The Second Coming of Christ: Can you answer?
The Second Coming of Christ
First, I don't mean to insult or attack Christians by putting up this question.
I just begin to think it's time for Christians to be honest to themselves and free their sensibility from the traditional shackle of orthodox.
A blinded faith serves no good even if faith is not reason based.
I think believing something has nothing to do with impeding our judgment. For example, your belief on spirituality and life after death is one thing, your judgment on what is right or wrong is another.
Say, you are a Catholic. You may subscribe to Catholicism but you shouldn't defend the wrong committed by priests because that may jeopardize reputation of your religion.
In this context, I will talk about the second coming of Christ.
The second coming of Christ is in fact Achilles' heel to Christianity. It's because no one on earth seems to answer this question adequately.
In this quest I aim, or hope, to reach some point where our common sense stands corrected and if possible, produces something fruitful and profitable.
As my first article indicated, I questioned whether Christianity is a fake or not. My honest position is there is a possibility that Christianity is found fake in a neutral perspective.
Why hasn't he come yet?
I know a boy of 12 or 13 whose father was a pastor, a friend of mine actually. One day the boy, his father and I were in a car. We were driving to a church where my friend was going to preach.
While my friend is driving, the boy asked a question.
"Dad, why hasn't Christ come yet? Because the Bible says that his coming is imminent, and that's already two thousand years ago."
There was a pause among us. Then I, very indiscrete of me, answered him that we are living in a state of temporality and so on and so forth.
My pastor friend seemed content with whatever I said to him even though I am not completely certain of whether he took my words for an answer.
But I thought about it later, then I came to conclusion that I lied to him in part, because that wasn't an answer he was seeking.
Yes, my answer was how it was taught, but the boy's point is unmistakably clear.
The point was the second coming wasn't fulfilled, then no matter what profound excuses might be available, the promise proves false
Are we honest?
Say, our humanly anticipation has been short sighted and fleshly oriented and its expectation had been egregiously wrong-footed from the beginning.
Say, it's all about spiritual dimension and some higher understanding about the second coming of Christ.
Then it shouldn't be taught among those thick-headed believers so that they could develop a wrong idea of the second coming?
If it's all about Christians' attitude to life and this world, still the teaching cannot escape responsibility for its fraudulent nature.
No excuse will make two thousands year long delay God's grand plan without making fraud an art of persuasion.
That's the point. Or the second coming in dramatic fashion is a bluff to make them living on edge.
Are we ready to admit our fallacy? Or does it constitute a violation of infallible nature of Christ?
The most popular reasoning about the so called delay of the second coming is God's patience.
God puts us on hold with unending anticipation of Christ's coming. Right. Let us say that's it.
But would you rather then call it a categorical deception?
Forget about how imperfect we are. Forget about how infinitely know-it-all and good-to-the-core in any perceivable matter God actually is.
I do not believe Christianity is a fake. Not yet.
But is it right to make excuses for unsustainable cause?