Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Worship: the insignificant.

Did you know that the average oreo is 29% creamy icing and 71% cookie? I love oreos.

I have a family of five furry farrell squirrels who live outside my window. Did you know that squirrels can climb trees faster then they can run on the ground? I love my family of five furry farrel squirrels.

American soldiers in Vietnam sometimes used Slinkies as radio antennas. I love Slinkies.

The original Guinness Brewery in Dublin, Ireland, has a 6,000 year lease. 6,000 years! That’s at least a little bit weird. Whoever forged that deal loved a little too much of their druidy-celtic-moonshine.


Isn’t it so interesting how we use the term love? We often say that we love a certain brand of 1984 Swedish station wagons, how we love a certain brand of pen, or how we love a book, a flavor, a color, a design, a hairstyle, or European men in spandex at the swimming pool. Why do we love things that don’t love us back? Shouldn’t what we love at least have the capability and the capacity for loving us back for it to be genuine love?

Now begin to use the grey matter between your ears and imagine that this might be the highest ranking qualification for love – something to love back. It severely limits what we actually can love: people, a god (if you were to believe in such a thing), and maybe a few species of animal that seem to show love and affection back to mankind. So, in reference to Worship: the instinct, if what we worship is really based on our value system and our value system places the most value on something other then people, a god, or Rover and Flipper > then that object of worship is an insignificant piece of worship. Why? Because it is incapable of loving back.

The truly sad thing is that insignificant worship leads to insignificant meaning and purpose in life.

It seems as though many people worship in a world of insignificant.

4 comments:

BrAeDeN><> said...

Interesting point, looking forward to the rest of the series.

BrAeDeN><>

Steve said...

Why love something that doesn't love you back? Because it feels like you may have atleast that much more control over the object. You can't control people, or a god (if you happen to beieve that), or those other creatures. But when it comes to something else, something that doesn't love you back you are in complete control. You choose what it does, and what you do with it.
People want power- love has a tendancy to leave people powerless and vulnerable- somethign that the average person doesn't tend to like.

Z said...

I think I disagree with you. If the highest ranking qualification for love is something to love back then God's love toward us wouldn't be the highest ranking. If you think about it, God is the only one who really knows how to love. He loves all of us; even those of us who say we love Him back don't because we still don't really know what love is. I would suggest that the kind of love that loves without expecting anything (i.e. love) in return is the greatest kind of love and when we find someone who does love us back in that same way, we find the greatest kind of relationship there can be on earth. Maybe the highest form of love is the kind that moves toward the greatest kind of relationship. That's what we were created for isn't it? To share in God's joy of community that He had already experienced in the Trinity. By that definition, worship would be having loving relationships with other people or God or I guess even animals.

Steve said...

Loving things could be an act of worship.
Worship is life encompassing, or so it should be, and so if you love other people and animals, it could be worship.