Jason Waltz’s Reviews > Disappointment with God > Status Update

The author tells us that without the hope that this life is temporary and that heaven promises a time far longer and more substantial of health and wholeness and pleasure and peace, there is no hope. I find this quite sad, that he finds unworthy daily little hopes of love and contentment and gratitude and selflessness and joy. These are the hopes that are tangible and can make a day survivable.

And then at 234 we discover why nothing remains unchanged, nothing is answered, by this book: he flatly begins a further unrevealing explanation by stating "It is wrong to speak of God's need of love from his creation..." WHY? Why is that wrong? Is it truth we dare not speak? Truth we dare not question? What a terrible choice of wording, yet it reveals the overall pointlessness of this book.

So far nothing beyond what I basically anticipated. One of the best things read thus far is a quote from another author: "When there is no longer any opportunity for doubt, there is no longer any opportunity for faith either." By Paul Tournier

I think the author missed most of the point and failed to address disappointment in God in the typical current Christian manner. While admitting and confessing the story of Job was a bet - a side bet too - he still concentrates solely on the 'why me?' POV most Christians, frankly most humans, fixate on. Man thinks far too highly of itself: it's always about me. Yeah, no.

Methinks the author doest gloss too much over The Wager (author's emphasis) in the Book of Job. Simultaneously labeling it embarrassing yet not examining it for what it is is disingenuous at best, intentional at worst. When all of Creation is an immense game of bar dice it's too large to embrace, too grand for our mortal minds. A side bet is easy to grasp, even easier to understand.

"A large measure of disappointment with God stems from disillusionment with other Christians." Fairly accurate yet insufficient statement.

I don't know; just when there might be something we're getting onto, it flitters away and falls into the typical plausible deniability arguments.

Part I gave me pause and ponder; Part II does not. It actually irritates me. God is in control of a game He designed, set the rules to, knows the result of, made the opening move in, and referees. Sure, humanity has free will; what of it?