Back to the point, it is hard for me to have intelligent conversations because we completely do not relate even on a basic level (I never noticed that was a palindrome before!). Anyway, I told him that I think humans need to solve their problems themselves. He said that I was being too idealistic, and I would be waiting for something that could never happen. I asked what he was waiting for and he told me he was waiting for the coming of Christ. I said to myself: "And that's not idealistic." I said to him: "Okay, good luck with that," and went to find a new conversation with someone else.
However, it got me thinking. So, here is what I came up with. Take, as an axiom (I love using this word), the Christian Bible and philosophy to be true. In a literal sense. Most importantly the idea of revelations and the coming of Christ. Okay, so taking that as true, here is history according to me:
Time began with God taking completely care of us, as a parent takes care of children. He then booted us out of Eden to fend for ourselves, but with help. For the next thousand (?) years, we carried on with his intervention. Then he sent his son (representing humanity), and killed him. I take this to mean that he booted us out again, but for real. He was saying, "Okay, no more help from me. You take care of yourselves from here on out." Of course, he didn't actually say that. But he did leave us with a prophecy of the return of Christ.
And then 2000 years passed without so much as a squeak from heaven. That's quite a while for God to do nothing, eh? Don't you think he would have set revelations in motion by now? I think so. Unless he's waiting for something. Either a specific period of time, or a specific event. If it's a period of time, as Christians seem to believe, then I wonder why. I thought the idea was supposed to be that God was infinitely wise, not attached to units of time.
So I am assuming it is not a unit of time that God is waiting for, and it is indeed an event. And I think the event must depend on humans. It was the humans that he gave free-will to, and therefore we are the only things out of his control. Therefore, it seems logical to me that God wants us to do something. What? Well, I think he wants us to create Heaven on Earth. Bring time full-circle so that the humans return themselves to Eden. I think he decided we've had enough help from him, and that we're ready to figure it out on our own. That makes sense to me.
Anyway, that's what's been on my mind. Thanks for reading. If someone who knows more about Christianity has an argument against mine, I'd appreciate it. I haven't actually read revelations, actually, so I don't really know anything about it except that our physical world will end and we go to heaven. I might even be wrong at that. Let me know.
5 comments:
Hey, I found your blog.
So now I'm going to type up what I said to you yesterday when we had this discussion.
Your theory makes more sense than most of Christianity, but it still starts by assuming that Christianity is true, so I don't think that it's even worthwhile to talk about, because I don't think Christianity could possibly be true, even with your interpretation, which makes more sense than lots of things.
I'd say that when Christ died, God was offering more help to people, not less. Jesus died for you sins, right? So I think as long as you are a good Christian, any transgressions you've made can be overlooked and ou will float up to heaven like a plastic grocery bag caught in an updraft. Before Christ, I'm not sure what the policy was. Perhaps you had to be directly decended from Abraham to avoid an eternity of pain.
Man I have no idea why Jesus died. I guess the general consensus is for our sins, but I don't even know what that means. I don't think they even believed in hell at the time. I'm pretty sure the concept of hell was a post-Jesus invention. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Hallie—I will also say what I said yesterday. I don't think it matters if it's true or not, but there are many who disagree with me, on both sides of that argument. I suppose this idea is geared toward those who believe the religion, of which there are many. I'm saying that my idea is probably true if Christianity is right. If Christianity is wrong, then my idea still carries a pretty good message, as does the majority of the religion. In my opinion.
I've read the bible many times. Um. I mean, your inturpretation is as good at the next really. Mostly, I'd say actually read the book of revlations. It's crazy shit man. No joke, really.
"And I heard, as it were, admist the four beasts, singing. And it said "come and look." and I saw, and behold, a white horse."
"And then the angel, with seven lions heads, opened the fourth seal, and plague was loosened on the world. And the angel, the lamb, opened his mouth, and I beheld the noise of thunder and death. Death of the Earth."
"And I saw and behold, a pale horse, and the name said on it was Death, and hell followed afer."
Yeah, those are the snatches I remember.
--Gynelle
I mean, I agree that Christianity has, in general, a good message, and a better one with your interpretation.
I'm just so annoyed with the actions of lots of fanatic Christians lately that I find it hard to be unbiased toward the religion itself, even though a lot of it is actually pretty neat.
But also, I think your argument makes sense to me exactly because I don't believe in Christianity. I think if I did, I would believe all that other silly stuff that doesn't make sense (I am so sorry if I am offending someone here) that you explain differently, because that's all part of the Christianity package. Or something.
Post a Comment