If you’ve been following the Tanuki Corner since the beginning, you’ll know that I argue from a Christian worldview and have often done blog posts about the Bible and have discussed some of my experiences with the church, which haven’t always been great. However, in recent months, I have come to the decision to fully embrace Christianity and Christ and since then, have been trying to figure out if I should share my testimony since much of it had already been shared before. Then I got a comment last week from someone named Ark under my post “I Argued with an Atheist…” asking: “Out of interest, what was it that convinced you of the veracity of Christianity that set you on the path of faith?” I then told him that I would do a blog post about it and here we are. Let’s hop into this.
My early experiences with Christianity and religion were very mixed. My dad was a deist who believed God existed and taught me to pray every night before bed but never went much further than that; and my mom was big into charismatic Christianity and guys like Todd White and Bill Johnson. She believed in what I call the “Jesus-And” theology (“Jesus is my lord and savior…but these essential oils can also bring good vibes into my life…” is an example of the Jesus-And theology) and had unwittingly been in the trap of New Age Christianity (mixing Christianity with Eastern belief systems) for much of her life and that was the version of Christianity that she was teaching me and my brother, not knowing that it was bad. As the oldest child, I ended up getting the most of this teaching, which would lead to quite a bit of confusion later on.
From this background, I knew about Jesus, though didn’t know that it wasn’t the Jesus of the Bible. The Bible verses I knew were cherry-picked and taken out of context. When I was six or seven, my brother started requiring more attention during school time and, being jealous of him and thinking that my parents favored him over me (which they didn’t, I just wanted more attention from them) I decided to start saying that I was a Christian so I could get attention from Mom (since she is the one who stays at home and teaches us kids while Dad’s at work) and maybe some cool swag for it (like extra Christmas presents). I played the game, pretended that I liked reading my Bible, would listen to K-Love on the radio constantly, would say that I wanted to be a missionary or something like that, etc. Needless to say, while Mom thought it was cute, it did not have the desired effect, and I gave up on it. I said goodbye to K-Love (a decision that was actually a good one in hindsight), thought Christianity was weird and Mom was weird with how ardently she believed what the pastors on T.V. were saying, and did my own thing.
However, that isn’t to say that I gave up on religion and God entirely. At that age, I was a warm deist. I believed that God existed, and that Jesus was real. Basically, it was a placeholder for the time being and this was where my school curriculum started focusing a bit more on God’s existence. As I have talked about on this blog before, I am homeschooled. The curriculum that my parents have taught me from is very much based around Christianity, however, it also includes things from secular authors and thinkers. Around the time that I became a deist, my science curriculum was teaching the two sides to the evolution debate, pointing out some of the things that could possibly support evolution, the things that made absolutely no sense about evolution, and the things in-between. I remember thinking it was interesting and really enjoyed that course, though I still thought Christianity was a bit weird. But I kept an open mind and had to agree that the Creationist theory made more sense than the idea that a bunch of stuff inexplicably evolved from primordial goo and formed the ridiculously complex world that we live in, which was one of the first proofs that started convincing me that what Christianity taught might be real.
Fast forward a few years to 2020. After a summer that had been equal parts awesome and really tough, my dad became a Christian after hitting rock bottom. We were happy, things began to go back to normal and in the spring of 2021, Dad told Mom that he wanted to go to church. Now, we had tried to find a church back when I was really young, however, because of my medical issues, most churches we reached out to were less than thrilled to talk to us, ignoring us most of the time out of fear of being sued if something happened or if they said “no” (allergies are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act and saying “no” can be seen as discrimination against someone with a disability). This prompted us to give up after many years of trying, but, since the need for a church was now becoming clearer and clearer, especially as I was entering my teen years, we decided to try again and were successful in finding a church that was willing to accommodate my allergy. At the time, my allergy was the only criteria we had for picking a church, since we thought that all churches were like McDonald’s: a little bit different depending on where you went, but you would get the same stuff for the most part.
What ended up happening there, you can read about in my post on how most modern churches suck (which is linked in the beginning of this blog), but to sum it up, we left the first church when we found discrepancies in where they said they were sending their donations (we still don’t know where those donations went), were taking the Bible out of context to make it more palatable for new people coming into the church, and were mixing Sufism (a mystical sect of Islam) with Christianity in their cult-like spiritual formation classes (led by a lady who was a deconstruction coach of all things). This led Mom to reassess everything she had been taught about Christianity growing up and reach out to some prominent apologists for help. With their assistance, she began the transition out of the New Age and into true Christianity and belief in what the Bible actually says about God and Jesus, and we began our search for a new, Bible-teaching church, ending up at church number two less than a month later.
Meanwhile, I was super angry about the whole situation. I had just lost all the friends I had made there, and Christianity, the religion I had grown up with and had wanted to convert to while at church number one, seemed a heck of a lot more confusing than it had initially been growing up. I was now aware that there were at least 52 different version of Jesus that different denominations said were real, so which one was the right one? It quickly began to look like the Spider-man meme, with each version saying: “I am Jesus!”
I began to question everything I had been taught about Jesus over the years as it became clear that it had been mixed with some very unbiblical teaching and set out on a search for truth. This was when I started getting into apologetics with my family and started paying more attention to what Mom and Dad were reading out of the Bible (now in context instead of cherry-picking it) and were saying about it. When I was assigned a full year of church history talking about the proofs for Christianity and Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, and how it compared to other religions, I became more and more sure of the inerrancy of the Bible. Not only was the testimony of the Bible reliable due to when it was written, who wrote it, and how it was written but things like Jesus’ death were even recorded by Roman and Jewish historians, satirists, and governors of the time such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc. Not only that, but the fact that the Apostles who had seen Christ didn’t deny him (and neither did the early church), even when facing the threat of torture and some of the most gruesome deaths known to mankind was even more convicting of the truth that Jesus is the Son of God. (This year, I also started reading the New Testament by myself for the first time. I’m almost done with it and am amazed by how well it lines up with everything else.) I’ll talk some more about this stuff in my upcoming series addressing common reasons for deconstruction, but it became clear that the Christian worldview was the only one that truly made sense and my conviction that the Bible is inerrant made me more passionate about protecting true Biblical teaching that has been increasingly thrown to the wayside and calling out the people who twist it.
However, there was a problem. I still wasn’t sure if I wanted to accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior yet because, during this course, we left our second church and I was seriously burned by my youth pastor the other leaders there alongside my mom, which made me really angry at the church in general, not just God.
Now, I feel like this is a good time to answer a point from Vel (as she has asked to be called) from the blog Club Schadenfreude, who said: “Do make sure to include why you chose the version of Christianity you did, since it seems you are following what your parents want.”
During my church history class, I got to study some of the basics of what different church denominations believe. While many claim to profess the same God (and many do), their beliefs about different church traditions and how we achieve salvation often differ drastically, which is where their beliefs about Jesus and who he was begin to become muddled. While some get it right, others turn it into a works-based religion and teach things about Jesus that are not canon; put too much emphasis on things like angels, experiences, etc. that either aren’t specified in the Bible or distract from it until they have basically created their own mythology (for example: the Catholic emphasis on the saints should be considered a mythology); or they have muddled it so much with today’s politics (on both sides of the aisle) that politics end up becoming the main focus, not the Gospel, which can lead to cherry-picking and aberrant or heretical teaching. Because of this, I came to the same conclusion that my parents did that the safest version of Christianity is one that is truly based off of what the Bible says, straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak. We can disagree on some secondary issues but if you’re not teaching true Biblical doctrine about the Trinity, who Jesus was, etc., then we have a problem.
Anyway, where was I?
Ah, yes.
We had just left church two, and, once again, I lost all of my friends from there except for one. It was a more gradual process of having friends break away, and I spent much of 2022 being angry at God for why He had allowed us to go to a church that we would leave anyway and wondered why He let so many Christians act like total jerks. Then, in July or so of that year, we visited what’s now our home church for the first time and I was totally culture shocked not only because it’s a rural country church where people are much dressier, but also because it was a good example of what the church should be like. Everyone is very friendly to each other and take their faith seriously. The leaders encourage people to ask questions and teach straight out of the Bible instead of making it some concert and Ted Talk. Later, in 2023, I would meet one of my best friends and we would click immediately. She had had a very similar experience with the church and helped me a lot while I was questioning becoming a Christian. I was still upset with God and frankly, scared that if I became a Christian, I would get burned again. I knew that this was illogical thinking if I believed that what the Bible said about God was true, but it was an excuse that I could use to avoid saying I was a Christian.
Over the course of 2023 and into this year, that excuse changed and evolved. I believed the essentials, that Jesus was the Son of God, part of the Trinity, that the Bible was inerrant, etc. but wasn’t putting all my trust in God. I eventually realized that I was scared of handing over control of my life to someone else after being burned by people. I talked a bit about this with my parents and the apologetics group that I’m apart of and finally, two things sunk in. 1). I shouldn’t be judging God by the actions of fallen men (which I was) and 2). I am a trainwreck. Trying to control my life doesn’t always go well and it’s better to follow God than to just do what I want all the time. This isn’t to try to shift the blame for the consequences of my decisions on God. We still have free will and need to take accountability for our crappy actions, but I’ve now come to accept that God has a plan, and I should just follow it wherever it takes me, though I may want to get off the rollercoaster at times.
This conviction finally came to a head after a night of listening to a lecture from one of the guys in the apologetics group where he was basically talking about how if put your trust in the essentials of the faith and trust Jesus, then you’re saved. I asked my dad if that meant that I was a Christian since I believed those things and he ran me down the list of essentials. I said yes to each question, and he said: “Yer a wizard, Harry.”
I’m kidding. What he actually said was: “Then you’re a Christian, dingbat.”
So, I’ve officially been a Christian for a few months. I’m still learning more about Christianity and arguments to support it, the arguments against it, and how it stands up with other religions and am excited to see what happens next. If you have any more questions, leave them in the comments below and I’ll try to get to them as soon as I can. My series on answering common reasons for deconstructing starts soon, so stay tuned for that.
Until next time,
M.J.
The Tanuki Corner 
Deism isn’t christanity, and has nothing to do with the christian god or jesus. A deist is someone who has believe in a god that created and then does not interfere. No supernatural, no revelation.
“Not only was the testimony of the Bible reliable due to when it was written, who wrote it, and how it was written but things like Jesus’ death were even recorded by Roman and Jewish historians, satirists, and governors of the time such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc.”
this is false. Roman and jewish historians, etc mentioned what christians believed and never said what they believed was true. . No governors mentioned Jesus at all.
“Not only that, but the fact that the Apostles who had seen Christ didn’t deny him (and neither did the early church), even when facing the threat of torture and some of the most gruesome deaths known to mankind was even more convicting of the truth that Jesus is the Son of God. “
no evidence for jesus or the apostles, and people often die for things that aren’t true. No evidence for any martyrdoms at all for these supposed apostles.
If you’ve read the new testament, then you should be able to give answers to questions like:
Who was the first into the tomb?
What happened with Mary in the garden outside the tomb?
What did the thieves do?
Was Jesus silent during his trials with the priests and with Pilate?
it should be easy, right?
“During my church history class, I got to study some of the basics of what different church denominations believe. While many claim to profess the same God (and many do), their beliefs about different church traditions and how we achieve salvation often differ drastically, which is where their beliefs about Jesus and who he was begin to become muddled. While some get it right, others turn it into a works-based religion and teach things about Jesus that are not canon; put too much emphasis on things like angels, experiences, etc. that either aren’t specified in the Bible or distract from it until they have basically created their own mythology (for example: the Catholic emphasis on the saints should be considered a mythology); or they have muddled it so much with today’s politics (on both sides of the aisle) that politics end up becoming the main focus, not the Gospel, which can lead to cherry-picking and aberrant or heretical teaching. Because of this, I came to the same conclusion that my parents did that the safest version of Christianity is one that is truly based off of what the Bible says, straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak. We can disagree on some secondary issues but if you’re not teaching true Biblical doctrine about the Trinity, who Jesus was, etc., then we have a problem.”
As is typical for Christians, you try to claim only the version you like is the “right” one, MJ. Not one of you christians can show that your version is any better than the rest, and you show this when you try to claim that only your version of how someone is “saved” is the only right one. Christians can’t agree on what is “cannon” for their religion, with some christians being sola scriptura and some not.
It’s nothing new that you attack other christians, like Catholics, and surprise, you can’t show them wrong. it’s just your baseless opinion. Every single christian claims that only they follow the bible correctly, aka “straight from the horse’s mouth”, and again, not one of you can show this, or do what jesus promises to his true followers, so it seems you are a fraud per your own bible.
The issues that christiains disagree on aren’t “secondary”. Let’s look at a list:
Free will vs predestination (both paul and jesus say no free will, Matthew 13, John 15, Romans 9, etc)
who is saved
how someone is saved
how to interpret the bible
what jesus is aka is there a trinity
what morals god wants
what heaven and hell are
Sola gratia
sola scriptura
sola fide
your claim of what “church should be like’ is again, nothing but an opinion.
it should be interesting to see what you claim leads to “deconstruction”.
LikeLike
1). Yeah, no kidding deism isn’t Christianity. Where did I say that it was?
2). I’ll answer all of those questions in my series, the first of which is starting today.
3). Vel, the fact that you’re getting this triggered over a teenager on the internet talking about what made her become a Christian and why she believes in Christ to the extent where you’re writing the most repetitive essays I’ve ever read in my comments is ridiculous. You’re a 50-something-year-old woman. You’re entering the golden years of your life and should be much more mature than this. The fact that my posts make you this worked up says a lot more about you than it does me. I get it. You don’t like Christians or Christianity, but if you want to vent about that, do it on your own blog. My comments section is not your therapist’s office. You can disagree with me on here, but if you’re spamming and just are just here to be angry, I have nothing preventing me from suspending your account from being able to comment.
If you don’t like what I post, that’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinion, and it has no bearing on who I am or how I view myself. If it triggers you this much you can ignore it. You can walk away from the fight. You can turn off your phone or PC. You can forget I even exist. Go cuddle with your cats, touch grass, and kick rocks. It’ll be a lot better for you than angrily commenting on my blog.
LikeLike
Right here, MJ. “At that age, I was a warm deist. I believed that God existed, and that Jesus was real. “
Yep, more attempts to delay and avoid the questions. The fact is that your new testament repeatedly contradicts itself. Paul repeatedly contradicts jesus. There is a very good website, from a Christian, called “voiceofjesus” and there he has an article where he shows just how Paul and jesus don’t teach the same things called “Paul vs Jesus.” http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html
I’m here to show how you lie. I repeat things since you can’t show I’m wrong. If you don’t want comments from the public, then don’t make them available to be used. That you don’t want anyone showing you how your claims fail is typical of any cultist. Suspend me. No one cares.
Or show I’m wrong. It seems you can’t. That you have nothing but attempts to be insulting is notable. I have a very nice garden, so touching grass isn’t an issue. For someone who wants to accuse others of being triggered, you certainly seem to be triggered yourself when you are unable to show that my points are wrong.
LikeLike
A deist can believe that God exists, and that Jesus was real but only acknowledge Jesus as a historical figure. Therefore, no duh that being a deist isn’t the same as being a Christian.
I quite enjoy hearing counterarguments from other people. My problem is when the argument goes round and round in circles and doesn’t actually go anywhere. That’s when I get annoyed. This isn’t cultist behavior. It’s human nature.
LikeLike
No, they can’t believe your particular god exists. They believe in a god that is not personal, and does not interfere. You were wrong, so why not just admit it?
You can’t show I’m wrong, MJ, so the argument does not go “round and round”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well then what would you call a person who believes in God and Jesus existing, but doesn’t believe that He is personal?
Also, you keep claiming that I’m lying but if you do not believe in any God, then where do you get your truth from to be able to say that I’m lying? Do you get it from science, which is constantly changing; the government which I doubt you would want to get your morals from since you hate Trump so much; or yourself, which would make your claims that I’m lying opinion, not fact? Your own belief system that there is no higher power and thus no higher morality or truth has debunked the basis of your claims that I’m lying.
LikeLike
Your “God” is claimed to be a personal god. So no one can believe in that god and not think it is personal.
Then you use the usual garbage that christians love to fail with, the claim that I can’t know or point out that you are lying without having your imaginary friend giving out morals. Sorry, MJ, but there are no objective morals so your argumetn fails.
Christian morality is demonstrably subjective, with each inventing a list of morals they claim their god wants, and yet the poor dears can’t show that their god merely exists, much less agrees with them. They also have the problem that they must insist that their god doesn’t have to follow these supposedly “objective” morals since they have to invent excuses why it is okay for this god to commit genocide, to kill people for the actions of others, etc. This makes their morality subjective to who someone is. it also shows their morality is little moreo than might equals right.
there is truth however, and you have none of that.
Science does change and it doesn’t say it has the one perfect right answer like theists do. It’s great to see you also attacking the government, which isn’t perfect, but yuo benefit from it all of the time, dear. Your ignorance and need to follow a orange rapist, serial adulterer, liar, cheat, fraud, thief, coward who attacks US troops while supporting Putin and who says he doesn’t need forgiveness from your god is amusing. I love how you christians worship your anti-christ.
I can show evidence how you lie, MJ, and I have. that isn’t opinion.
LikeLike
It’s interesting how you bring up that there are no objective morals. If there are no objective morals in your worldview, then why do you get so worked up when I and other Christian apologists like me talk about what makes our worldview the right one? If I were lying, then why would you care? If there is no objective truth or morality, then everything is subjective. Everything becomes about living “my truth”, which leads to very unjust societies where despotism and sadism rules. If it’s my truth that killing a random grandma is a good thing, who cares? There’s no morality saying otherwise and it would be stupid if anyone to try to stop it since I’m just living my truth. It’s the same with things like genocide, rape, abuse, etc. which I think we can both agree are evil. Without an objective morality, who cares if evil happens since everyone’s going to die anyways and it’ll be like the TV just turned off? In many ways, it’s like a get-out-of-jail-free card since you can just pick whatever you think is good even if it’s objectively evil and who’s to say that it’s wrong? This is where your argument still fails.
This once again poses the question of where do you get your morality from since you cannot seriously get it from science (especially as it pertains to things like your stance on abortion) or the government. The only place where you can get it and still be intellectually consistent is yourself, and – sorry not sorry – but you are a flawed human being like anyone else. You are not a perfect beacon of morality. Thus, your argument is still not based on fact, but your idea of right and wrong, which is subjective.
LikeLike
What does objective morality have to do with me finding your claims to be lies, MJ? I care because your lies cause real harm. Everything isn’t subjective, ther are many truths, but your cult’s problem is that you have none. Each Christian makes up what they want and can’t show that their claims are true.
Happily, no one gets their own “truth”, so your lies fail and I can demonstrate them. Yu are quite right since your cult depends on despotism and sadism, with your petty god needing obedience and being quite the sadist with the idea of “hell”. Curious how Christians all claim that their morals are objective, but can’t agree on what their god wants for morality.
Morals are completely subjective and are invented by humans, no god needed. Many morals are common since we are all humans, and we find our empathy and self-interest to often intersect. But nothing shows that they are objective. We can care plenty about morality even if there are no objective morals. Your argument that we can’t is typically baseless nonsense from you.
That we will all die anyways doesn’t mean morality isn’t needed and that it can’t be subjective. Your nihilistic nonsense fails as always. My argument doesn’t fail sicne you have yet to show your god exists much less show what morals it actually wants.
Poor MJ, I can get morality from science, and as I have said, I also get it from my empathy and self-interest. Science can show how the majority benefits from a certain morality. People give government its morality, and funny how you Christian conservatives want to have a government with the morality of a rapist, a serial adulterer, a liar, a cheat, a fraud, a thief, a coward and someone who says he doesn’t need forgiveness from your god, MJ.
No one is a perfect beacon of morality, MJ, most especially you lying Christians who can’t agree on what morals their imaginary friend wants. Curious how your god has no problem with abortions, giving instructions on how to do them in the bible, and your god has no problem in killing kids, so your lies about how your imaginary friend is ever so concerned about children is simply a lie per your own bible.
dear, your morality is completely subjective.
LikeLike
“Sorry, MJ, but there are no objective morals so your argumetn fails.”
The reason why I bring up objective morals is because objective morals must be based on objective truth. Thus, in order for you to say that I’m lying, you need to have objective truth, which ties into objective morality.
So let me dumb down my point to one simple yes-or-no question:
Is the statement of “Everything isn’t subjective, there are many truths, but your cult’s problem is that you have none.” objective?
Also, I would suggest that you look up the definition of a nihilist before you say that I have a nihilistic worldview and maybe watch a few animal documentaries before saying that we’re not that different from animals.
LikeLike
Again, where is evidence for objective morality, MJ? What evidence is there for objective truth having anything to do with morality?
Your presuppositions fail as usual. You can’t show your god merely exists, much less it is the source of objective morality or objective truth. Objective truth has no need for your god, and so does objective morality.
Until you can show that objective truth doesn’t exist, then yep, my statement stands. I’m waiting for your evidence. I’m quite sure objective truths aka facts exist. If I put my bare hand into molten steel, it will destroy my hand. No god needed for that either.
I’ve watched plenty of animal documentaries and surprise, not a one supports your claims. But surely you can tell me which do, MJ? right?
Nihilism: “Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
“the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless” oxford dictionary
Since you tried nihilistic nonsense such as “Without an objective morality, who cares if evil happens since everyone’s going to die anyways and it’ll be like the TV just turned off?” to make your argument about morality, I have used the world just fine, MJ.
I did note this from you “It’s the same with things like genocide, rape, abuse, etc. which I think we can both agree are evil.”
Yep, I can agree on that. Curious how your god doesn’t, since it repeatedly commits and commands genocide, has no problem with rape, has no problem with abuse, etc. (see Numbers 31 for that rape and abuse).
As I have noted, MJ, christians try to make excuses for why their god doesn’t follow what they claim are “objective” morals. If they were objective, they’d apply to everyone, including your god. That you argue that they don’t, shows that your morals aren’t objective at all.
LikeLike
How you used the word “nihilist” was to imply that I have a nihilistic worldview, when I don’t. I’m simply pointing out the implications of your own belief system.
Objective truths are statements like “Human life is sacred,” “Individual rights should be respected,” “Helping others is good,” etc. Without these truths, who’s to say what’s good? Without these truths, you cannot have an objective basis of morality. If morality is always changing on a whim because of whoever happens to be in power and you disagree with them, then you’re screwed. It’s not God’s fault that people try (and are often very creative) about finding supposed loopholes to justify their sin. That’s people’s fault.
Furthermore, either response you could’ve given would have backed you into an intellectual corner as you have contradicted yourself multiple times. You say there is only subjective morality but then say that there’s objective truth. As I have pointed out, one cannot exist without the other. The only way you have been able to support your arguments is through the constant use of red herrings and taking things out of context. Sorry, but your beliefs cannot seriously be supported with facts and logic.
LikeLike
You also claim that God’s morality comes from the idea that might equals right. However, what you seem to be ignoring (which is ironic given the fact that you hate willful ignorance) is that without objective morality from a perfect lawgiver, man is reduced to a mindless animal. Animals operate by no law but base instinct. If humans live without objective morality from God, the only way for them to make others conform to their beliefs is through strength, just like how two male dogs will viciously fight each other to mate with a female. Therefore, if your idea that God operates by might equals right is true (which it’s not BTW), then what would make your worldview any better since it would bear the same if not worse implications upon what it means to be human?
LikeLike
Nope, I said your morality is might equals right since you claim it doesn’t have to follow the morals you want to claim it gave people. You claim that since it is god, it can do whatever it wants. Nice try to lie yet again, MJ.
Again, no objective morality from your imaginary friend, MJ. Christians can’t agree on what morals their god wants, and can’t show it merely exists, much less agrees with their particular list. Man isn’t reduced to anything without objective morality. You’ve just made that up so your lies don’t fail yet again.
Man has morality and it is subjective as all morals are. Man also makes up laws and again they are subjective, based on those subjective morals. Humans aren’t as different from animals as you vain cultists want to pretend. And nope, we don’t need only strength, since we humans reason. I can convince and argue, so your claims fail yet again.
Your god does, per the bible operate by might equals right, MJ. It mind controls humans to have an excuse to commit genocide. It simply kills people that it doesn’t like. All of these are evidence of might equals right. No reasoning, no argument, just your petty little god being a braggart, a bully and a murderer. Unsurprisngly, you can’t show that this god follows any of the morals you supposedly follow at all.
My worldview is better since it doesn’t depend on ignorant cultists making up what they want their imaginary friend to declare, and killing each other off because of that. Christians have murdered more of their own than anyone else. Your lies about how your imaginary friend hates LGBT+ people cause you idiots to kill those people too. Getting rid of the lies in your cult won’t stop violence but it certainly will stop a lot of it.
LikeLike
Objective truth exists. It is represented in different ways throughout various cultures. We all have a sense of right and wrong divinely instilled in each individual (Imago Dei); however we have redefined right and wrong, including the Imago Dei. In doing so, we have done away with a need for God and have created our own truth…but was it ever really our own? Some cultures may think it is right to eat grandma while others see it as wrong. Either way right and wrong exist. Why does it exist? If we’ve denied the existence of God there is no need for right and wrong, so why argue on the premise of the Moral Law if it does not require a Moral Law Giver?
We have attempted to redefine truth and humanity based on power, pride, emotions (mostly hurt), sex and money. Look at where it has gotten us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I thought the knowledge of good and evil came from the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
LikeLike
Interesting post.
I have asserted elsewhere you were indoctrinated as a child.
I stand by this assertion, though I will amend it slightly, as indoctrination can be overt or a lot more subtle, sometimes it may not seem like indoctrination at all.
But boy oh boy, when it “bites” it bites, hard!
You were raised in a religious/Christian/ believing family even if you might not actually accept this, and the environment you were part of and the circles you moved in all seem to be orientated toward religion and specifically Christianity.
They were certainly not, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu!
That you went from church to church, rejected so many for any number of reasons, and at one point in your essay it seemed as if you (and the family) were desperate to find the right church illustrates how so many people will pick the church based on whether they like the delivery, if it matches up with their own preconceived ideas of their particular faith based beliefs.
And as Club pointed out, once you find a place that fits the bill it is amazing how quick the metaphorical knives come out for all other churches, sects, branches, denominations etc who, simply by virtue of not being YOUR church must, therefore, obviously be preaching a false Christianity.
This is the epitome of bias.
And you can bet your bottom dollar they feel the same about their church and the fact your church is obviously preaching a false Christianity.
If you are prepared to at least consider this as a possibility you should be able to apply some more serious critical thinking to your overall situation and why you believe as you do. (family, dad’s issue, etc).
Ark.
LikeLike
Dismantling the Brit: Paul’s Super-sessionism as Theological Avodah Zarah. Xtianity replaces the Fiat replaces a commodity based currency with a monopoly paper fiat currency measured against the fiat faiths of Islam and Hinduism. Fiat currency replaces commodity-backed money with state-controlled paper money, grounded not in intrinsic value but in collective faith—much like the metaphysical belief systems underpinning religious traditions of Xtianity Islam and Hinduism.
2 Corinthians 6:16 as a clear example of what could be called substitution or replacement theology. Torah (e.g.,Sh’mot 25:8): “And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” HaShem’s indwelling, tied to the Torah mitzvot of building the Mishkan as an essential “sign” of the oath brit alliance which testifies that only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; through specific mitzvot, place, and priestly function (Cohanim and Levites).
2 Corinthians 6:16 removes the Cohanim, the physical Mishkan/Temple, and the Torah framework, replacing them with a spiritualized “body of believers” in Christ. Paul dissolves Israel’s unique brit and transforms it into a universal spiritual status. Holiness is no longer rooted in obedience to national sworn oath alliance (mitzvot, korbanot, land), which all generations of the Cohen people – duty bound to remember the original oaths sworn by the Avot. 6:16 perverts and profanes the Torah by changing this oath brit alliance to simple acceptance of but Jesus as both the messiah and Son of God.
This intentional subversion of the Torah oath brit alliance unto a theological belief system which introduces an entirely different God represents theft through redefinition. Paul weaponizes Torah phrases to justify dismantling the Torah itself and nullify the role of the Jewish people as a priestly nation – theological colonialism.
Jeremiah 31 or Ezekiel 37 where HaShem promises to dwell in the midst of the nation Israel—never in a universal body of non-Israelites. This Pauline move mirrors Rome’s imperial tactics: co-opt the sacred language, erase its national context, and declare the empire to be its true fulfillment.
Deconstructing the theological architecture of super-sessionism and exposing how Paul systematically dismantles the national, Cohen, and oath alliance framework of Torah and replaces it with Xtianized avodah zarah (foreign worship) merits a close study. Some of the most flagrant examples of the corruption introduced by the Apostle Paul: Romans 12:1 – Replacement of Korbanot: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Here Paul redefines the korban system as merely symbolic, internal, and personal. He strips the muscle of Torah commandments away from the bones of the Mishkan superstructure. He therein uproots the very Name of HaShem from the Mishkan, the oath brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from the seed of Avraham, the altar employed to remember the oaths sworn by the Avot to cut this Cohen brit in the first place and to pass its remembrance down unto all generations of Israel. The oath which established the tribe of Levi in the stead of all the first-born, to remember the replacement theology of the sin of the Golden Calf – utterly obliterated.
The Xtian believer in the Godhead of Jesus now replaces the Beit HaMikdash. The in’dwelling of the Shechinah is hijacked and relocated from Zion to the individual “believer in Christ.” Erased: Yerushalayim as the chosen dwelling place of HaShem; the prophetic vision of a rebuilt Temple (e.g., Ezekiel 40–48); the national and communal dimensions of kedushah.
Galatians 3:28–29 – Erasure of National Identity. “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Distortion: This dismantles the foundational category of brit by birth and nation; replaces Zera Avraham with a universal, faith-based identity that erases lineage, halakhah, and the very creation of the Cohen nation through the oath brit faith. It removes the Name of HaShem, a directed negative commandment within the Torah. Specifically the brit bein ha-betarim (Genesis 15); the chosen cohen status of Israel (Exodus 19:6); the Torah requirement placed upon all down-stream generations of Israel to remember the sworn oath cut by the Avot.
Hebrews 8:13 (attributed to Paul or Pauline school), which invalidates the sworn oath alliance cut at Sinai Torah revelation brit. “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Unlike a vow, not even HaShem can annul a sworn oath. Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to the Avot which consequently resulted in Yom Kippur where HaShem made t’shuva and annulled His vow to make of the seed of Moshe the chosen Cohen people.
Hebrews 8:13 perverts Jeremiah 31 and replaces the new covenant/new testament for the re-categorized ”old testament”. This effectively erases the eternal nature of Torah (D’varim 29:28; Tehillem 119). And the Jewish people’s everlasting brit with HaShem (e.g., Vayikra 26:44–45).
Hebrews 9:11–12 – Jesus the messiah and Son of God equally elevated to the position of “Cohen Ha’Gadol”. This directly invalidates the oath sworn to the House of Aaron, violating halakhic lineage (must be a descendant of Aaron). Furthermore it redefines Yom Kippur service as a metaphysical sacrifice in a heavenly Temple. This substitute theology erases the Torah commandment which obligates the generations of Israel to remember the oath by which the Levitical Cohen Tribe obligated to teach the Torah to the Jewish people for all generations.
Colossians 2:16–17 – Dismantling of Mitzvot: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” This revisionist history perverts and annuls Torah mitzvot observance relegated to the “shadows of Hedes”. The messiah son of God now become the one and almighty replacement of the Torah to serve as the Constitution of the Cohen National Republic. It erases the identity of Israel as defined through mitzvot (e.g., Shemot 31:13 – “Shabbat is an eternal sign”). Likewise it evacuates Vayikra 23, the calendar of holiness set by HaShem.
This classic avoda zarah, compares to all other forms of graven images which seek to implant some super-sessionist logic; the syllogism of Aristotle and Plato replaces the Pardes kabbalah logic taught by rabbi Akiva. Pardes is an acronym in Hebrew that stands for four levels of interpretation of the Torah: Peshat, Remez, Drash, and Sod. This method is often used in Jewish thought and Kabbalah to derive deeper meanings from texts. Inductive reasoning in this context involves moving from specific instances or interpretations to broader generalizations about the text and its meanings.
Syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning that involves drawing a specific conclusion from two or more premises that are generally accepted as true. Inductive reasoning generally builds from specific precedents brought for making a deeper comparison aimed to achieve a completely different perspective. The different faces of a blue-print serve as a profound example of precise deductive reasoning.
Syllogism Logic, by stark contrast employs deductive reasoning which bases itself upon accepted general principles which serve as a basis to arrive at specific conclusions.
Pardes logic ideal for Courtroom conditions where lawyers introduce precedent briefs which supports their contentions made before a common law courtroom. Syllogism logic has no connection whatsoever with Torah common law. In a courtroom, lawyers may build their cases inductively by presenting specific examples and precedents that lead to broader conclusions about the law or the case at hand. This aligns with the inductive nature of Pardes logic, which seeks to explore and establish connections between specific instances and overarching principles. Syllogism logic, as a form of deductive reasoning, operates on established premises to reach specific conclusions. While it is a powerful tool in formal logic and reasoning, it does not align with the interpretative nature of Torah common law.
Torah common law entails & involves a more nuanced and interpretative approach. Similar to the layers of meaning Pardes logic defines the sh’itta of separating halachic common law from aggadic common law; the warp\weft loom which creates the fabric garments of the Talmud texts. The application of Torah common law prioritizes context – כלל-פרט, p’shat of aggadic stories which teach prophetic mussar to all generations of Israel, and the interpretative traditions of all judicial common law courtrooms, which contrast and completely differs from the rigid structure of syllogistic statute law deductive reasoning.
Shmot 24:7 – A national oath, not a private belief. D’varim 30:19 the Sinai oath sworn by the Cohen nation of Israel in the presence of witnesses – heaven and earth. Goyim reject to this day, meaning they did not stand at Sinai. Hence no Goy can ever be “grafted” into the chosen Cohen “root” other than through the gate of ger tzedek. Even the ger toshav only a temporary permit which permits Goyim refugees to establish courts of law among their communities within the borders of Judea, does not permits Goyim living in other countries to be “grafted” into some Universal Bnai Noach belief system.
A divine oath cannot be replaced without divine breach—a theological impossibility within the Torah’s legal logic. Emunah is not metaphysical belief but relational loyalty within the legal structure of the brit. Paul’s definition of faith as trust in Jesus’ atoning death (Gal. 2:16, Rom. 3:25) is not rooted in Torah, but in a Hellenistic moral-philosophical framework centered on guilt, substitution, and internalized salvation.
Matthew 5:17: “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” This has-been phrase, weaponized by the church to appear faithful to Torah while effectively supplanting its mitzvot with symbolic reinterpretations. Korban → “present your body” (Rom. 12:1); Kohen → “Melchizedek priesthood” (Heb. 7); Mikveh → “baptism”; Shabbat → “rest in Christ”. “Fulfill” in this context does not mean uphold, but complete and close—a theological sleight of hand.
Grafting Goyim into Israel while rejecting the mitzvot is like claiming citizenship without accepting the constitution. Jeremiah promises a renewal of the brit with the house of Israel and Judah, not its replacement. The phrase “new covenant” (brit chadasha) does not mean a different covenant, but a restoration of fidelity within the same legal framework: “I will put My Torah within them and write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33). The Torah, not replaced, but t’shuva internalized—a return, not a rupture where all Mankind becomes saved through the blood of Jesus.
Galatians 3:28 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one in Christ.” Erases the very categories that the Torah uses to define justice, holiness, and brit. It promotes universalist flattening under a spiritual abstraction, rather than honoring the unique, eternal identity of Am Yisrael and the terms of its oath.
The New Testament simply not a replacement for the Oath Brit. The Torah, not a religion; Torah as the constitution of the Jewish Republic: a legal, national oath brit, sworn at Sinai. The new testament attempts to supplant the “grafted Goyim” who still reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai with personal atonement, spiritual priesthood, and universal inclusion through belief in messiah Jesus as the Son of God.
The classic themes preached by Xtianity throughout the period of Jewish g’lut exile when we lived as stateless refugees with no rights among the Goyim: Torah, Temple, and Brit: Not Abolished, but Transfigured in Messiah. Paul’s Theology: Not Avodah Zarah, but the Mystery of Inclusion. The Temple: Transcended, Not Torn Down. Jesus as High Priest: Fulfillment, Not Usurpation. Korbanot and Romans 12:1. Colossians 2: Shadow and Substance. New Covenant: A Return, Not a Rupture. Final Response: Fulfillment Is Not Erasure.
Isaiah 42:21: “HaShem was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make the Torah great and glorious.” Messiah magnifies—not mutilates—the Torah. The New Covenant does not erase the old, but internalizes it (Jeremiah 31:33) through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:3–4), writing Torah on hearts rather than stone.
Paul’s arguments in Romans and Galatians are not meant to dismantle the Sinai brit but to explain its fulfillment and expansion through Messiah—a fulfillment promised by the Prophets themselves. Alas to quote any T’NaCH prophetic source requires learning through legal precedents. Simply not enough to quote verses stripped of their surrounding contexts and robbed of all judicial precedents. Here represents common Xtian attempts to support their belief in messiah Jesus as the son of God. Isaiah 49:6: “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob… I will also make You a light of the nations.” Zechariah 2:11: “Many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day and shall be My people.”
Galatians 3:28 that there is “neither Jew nor Greek,” rooted in Genesis 12:3: “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Ezekiel 36:27: “I will put My Spirit within you…”; Joel 2:28: “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.” Psalm 110:4: “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” Bamidbar 25:13 touching Phinehas, Hebrews 7:16 outshines with “indestructible life”. Hosea 6:6: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Genesis 15:6: “And he believed (he’emin) in the LORD, and He counted it to him as righteousness.”
If Goyim truly “believed” the perverted distortions made on these specific T’NaCH verses, they would have gone to the trouble to humbly ask how Torah common law and Pardes logic interprets these T’NaCH Primary sources! But the facts irrefutable, this humility no Goy in any generation has ever exemplified. Hence Jews retort: “by their fruits you shall know them”. The phrase ‘new covenant’ (brit chadasha) does not mean a different covenant, but a restoration of…a restoration of the original Torah oath, renewed with the same nation, in the same land, under the same constitution—never with a foreign faith, foreign priesthood, or foreign god.
Paul’s super-sessionism, not merely a different theology — rather an intentional theological hijacking of Torah’s oath alliance framework. It redefines the foundational terms of Jewish nationhood, nullifies halakhah, and dissolves the eternal brit in favor of a Greco-Roman abstraction. This avodah zarah abomination — not idolatry of statues, but rather of ideas — foreign Greek logic smuggled into sacred Pardes kabbalah. The new testament re-defines holy as — Power through Substitution.
Power through substitution”: a false algebraic commutative principle that declares the New Testament equal to the Old—an inversion rooted in Greek deductive logic. Torah-based PaRDeS inductive reasoning utterly rejects this framework as an Av Ha’Tumah, a primary source of spiritual avoda zarah pollution. Paul’s theology resembles Roman statute law that overrules precedent via imperial fiat.
LikeLike