Time is Meaningless

This is going to be a weird one.

Since I was a young lad, I've been very familiar with the idea of heaven. Really, don't most people believe in heaven, somehow? For the most part, yes, especially when it comes to loved ones passing away-- everyone believes their grandma/uncle/best friend went to heaven. Now, whether they themselves are also going to heaven is something a lot of people assume, and if not, it's just not something they think about.

Heaven is . . . peaceful? Painless? Happy?

. . . Eternal?

Sure, sure, why not? But have you ever considered what eternity really means? I have, and to be perfectly, vulnerably honest, it kinda scares me. It blows my mind, for one thing. All I have to do is think about the idea of eternity for about 2 seconds, and I'm done; my mind is blown. It keeps going? Life never stops? There is no end to existence?

This really is something that can't be imagined, and that's why it blows your mind. Someone who doesn't believe in God, and therefore, heaven, may be moved to think:
"yeah, that's why I'm glad I don't believe in it, because it doesn't make sense."

But you have to believe in eternity, whether or not you even believe in God, because after you die, the universe will go on, and on, and on, and even ten quintillion years from now, when the universe will supposedly collapse on itself and end up as a single, infinitely small black hole singularity, time will still go one. So yes, everyone must believe in eternity.

But I suppose the idea that you'll be around for it is what makes it scary in light of it's never-endingness. For a long time, I've found myself with the heebie-jeebies when I think of myself being eternal. These heebie-jeebies also leave me feeling a bit guilty because I know that eternity spent in the company of my infinitely loving, infinitely knowledgeable, infinitely perfect Jesus would be full of joy and wonder. I mean, what kind of Christian am I to be scared of spending eternity with God?

But I've had a thought in recent weeks that I've found comforting. A thought which has, for the most part, dissolved my fear of spending eternity with God.

There is no time in eternity.

I've realized that the idea of time in light of eternity is quite ridiculous. It's not as though eternity will have "begun," or "keep going," or anything of the sort. It's not as though, epochs into my future with the Lord, I'll look back and say "Wow, it's year 15,587,000,072,576. Cool!" There will be no new establishment of time markation, as if there is a new year zero, and we can begin measuring again from that point.

Eternity will not have begun. Rather, eternity will be a new state.

Looking back at past instances in my life where my belief in God was challenged in relation to various aspects of God's existence, I wish I understood then what I do now. There's obviously the paradox of the Trinity (one god that is three gods, somehow) to tangle with, but I'm not going to go there right now because I think it's impossible to explain (and 2000 years' worth of great theologians would concur). But consider how people wrangle (Christians included) with the idea that God has always existed; how is that supposed to make sense? "If God wasn't created, where did he come from?" we're asked. "How can God exist if he never began?" The typical theist's response is that "God is surely outside of time," or that "time does not apply to God," which is scoffed at by the inquisitor, and rightly so. The response given by the believer is playing right into the hands of the inquisitor, as it fails to address the real question, which should be:

"How can you say that time even exists?"

Because, as a concept, time is not particularly founded. What is it? How does one measure time? Really, when you come down to it, time is just a human method of understanding the universe. It is impossible to prove time. So, when we're asking how God exists if he never began, we're not getting the whole picture. The truth is, the very concept of "beginning" itself implies time. To try and shoehorn the idea of an infinite God into something like time, which is entirely a human idea that cannot be proved, is absurd.

To add, most people today who do not believe in God, when questioned on the origin of the universe, would reply that they believe in the Big Bang. But frankly, I find it much easier to accept the idea of an omnipotent God to whom time does not apply, than to accept the idea of everything somehow coming out of nothing at some distant point in the past. A Big Bang needs a catalyst, and a catalyst could not simply manifest itself out of nothingness. The problem with the Big Bang is that it tries to fit the idea of existence as having begun at some point, i.e., time. But at least belief in a God existing outside of time puts the question out of our ability to answer.

It's not like you're going to be able to explain the existence of existence anyway, so you might as well point to a God to explain it all. At that point, at least you can say it's out of your hands.



It's a long time coming, but here is my point:
Scripture says that when we see the Lord in heaven, we will become like him. Here we find ourselves essentially sharing in his God-nature thanks to our union with God through Jesus Christ. If time is a human concept, one that does not apply to an infinite being such as God, then time will no longer apply to us, either. Eternity will be our new state. Do you think God fears the vastness of eternity? No, because there is no timeline to His eternity-- it is simply his state. And eternity will be our state, too, then, and thus, there is nothing to fear.

We will be like God.

On The Immaculate Conception

I can't believe I'm doing this . . .

I am not writing this to convince you of the truth of this Catholic Dogma.
I myself am not wholly convinced of this Dogma's truth.
I am writing this to convince you that this Catholic Dogma is not as unreasonable as you may think.
I hope you can come to at least give it that much credit.

Please read this with an open mind. Circumspection, I've come to see, is invaluable to those who wish for Christian unity, and to understand their brothers and sisters in Christ of another denomination.



Most of the Marian doctrines of the Catholic Church are not in place for Mary's sake, or for Mary's glory at all. Most of the Marian doctrines, you would be surprised to hear, are actually about/there to clarify the person of Jesus Christ.

No way.

The sad thing is that most Catholics don't even know that, and when the Catholic Church's own people misinterpret and misunderstand its reasons for certain beliefs . . . how can Protestants be expected to understand them? After all, we have to admit it: the Marian doctrines do sound kinda weird, and on the surface, many seem somewhat contrary to scripture. However, when you look back in history, you find that they actually came about as a way of explaining Jesus.

But we sorta take Jesus for granted today, or rather, we take understanding what he was for granted. Back in the first few hundred years of Christianity, there was no shortage of controversy regarding the incarnation, for example. People struggled internally and fought and argued externally over a lot of ideas and theology centered around Jesus.

-How could almighty God become a human?
-How much was Jesus God and how much was he a man?
-Did Jesus always know he was God?
-Did Jesus have two wills?
-Where does the Holy Spirit fit into the Father-Son relationship?
-If Jesus is God, and God is indestructible, how could God die?
-For that matter, how is it possible for God to suffer?

. . . among others; you get the idea.

When I first started learning of all these struggles and questions in the early church, I would often think things like:

"Seriously? Why is that important? I don't see how it affects my faith."
or
"Well, duh. Wasn't it obvious? Of course Jesus (fill in the blank)."

Now I'm a little older, a little wiser, and a little more open-minded. To answer my first thought: the more things change, the more they stay the same. There are things that Christians struggle with/argue about today that were totally off the radar back then, too. Every era of Christianity has its pet topics that don't tremendously affect the faith, but are nonetheless contentious among believers. To answer my second thought: well, of course it's obvious to me today, with 2000 years of Christian theology and understanding at my disposal. But how did we get that understanding? Why is it obvious to us? Because once upon a time, (insert random Christological fact) wasn't so obvious, and people had to struggle to figure it out.

Enter: the Marian doctrines, and their reason for being. You can't explain a lot of things about me, for example, without relating me to my parents. Take my last name, my near-sighted blue eyes, or my birthday--none of these things about me can be fully understood or explained without understanding my parents, or otherwise involving them in the discussion. So it is with Jesus and the Marian doctrines. No matter how weird or scripturally off they may seem, there is a reason for them to be, and those reasons, oddly enough, have nothing to do with Mary herself.

EXAMPLE:
The title "Mary, Mother of God"
WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE:
Holy Cow! You're saying that Mary gave birth to God? What the heck does that imply? Calling her God's mother makes it sound like she's greater than God, or otherwise of a similar level or stature, which is pure blasphemy. And doesn't this mean that Mary came before God? No way.
ULTRA-LAME, TYPICAL CATHOLIC RESPONSE:
Well, of course Mary is the Mother of God-- she gave birth to Jesus, who is God! Therefore, she was God's mother. Duh, Protestants!
IMPORTANT DETAIL OVERLOOKED BY ALL:
English sucks. The original title is the Greek word Theotokos, which would be more accurately translated as "God-Bearer," or "Birth-Giver of God," which sounds a lot less blasphemous than "Mother of God."
WHAT CATHOLICS OUGHT TO SAY INSTEAD:
Mary was not given this title to make her look more holy, or even to give honor to her. In the early church, there were a good deal of Christians who rejected the union of God and man, and thus, saw Jesus as two different beings somehow coexisting. Those who believed this referred to Mary as Christokos, or "Mother of Christ," affirming her as the mother of only a human, not God. This division of the divine and human natures of Christ cheapens the incarnation, and therefore, the salvation of humanity. Therefore, to affirm the divinity and humanity of Jesus Christ, Mary was officially given the title Theotokos, or "Mother of God." Mother of God is there to affirm Jesus' divinity, not to make Mary look exalted.

See what I mean? Not as bad as you thought, right? Moving on to the Immaculate Conception . . .

The idea of the Immaculate Conception, roughly stated, is that Mary was conceived, through the miraculous power of God, without the stain of original sin, and thus led a sinless life.

NOOOOO, THE BIBLE SAYS ONLY JESUS WAS SINLESS!!!!

I know. Take a deep breath, my friends. Remember what I said at the beginning of this blog.

POINT 1:
Do you believe that you can be sinless, by the power of God? You should; the Bible says we can. Paul wouldn't talk about conforming to the whole image of Christ if it wasn't possible, since the whole image of Christ would obviously lack sin. This, of course, is all done through the grace of God, but rest assured, it is possible. Has anyone ever gotten there, ever? No one knows except God, but it's certainly possible, according to scripture (I'd wager that John made it). This too would seem to conflict with verses about everyone sinning except Jesus, unless you take into account that 1) this state of sinlessness is only obtained through the grace of god, and 2) those who achieve this state still have sinned, so it's not as though they don't need redeeming.

So, if I believe I can be sinless through the grace of God, why couldn't Mary have been sinless, too? After all, we know that grace is a gift, so it's not like Mary earned her state of sinlessness. Isn't it logical that God would give more grace to the person that would raise his son, than to a Midwestern, 20th century American Joe like me? Anyway, it's not like anyone's saying that Mary conceived herself immaculately. God's the one who did it; He gets the credit, and frankly, can't God do what He wants with His grace?

POINT 2:
We're all born into sin, right? Sin is the heritage that we receive from our parents: the sin nature, the flesh, the part of us that inherently rejects and disobeys God from the moment we are conceived. The stain of the original sin has been passed down through humanity ever since the beginning, and each of us is born into it ("surely I was sinful from the moment my mother conceived me," anyone?).

Well, if sin is a natural state passed on to each of us from the moment we enter our mother's womb, thanks to her own inherent sinfulness, which was inherent in her very humanity (thanks a lot, Adam!), in order for the chain of sinful birth to be broken, wouldn't Jesus have to have come from a sinless woman? If Jesus was born out of sin, as the rest of us are, wouldn't that have given him the same stain? Going further, the idea of Jesus as the "Second Adam" set forth in scripture necessitates a break from the line of sinful humans giving birth to sinful humans, and therefore, a new Adam would need to be conceived without a sinful parent.

By the way, if you are bothered by this idea because it implies that Mary didn't need redemption through Jesus' cross, consider this: who's to say that Mary didn't eventually sin after Jesus' birth, even if she was originally sinless? It's not like the sinless state is impossible to fall from, even if you're created that way. Just a thought . . .




That's all I really have to say in this blog. Remember, I just wanted you to think about this matter, and give it some circumspection. Even if you can't entirely swallow it (I have my struggles as well), I hope you at least see that it's not as looney or unreasonable as it initially comes across. Really, it's not even about Mary, or intended for her honor-- most of the Marian doctrines are not-- it's about Jesus.