Am I god or a slave?

I don’t think you would walk into a room and declare to its occupants, “I am god.” They might think you were crazy. It’s funny how we end up living like we just might believe it, though no one in their right mind would say it. We want things our way. Even in churches, Christians fight for control. I want my seat, my style of clothing, people that look like me, act like me, and make me happy. I want my view of the Bible preached (even if it isn’t truly Biblical), and my favorite style of music played.

On a side note I am a Jazz fan. Could someone out there start a Jazz church…anybody?

Too often we live like we are god and everyone is messing with our little kingdom. No wonder people walk into a church and feel so confused, they have to find the True God among the many little gods. Here is the kicker–worshiping ourselves is miserable. Our pleasure is a constant moving target that relentlessly nags for more attention. Worshiping ourselves is exhausting. The car, home, clothes, or latest iPhone we bought don’t satisfy for long, and quickly we find ourselves in debt trying to tame this beast of personal pleasure again.

Now here is where it gets interesting: somewhere along the way we realize we aren’t god, we are actually in bondage.
We are all slaves to something.
In fact it is said the best way to control people is with pleasure, not pain. Those who seek to be FREE to pursue whatever they want eventually end up more miserable because the pursuit of pleasure is a progressively demanding master that cannot be satisfied.

G.K. Chesterton says it best: “When people find it difficult to believe in God, the tendency is to turn away, good heavens to what do we turn?” The implication is clear, there aren’t a lot of good options. This is why Christianity is so interesting. Just what if God did love you and truly wants your best? What if being a slave to Christ ultimately brings the freedom we seek? Jesus said in Luke 9:24, “For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.” Just maybe it is worth checking out. Here is a great place to start.

5 thoughts on “Am I god or a slave?

  1. I believe we slip into thinking more of ourselves than we should because we do not KNOW God. If we were taught more about Him, His nature, His characteristics, His impact on our plane of existense we would be better prepared to see the contrast between Him and us. For example, if we had teaching on His Holiness, instead of just His love, we might start to see the difference. God’s ‘otherness’ would draw tremendous distinctions between His nature and ours.

  2. Perhaps teaching Romans 1:20 in detail. Drawing on the things we plainly see in creation that expose God’s invisible qualities, His divine nature and His eternal power, might help in contrasting ourselves with the real God and inspiring humility in some.

  3. Just read your article in “Current”. It’s a bit unusual (and a pleasant surprise) to hear someone refer to him/herself as a truth-seeker. (Often just those rather rare Myers-Briggs NTPs.)

    Assuming you truly are one, you know that claiming and doing are 2 very different things.

    1. The only truth anyone can claim is his/her own subjective experience, that which is wholly self-referencing, that which makes claims about him/herself, not about the world outside of him/herself. No one “possesses” anything approaching objective truth.

    2. Not everything is knowable.

    3. Whatever can be said to be justifiably known outside of ourselves has to be discovered, not asserted.

    4. The process of truth-discovery is one of reasoning conclusions from evidence (vs. rationalizing conclusions with cherry-picked evidence and/or specious reasoning).

    5. Reasoning conclusions from evidence requires:

    a. Requires the evidence being reasoned to be relevant, unambiguous, accurate, and complete;

    b. Requires the reasoning to be based on a minimum set of axioms asserted as necessary for meaning (identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle) and to be rigorous, inductively sound, and deductively valid to avoid error and bias. Everything must be on the table. There must be no special pleading. Positive claims always bears the burden of proof, making null positions presumptive.

    6. All non-subjective truth-claims are provisional since all are inductively reasoned conclusions.

    So, Mr. Colaw, with an eye for the difference between claiming and doing, how is it a genuine, consistent truth-seeker can be anything other than generally agnostic and doctrinally atheistic, particularly as pertains to doctrines which assert exclusionary claims of knowledge?

    1. Sorry it took so long to respond. I am kept quite busy these days.
      On a side note I love the Myers Briggs plug. My mother is a Psychology professor at the university level. I am all too familiar with profiling.

      Four ideas come to mind with your post… some direct, some indirect:

      First, I actually am a fan of the scientific superlatives. How amazing would it be to consume limitless literature and be unscathed to one bias or another? To have no presuppositions, be totally neutral and like a computer, just relay information as observed. I think it’s rational to say no one can do this. I cannot either, and I think it could be dangerous to do so. I’ll explain in a minute.

      Second, it appears that you are asserting that one can only know something by empirical evidence. Complete empirical evidence. As ironic as it is, Nietzsche comes to mind. “All credibility, all good conscience, all evidence of truth come only from the senses.” So the pursuit of truth is nothing more than an observation of what is tangible. (I know that is not exhaustive or complete, but hey, it’s a blog.) Many philosophers have discounted this over the recent years and I tend to disagree with Nietzsche too. We make truth claims all the time based on very limited empirical evidence, something as simple as sitting in a chair. We don’t examine in completion every chair we sit in to make sure it is not an allusion. We take a leap of faith based on previous experience and observable evidence that the next chair will hold us. Or it could be as complicated as Stephen Hawking (who I really enjoy reading, by the way) making strong claims about the age of the universe, then stating that time itself isn’t exactly consistent, as we understand it. Our education system is littered with opinions taught as fact. So it truly does come down to opinion no matter how you cut it. Is there enough evidence for you to believe the next restaurant chair you sit in will hold you? Is the universe truly billions of years old? Is there a God? It depends on how satisfied you are in the evidence you have been given both in observation and experience. Everyday people believe in things they have not experienced first-hand. This is faith and is unavoidable. It also leads me to my next thought.

      Third, (this is somewhat connected with my first point) does that mean a journeyman of truth must remain indifferent in his pursuit no matter the information he comes in contact with, and does it really matter? Let me release the philosopher for a moment. Imagine I am standing on a shore gazing on a vast sea. To truly know the sea, one must dive in deep, ride its waves, explore its creatures, even examine the results of it crashing on the shoreline. Pretend the sea is a faith system, of any type. Though man can’t know all, we can examine the repercussions of those who choose to dive into an idea. What are the repercussions of the ideals of Stalin or Hitler? Those idea systems were detrimental… from my perspective…. My perspective, that is. If I have any perspective of right or wrong I have an ethical system based on some information I have previously acquired. I am not going to attempt to know all the facts, nor am I in pursuit of all scientific knowledge. My goal is to help find meaning by observing those who have jumped in and swam in the “sea” of an idea.

      Fourth, maybe it’s not a question of what we don’t know, but what we do with what we know. Also, does what we know offer enough to believe in any system?
      (Wow that’s a tongue twister!) Well, you know my stance already. I believe we don’t know all philosophically or scientifically, but I do believe there is enough to find meaning.

      *A few books to consider. Man’s Search for Meaning by the renowned psychiatrist Viktor E. Frankl, dealing with the importance of finding meaning, and why it is so dangerous to stay “neutral”. The Case For a Creator by Lee Strobel, an exhaustive look at the evidence of a divine designer. Signature in the Cell by Stephan Meyer is also very interesting.

      I love that you are involved, on the journey, and asking questions! I have a number of friends with terminal degrees in medicine, philosophy and theology that enjoy debating this stuff if you would like to continue talking about it. Thanks for your reply!

      If you have more questions, please submit them to, I check that much more often than this blog.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s