the whole existence thing. The closest we got to a good answer is that some part of God's nature led him to create beings so he could love them and share goodness with them. But yeah, he doesn't need us, so he also doesn't /need/ to tell us truths or keep promises or care about us whatsoever. We don't truthfully know anything about the nature of God, so everything we say about it is a usually-optimistic guess.

 

I'm curious about the idea of "spiritually abusive lines". Can you give examples of a few?

 

Spiritual abuse isn't a list of lines. Spiritual abuses are definitive actions. Most of the time they are directly related to ecclesiastical abuse.

 

Spiritual abuse tends to diminish the sanctity of individual personhood by using misinterpreted scriptural teachings and/or a teaching that is extra-biblical meant to do damage.

 

Ecclesiastical abuse is an abuse of power on the behalf of a priest, bishop, pastor, prophet, pope, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.