Christicism is the name I've given my own particular set of beliefs. Whenever my beliefs change, the definition of Christicism changes as well.

I used to consider myself Christian, and in some ways I still do. I believe in god, souls and an afterlife. Anything else is up to the discretion of the believer. Some people would say that makes me a Christian, but that description could also be applied to Satanists. Three important things about religion are that:

"God exists" is a fairly basic belief held by a good chunk of the world population. The explanation that God created the universe makes more sense and seems simpler to me than the big bang theory. He may have created it in a big bang, but the point is that he created the particle that exploded into the universe, and therefore, he created the universe. I think that everyone should believe whatever they want about who God is. Everyone who believes in God has some details about who God is, whether they have a name, a gender, a moral code, or whatever. It doesn't really matter what one believes about who God is, so one should believe whatever makes one the most happy. For my particular beliefs, click here.

The bible was obviously written by men, and religions that claim the bible as holy text don't deny this. And if it was written by men, what makes it any holier than "Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger? Divine inspiration is no excuse for this inexplicable holiness. The bible has now been translated from ancient Hebrew into Greek, into Latin and into English. Virtually none of the original text still exists. It was revised and edited at the ecumenical councils. How can something, even if it was divinely inspired when it was created, still be perfect after having been "edited" for content and then translated a couple of times and edited some more, and translated again? It can't be. The modern revised standard new-American or whatever bible probably does not resemble the original, long since decayed, divinely inspired texts at all. I do have great respect for whatever people wrote it however. Any book that can not only stay in print, but sell more copies than any other book in the world for 2000 years is much better than I could write. I think that most of the bible, especially the new testament, was written by a bunch of amazingly brilliant altruists, not a divinely inspired disciple or whatever. Not everyone is aware of it, but sections of the bible have been altered or even completely removed at the councils because they seemed to differ with the image and message that the church was trying to show. Anything that has been edited and translated to that extent should not be thought of as holy or divinely inspired because, while it may once have been holy/divinely inspired, it no longer is..

No absolute morality is another fairly simple point, but some people find it hard to accept. Why would God think it's wrong to kill? or steal? or commit adultery? These aren't "nice" things to do, but nice is defined by our own internal set of morals. Each member of a society is implanted with that society's morals at a very young age, usually by their parents, sometimes by other means. Your parents teach you that killing is wrong and that planting trees or giving toys to orphans is right. Who taught your parents? Their parents of course! Our morals have been passed down by our ancestors from the ancient days when they were decided upon for health or business reasons. Incest is wrong because it encourages genetic disease. Murder is wrong because every member of society is necessary for the survival of the tribe. Theft is wrong because it creates discord and ultimately leads to internal violence which is counterproductive to the survival of the tribe. These morals had, and some still have, a basis in practicality, but this does not make them absolute morality. They are "bad" for practical reasons, not because God doesn't like them. Why would some acts offend God? Some acts that wouldn't bother me at all would disturb or anger certain people from different cultures. Why is your or my set of morals better than any other one? It isn't. God never had a set of morals impressed upon him by parents and culture, nor did he have to construct morals to govern his own survival. As a result, God favors no acts above others. It pleases him just as much when you slaughter infants as when you plant trees or give toys to orphans.

This conclusion leads to the idea that nothing is a sin. If nothing is wrong, why would anything upset God or make him angry at you? It wouldn't. And if nothing you can do would upset God, why would one afterlife be better than the other? Therefore, Heaven and Hell are essentially the same. At this point, having concluded that Heaven and Hell are equivalent, it comes down to a personal belief as to whether God likes people. I happen to think that God likes people, why else would he have created them?. This leads to the conclusion the both Heaven and Hell are not only the same, but are good places to be. I believe that whatever you enjoyed doing in Life, you continue to do in the afterlife. If you liked slaughtering infants and old ladies and hanging their entrails around your neck, you get to do that forever. If you enjoyed planting trees, going to church and giving toys to orphans, you get to do that forever. And if you get bored of whatever you enjoyed in life, you do something else you enjoy. So, everyone is happy in the afterlife, forever. Now isn't that better than burning in Hell forever in a lake of sulfur as punishment for saying "Shit" when something heavy fell on your foot when you were 13? I think so.


Back to Opinions



Go to Sermonella