Origins and Love

dansigTony (Sr.) has shared with me several times his distaste for the removal of narrative from the throws of theological discourse. I agree, in this case, a narrative is the perfect outlet for proper theological development.


Paul Sandbourne had been in love with Estelle Ventido ever since he could remember. Estelle has always been close to him geographically, despite his propensity to travel here and there, he always found her very near himself in thought.

After a long time in waiting and some good advice from his mother, Paul bought land for his love. The land was vast, hundreds of acres and full of trees, grass and soaring sky.

Paul looked upon the land and was happy.

Then Paul thought, my love cannot come to my land if she has no house in which to dwell. So he built her a fantastic mansion, with hundreds of floorboards, large windows and a big front door with an enormous ‘welcome home’ sign upon its frame.

Paul looked upon the house and was happy.

Then Paul thought, if my love had nothing to drink how would she survive in such a place? At once Mr. Sandbourne built a deep spout. At its base was a deep, flowing river that shot water up and out its enormous mouth. The water was clean and cold, refreshing to the touch.

Paul looked upon the spout and was happy.

Then Paul thought, how could my love survive in such a house, she has nothing to eat? Then with painstaking effort, Paul tilled, planted and watered a garden. From the garden large tomatoes grew, along with cabbage and a plentiful supply of carrots.

Paul looked upon the garden and was happy.

After many years and awesome acts of love the land was ready for Estelle. She came and was happy in the land. After many children survived and thrived on the land they looked at the gifts bestowed upon them, forgetting Estelle and Paul,

they continued along in the grace of their love.



  1. But what we really want to know is if he did all these things in consecutive 24 hour periods. If he didn’t you’re a heretic.

    Oh, and nice story


  2. Dan I am going to attempt a serious reply to this post in as much as I understand it. First of all I must commend you for sticking to your word and remaining succint, though I fear you might have compromised depth in the process. I hate to ask once again for clarification, as I feel that is predominately what you do on this sight. However, I am a bit confused as to how your narrative differs from the biblical narrative or adds to discussion outside of what has already been proposed by an orthodox reading of the Genesis account. Unless, of course, you are arguing for an emminational theology. In which case one would have to read that Paul (A.K.A God) realizing within his own consciousness the neccesity to be realized externally naturally emminated Estelle from his being. Estelle (A.K.A mankind) although emminating from Paul, was lesser in essence than Paul. As Estelle acknowledges Paul’s existence his supperiority causes her to worship him. This worship creates a sense of affection within Paul’s consciousness for this lesser emmination. This of course leads further emminatinions (A.K.A house, garden,land, etc.) If this is the theology for which you intended to propose then I believe that you have done a beautiful job of relaying these truths through the narrative of Paul and Estelle. 🙂


  3. to call Paul “god” or Estelle “mankind” may fit here. My soul purpose in ascribing origins to a narrative such as this was to attempt to reveal it as a ‘work of love’.

    I think one could argue the world was created in 6 days, and even call those days 24 hour periods. One would just have to specify the meaning of an “hour”. 🙂

    Josh, Dave, Marquel, Chris and Tony Jr … I’d love to see your posts asap. I say I’ll give it till we meet on Sunday then we will move on.


  4. Dan, please forgive me if I’m misinterpreting your narrative, but I’m having trouble with the overwhelming “man-centeredness” it implies.

    Copernicus’ heresy was not proving that celestial bodies revolve around each other in a manner different from what humans had believed for centuries. Instead, it was daring to imply that Mankind was not the center of the known Universe. The very shape of his solar system implied that creation did not pivot on the rise and fall of men. That we, in fact, were quite insignificant in the larger scale of cosmic activity.

    Can you discuss a bit more why you think God would create everything specifically for man? It seems a bit anthropomorphic to imply that God was lonely, or bored, or needed a new hobby. Was it because he loved us so much that he made the infinite cosmos?—that he made celestial bodies that are too far away for us to ever see or study?

    For my part, I think an all-powerful God’s motivations for creating a reality like what we live in now would be far more complex then something as simple as our notion of love. The best I might come up with is that he created everything for his own reasons. These are motivations that we cannot fully understand nor do not have a responsibility to.

    This is why the tradition of Jesus is so attractive in Christian faith. He is a human representation of God with very clear motivations—the redemption of mankind and the fulfillment of God’s plan for mankind on earth. This is something more tangible, more direct to us that we can relate to.


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