This bothered me all my Christian life.

I accepted it, but it kept quietly nagging me. It was one of those issues that I had to do the usual “because god” gymnastics routine to avoid rational and critical thinking.

It wasn’t until I had the freedom to genuinely question the whole premise that it became obvious how destructive and evil it is.

This video is an excellent overview of the underlying and fatal flaws in the whole doctrine.

I spent 40 years of my life justifying the Bible stories. I knew all the theological arguments and apologetics.

I read it over and over again and found ways to make this god, who’s the embodiment of love, fit the stories – the god who’s the same “yesterday, today and forever”, because “who are we to question the heart of god” – the great “I AM”?

But eventually I realised that my own heart – little old broken and sinful me – had a far superior morality and a greater understanding of love than this god ever displayed!

~ Sunday School by Eira Quinn

They told me about Noah,

but not the bodies.

Not the screaming

beneath rising water,

or the mothers

who begged God for mercy

as he watched from the clouds

and said nothing.

I heard about Job,

but they skipped the bet.

The part where God let the Devil

ruin a man’s life

just to prove a point.

Killed his children.

Stripped his skin.

And called it

righteous testing.

They told me about Abraham’s faith,

but not Isaac’s trauma.

Not what it does to a boy

to see his father raise a knife

with heaven’s approval.

Not the silence that follows

when you survive a god

who wanted you dead.

No one mentioned the concubines,

the raped,

the forgotten wives,

the daughters sold

for the price of land

or peace

or power.

They didn’t talk about

stoning disobedient sons,

or killing gay lovers,

or what to do

if a woman is not a virgin

on her wedding night.

They said Jesus died for us,

but not that God

could’ve chosen forgiveness

without blood.

That maybe the crucifixion

wasn’t salvation,

but spectacle.

They said “trust the Word,”

but they handed me

a censored book

and a list of acceptable questions.

And when I asked

about the rest,

they said

“have faith.”

But faith without truth

is just fear

in nicer clothing.

And now that I’ve read

what they skipped—

now that I’ve seen

what they hid—

I can’t go back

to coloring pages

and quiet amens.

The god they taught me

was edited.

Redacted.

Rebranded.

But the truth?

The truth was always there.

In the margins.

In the footnotes.

In the blood.

Christianity does not make you a loving person.

If you’re already loving, caring, exercise empathy and compassion – you bring that to your faith. You interpret scripture through that lens of love.

We bring our hearts - no matter what condition they may be in - to scripture and find the god that aligns with us in that hot mess of contradictions.

If we are racist, narcissistic, greedy, controlling, etc., we easily find a god in the Bible who supports us - a god who embraces these same attributes and provides justification for our actions.

To attempt to interpret the Bible through the “lens of love” requires theological gymnastics that twist the obvious original intentions of the various authors. We either completely ignore the “nasty” bits or filter them in a way that frames them as metaphor, myth, etc., because we “know” that god is pure love.

But we don’t “know” – we assume! And to assume means completely ignoring the scriptures that very clearly portray god as being a sociopathic, narcissistic monster who defines love as nothing more than obedience.

Yes, there are many verses that describe god as loving, but there are far more that describe his vengeance, wrath and anger, hatred, jealousy, disgust, and pretty much every negative human characteristic.

We cannot proclaim the biblical god as loving, because that flies in the face of everything else the Bible says.

Good people WANT the god of the Bible to be good, so they make him good – they create him in their own image.

2000 years of Christianity have very clearly shown us that the Bible cannot be used as an irrefutable proclamation of a loving god.

We can frame it as “that’s the fault of the church”, but to do so displays wishful thinking and an almost wilful ignorance of what’s in the Bible.

The Bible hasn’t become the greatest “source of wisdom” or whatever because it presents a truly loving god, but because of its massive ambiguity and endless contradictions that enable it to be used to justify absolutely anything.

But it gets worse!

Even the most loving bits come with massive conditions – obey, submit, believe, humble yourself… It is not unconditional pure love at all – its aim is to bring us into a dogmatic belief system.

John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” That is one massive condition right there!

Here’s where it gets even worse.

1 Corinthians 13 - that beautiful description of love! The only problem is that god demands this type of love from us, and yet is incapable (or unwilling) to extend the same love to us.
”Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵ It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶ Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷ It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”
God, very clearly, throughout the whole Bible, does NOT meet these criteria at all. Not once, unless it’s wrapped up in strict conditions.

So yeah, no matter how we try to frame it, we create a loving god in our own image, because that god does not exist in the Bible.

This is a topic that I often talk about, and one that Christians either ignore completely or fall back on traditional explanations that simply don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Firstly, the teachings of Paul are the foundation of Christianity, but we, rightly so, look to the words of Jesus as the ultimate authority. After all, it’s all about him, so we have to interpret Paul’s words through the lens of what Jesus taught – don’t we?

It gets tricky when we accept that although Paul never met Jesus, he had some visions, and those visions were a huge problem with the original disciples, and Peter was not impressed (as best we can tell from the records). This implies that Paul’s message was not the same as Jesus’ message (which it absolutely wasn’t).

But that’s a whole other rabbit hole!

So anyway, no matter what Paul may have said, we have the words of Jesus faithfully recorded in the gospels.

Or do we?

For starters, we have no idea who the gospel writers were. They obviously weren’t any of the original disciples (which is a universally accepted fact by biblical scholars).

So who wrote them, and where did they get their quotations of Jesus’ words from?

It’s worth noting that Mark was written first, and it’s generally accepted that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a reference, and who knows where “John” got his ideas from, especially given he wrote his gospel much later! There are also assumptions about an earlier source document (that we have no record of) referred to as “Q”, but even that is disputed by many scholars.

The gospels don’t match. They are similar in some places but don’t line up word for word at all. Obviously this means that they aren’t the actual words of Jesus, faithfully transcribed by a conscientious scribe chasing him around with ink and parchment. We have to bear in mind that writing was a rare skill, and most people were illiterate. It was only the elite who had scribes to write records, and that was a slow task. The idea of transcribing speeches in real time, word for word, is ludicrous – it was physically impossible!

And of course, Jesus himself would have been illiterate! He was a carpenter from a working-class family. He may have learnt Hebrew, but we can’t even assume that, as the Greek translation of the Torah (Septuagint) was most commonly used by then in Roman territories, and his everyday language would have been Aramaic. But there is little reason to believe he could write in any of these languages!

So assuming that Jesus’ words were accurately recorded as he spoke is just nonsense.

But then there’s the “oral traditions” theory, where his words were faithfully and accurately remembered by his disciples and communicated to others who eventually wrote them down.

Proponents of this idea claim that with many ancient religious schools, this was a valid and accurate process. But this just doesn’t hold up to reality. This is based on the Jewish tradition where children are taught the Torah intensively so that they remember it word for word for the rest of their lives.

The problem with this is they already have texts to refer to. The source material is already written.

Human beings just do not remember word-for-word verbal traditions. They grow and change every time they are retold. The game of Telephone, or Chinese Whispers, is the obvious example of how humans can’t even accurately communicate a short statement within minutes of it being told to them, let alone entire stories over a period of at least 40 years.

There is no way that the words of Jesus in the gospels could be the actual words he spoke. It’s utterly, physically impossible.

The only thing we are left with is ascribing it as the holy spirit miraculously revealing Jesus’ words to the authors. But the inconsistencies between the gospels show that either the holy spirit was asleep on the job or the writers couldn’t quite hear him (her/it?) accurately. Neither is a great option.

When we take a rational, critical look at the entire process, it becomes very clear that the “words of Jesus” are “made up”. They were based on stories that had evolved over time – wrapped in theological ideologies and cultural mythology.

The gospels are nothing more than stories written to create an image of Jesus that could be used to build and maintain the validity of a growing religious movement.

We have absolutely no idea who the real Jesus was or what he said!

As you can imagine, this raises a whole heap of issues about the historicity of Jesus and the early church.

And this is where I return to my main stance on Christianity – we cannot claim any objective, dogmatic truth about its claims.

It’s a cleverly structured religion that not only provides existential answers to life but can also be used to hold societies together through hierarchy and control. It can unite through tribal identity, and its scriptures are flexible and ambiguous enough to be used to justify pretty much anything.

It’s an almost “perfect” religion, which has lasted 2000 years.

But we have to face up to the fact that we believe it not because it’s factual but because we like how it makes us feel.

Even in my passionate fundamentalist days, I have to admit I couldn’t get my head around this!

(Shared anonymously from a private Facebook group)

So many verses you run across where the Lord himself is causing the problems and trying to be the solution...

#1 hardening the Pharaoh’s heart so he would say no.

#2 Him using a member of his divine council to be a lying spirit for Ahab’s prophets.

#3 This one should piss you off, and people even used this so-called prophecy as a FUTURE FULFILMENT.

Zechariah 14:2 CSB — I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle. The city will be captured, the houses looted, and the women raped. Half the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be removed from the city.

Did you see it?? HE IS GATHERING the nations to do what they will do, including the raping of innocent women. The verse right after that, he says he will then repay for what those nations did by destroying them... So he sat there and watched innocent women get raped and waited till AFTER it to now destroy the nations HE SENT??

We seem to have this desperate need for deities to address things like existential issues, meaning and purpose, eternal security, inner peace, etc., and some religions do a very good job of it, as is evident by those that have survived the test of time.

But we fail to look at the deeper questions about why we feel we need them in the first place. This can be a difficult question to address for those who fully embrace their god and its religion because it instantly implies that gods are our own creation. This is especially troubling when our whole lives are invested in our god being the “one and only true god”.

This video from Mindshift provides a very succinct analysis of this complex issue.

This video by Dan McClellan (a highly qualified biblical scholar who provides unbiased analysis of Christian theology and doctrine) directly addresses this very topical and important issue. Please take the time to watch it all the way through as he addresses the deeper problems of epistemology (the theory of knowledge and how it is gathered and from which sources).

Did God Command Genocide - Dan McClellan

The problem of whether the God of the Bible actually commanded the genocide of multiple nations/tribes is often the elephant in the room for Christians and Jews.

Most of the time it’s just ignored and/or put in the too-hard basket and labelled “His ways are higher than ours”.

Especially given the current actions of Zionism in Israel, however, it’s imperative that we understand what the Bible (especially the OT/Torah) says.

We may think that it doesn’t really affect the basis of Christian beliefs, because we “know in our hearts” that the God of Jesus is “love personified” (or variations of that idea). There is also the consensus that God never changes – he is entirely consistent in every aspect, so anything that appears to contradict this is simply due to our limited ability to understand his ways. This is nothing more than an abandonment of every sense of morality, rational thought, justice, compassion, etc. that we are endowed with.

I’ve wrestled with this my entire life (40 years as a Christian) and could never appease the cognitive dissonance it created, constantly having to apply whatever theological gymnastics I could find to make it seem OK.

“Jesus said…”

There’s always lots of debate over how the theologies and doctrines of Christianity are interpreted. Countless denominations, cults and sects, all arguing over what Paul really meant and how we apply it to our lives and faith.

We see the chaos and division everywhere, especially with the extreme Christian nationalists and fundamentalists.

But we also see the more sane Christians referring back to the basic reference point of relying on the actual words of Jesus, because that’s got to be our starting point to interpret all other biblical writings.

This is a totally logical and rational basis for building our beliefs.

But then we have the problem with Paul (who apparently wrote the majority of the key texts that Christianity is built on), because he didn’t actually know Jesus. His entire belief system was built on visions (I’ve discussed the problematic nature of this many times in the past).

Paul’s theology and doctrines don’t resemble Jesus’s theology at all, but that’s something that is either conveniently ignored or addressed through complex theological gymnastics.

At least we can be thankful that the gospels we have were included in the canon, despite their obvious flaws and contradictions.

But let me address the inevitable elephant in the room…

I’m not a biblical scholar, but I am well read. In my Christian days, I studied church history, etc., through the prescribed lens of those who I assumed knew best. They were all Christian scholars, of course, and I had no reason to doubt their observations and conclusions.

Until I started to deconstruct everything. This was when I started to look at the much broader world of textual criticism, history and so on, by secular scholars who had no vested interests – no faith to defend, no underlying confirmation biases or academic careers that could be threatened if they questioned the status quo (yes, this is a very real thing!).

Firstly, it turns out that the gospels we have are just four of many that were around in the first two centuries or so. It wasn’t until the fourth century that most of the others were weeded out, and the ones that the Roman church approved of became the standard (this was an amazingly complex and convoluted process that is often oversimplified).

Secondly, we have no idea about the sources of the gospels. Sure, there are many well researched hypotheses, but none of them are regarded as absolute fact. Again, it’s very complex and convoluted, but one thing we do know is that none of the writers were first-hand witnesses of Jesus. They didn’t hear him and transcribe his words. They relied on secondhand stories.

Many apologists talk about the reliability of oral tradition, but this is resoundingly debunked by most secular scholars.

I’ve hardly touched the surface of this topic, and for those who are interested, there’s a mountain of scholarly work about it outside the walls of Christian dogma.

So here’s the thing – we genuinely have no idea what Jesus ACTUALLY said.

There was no one writing down his words. Everything is hearsay. There are other gospels that are more like the collected sayings of Jesus, and they don’t resemble much of what’s in the canonical gospels. But we have no idea if those are any more reliable anyway.

So when we say, with the genuinely best intentions, that we need to simply look at what Jesus taught and build our beliefs on that, we are only building on the ASSUMED words of Jesus. Words that were written by people who never met or knew him. Words that we have no way of proving how accurate they were.

All we can say with any certainty is that these gospels were accepted by the church as genuine, and even that wasn’t until the early second century.

Yes, they sound really good and are certainly of value, but to dogmatically claim that these are the genuine and accurate words of Jesus is either ignorance or wishful thinking.

So where does that leave us?

There’s a religion built on the assumed teachings of a man called Jesus, shaped and interpreted by the visions and revelations of another man – Paul. This religion became the most powerful religion in the world, simply because it was adopted by the Roman Empire and enforced as the state religion. It grew and evolved from there as the foundation of Western beliefs.

Its history is long and very, very complex, evolving, and mostly used as political control and justification for some of the most horrific acts in human history. But yes, for many it’s also provided comfort and meaning in the midst of life’s suffering.

So why do I care?

Simple – honesty and integrity about our beliefs.

[As a starting point to study this for yourself, I suggest “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman]

This concept has been around for a while and has become quite popular.

I think the intention is wonderful, and it’s certainly a step in the right direction as humanity constantly struggles with religious ideologies and their associated cultural and social identities.

I asked AI for a short summary of the “Coexist” narrative, especially from a Christian perspective. Here are the main points:

The “coexist” narrative in religious contexts often centres on peaceful cohabitation among different faiths. However, this ideal faces criticism from some Christian perspectives, which argue that true coexistence shouldn’t require compromising core doctrines — for example, Christianity’s exclusive claims about salvation through Jesus (John 14:6).

Critics also warn that reducing complex faiths to logos risks trivializing their unique beliefs and practices.

While mutual respect and collaboration are encouraged, many emphasize that theological differences — such as views on God, salvation, or the afterlife — are irreconcilable and shouldn’t be ignored for the sake of superficial harmony

So right from the outset, we have a problem, and even though I limited it to Christianity, it’s obviously the same issue with religions like Islam.

To truly "coexist", however, requires far more liberal interpretations of our beliefs – to the point where we have to let go of any dogma so that we can truly accept the personal belief systems of those that don’t align with ours.

Christianity is a huge mixed bag – so big that it’s stuffed with around 40,000 denominations, sects and cults. Some of these recognise the personal and subjective nature of their faith and are genuinely accepting of other people’s spiritual journeys.

These often tend to be more “nominal” Christians, usually culturally based on where they were raised. But there are many who see a far more universal thread as the foundation of their beliefs and pretty much filter it down to just loving each other and following the social gospel of Jesus.

But there are a heck of a lot of more traditional and fundamentalist Christians whose faith completely depends on indisputable dogma. They have creeds that clearly state what it means to be a Christian; formalised doctrines enshrined in endless books and commentaries; and "statements of belief," all of which are designed to set very clear boundaries around who is in or out.

These cannot be compromised by conceding that we are free to believe them or not.

They are “THE TRUTH” ©

Accepting that others have valid beliefs we must respect undermines everything and reduces Christianity to a subjective and cultural belief system.

So as much as I love the idea, we actually need to rise above the “Coexist” narrative and confront the issue of dogma in ALL religions. And that is a very difficult and long-term task. But it’s not impossible!

We can begin by gently confronting dogma at individual, personal levels with questions, constantly challenging assumptions; addressing the existential issues that religious dogma provides easy answers for; and helping people to be brutally honest with their needs for religious belief in the first place.

It took me many years to be honest enough with myself about why I believed the things I believed. But it was worth every minute of struggle and unravelling to discover a place far beyond the confines of any religion. A place where “Coexist” actually begins to mean something tangible.

It’s time to “grow up” (and I don’t mean that in a derogatory sense) and see how crippling and detrimental religious dogma of any kind is to humanity.

In part 1 & part 2 I briefly covered some problematic issues around the foundations of Easter and its theology.

The resurrection, however, is the most fundamental part that everything else rests on. In fact, it’s the bottom line – if it didn’t happen, then the entire foundation of traditional Christianity is shaken.

It’s the main area that keeps apologists on their toes; however, countering their arguments is actually simpler than we might think.

Here’s a basic summary of the problems:

• All primary sources are religiously motivated writings, not neutral historical documents

• There are no contemporary non-Christian accounts of the resurrection itself

• Alternative explanations exist: mass hallucination, legend development, stolen body, etc.

• Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence — and empirical/scientific proof simply doesn’t exist

You see, all the typical apologists’ “proofs” come from the bible texts themselves, and that is not neutral history. It’s completely biased, written by believers who have already invested their lives into the belief system.

Obviously, there is no empirical or scientific proof of the resurrection that meets today’s standards. What does exist is testimonial evidence, which historians debate, and which is only present in Christian writings. Whether that evidence is convincing ultimately comes down to our prior assumptions about the possibility of miracles.

The more we dig into the stories, without confirmation biases and assumptions, the more it becomes mythological. In fact, the entire narrative fits many other dying and rising gods of the time - not that that in itself disproves it, but it does significantly raise doubts.

The entire scenario can only be taken as serious if we put aside all critical and rational thinking and opt for “magical” thinking, based on subjective metaphysics.

This is why it remains fundamentally a matter of faith for believers.

In terms of theology, it works, providing the “perfect” answer to forgiveness for our “sin”, which is why it's been kicking around for so long. But longevity doesn’t prove its veracity and truth.

So if the resurrection is nothing more than a myth, where does that leave us?

Ultimately, we are left with the simplicity of the apparent words of Jesus (although we have no idea what Jesus really said), which is basically “don’t be a dick”.

You may think I’m oversimplifying a complex issue here, but it’s an issue that has spent 2000 years avoiding logic and reason and desperately requires a simple and clear explanation that isn’t shrouded in biases, legends and mythology.

If the entire theological package brings you peace, meaning and purpose, helps you to be a better person and make the world a more loving place, then go for it. But as I always say, don’t hold it as dogma. Treat it as the subjective issue of faith that it really is. Enjoy the comfort it brings.

However, when we look at the issues I raised in the first two parts of this series, it brings into question the real foundation of blood sacrifice, original sin and the nature of Yahweh – the god used as the basis of a theology that is absurd, violent and cruel.

We can do better!

Disclaimer – no, I’m not antisemitic. I have no favourites when it comes to questioning and deconstructing religious beliefs.

The Passover is very much a part of Easter. Rather than ramble on about their relationship, I thought I’d save time and brain strain and use AI to create a succinct summary:

Passover and Easter are deeply connected theologically, as Easter’s events unfold during the Jewish Passover week — Jesus’ Last Supper was a Passover Seder, and his crucifixion occurred on the day the Passover lambs were sacrificed.

Both holidays centre on liberation: Passover commemorates Israel’s physical freedom from Egyptian slavery, while Easter celebrates humanity’s spiritual liberation from sin and death through Christ’s sacrifice.

Theologically, Jesus is seen as the “Lamb of God” whose blood, like the Passover lamb’s, brings salvation and causes death to “pass over” believers.

Now all this sounds fine and dandy and it certainly creates a very convincing and tidy narrative around god’s plan for “salvation” (as I discussed in my post yesterday).

But let’s look at the Passover for what it really is, and even if it’s a metaphorical story rather than a fact, it doesn’t change the fundamental issues.

Here’s the abridged and concise summary:

• God wanted to rescue his people from slavery in Egypt (although there are no archaeological or historical records to support this)

• God happily murdered countless Egyptians in an effort to scare them to release the Jews.

• But god "hardened Pharaoh’s heart” so he wouldn’t release them anyway (and that’s a whole other theological nightmare)

• As a last resort, god decided to murder every single first born child in Egypt, an act that would apparently override his hardening of Pharaoh's heart.

• As proof of Israel’s devotion to god, and to avoid their own first born being murdered, they had to kill a lamb and spread its blood over the doorframe, because the “angel of death” wasn’t given a list of who’s “in or out”, and just tacking a note to the door wasn’t good enough.

• Then god does indeed murder thousands of (or more) innocent children just to prove a point - a point he could have pointed out in any number of more rational and loving ways.

So where does this leave the whole bizarre episode in terms of the character of god?

Firstly, I’m well aware of the theological gymnastics apologists use to get around this, and I’ve yet to hear anything even vaguely plausible, let alone anything that supports the idea of a “loving” god.

This god - Yahweh (please check the link to find out who exactly this god was) – displays all the characteristics of a narcissistic psychopath.

I’m not mincing my words here. It’s exactly what this god is, and there is no way to reconcile this, even using it as a metaphor for deeper spiritual things. Metaphors must still reflect the basic morality, nature etc, of the thing they are trying to explain.

Yahweh was one seriously horrific god (originally the Canaanite god of war and storms, adopted by the early Jews as one of the main gods of their polytheistic beliefs).

He’s fickle and unpredictable; flies off in jealous rages; demands utmost loyalty and unfaltering, exclusive worship; has no problem with genocide or murdering innocent children; has no concern for the hearts or integrity of individuals and just lumps them all together as evil to justify genocide. I could go on…

The only reason we now think of him as being the same as the loving god of Jesus is because of the careful reframing through the lens of the Christian god and its foundation of love (although even that love is highly conditional – but that’s a whole other story!)

So Easter is built on a bloodbath. A horrific massacre of innocent children - then brutal torture and execution of a man in the name of god - a god that demands blood – a god whose morality doesn’t even come close to our own innate sense of love.

Of course, I totally recognise that most Christians don’t see it this way and, by necessity, have recreated this god into a far more palatable being, cherry-picking and twisting scripture to support this new loving god.

But even so, we still see many current denominations espouse the violence and hate of Yahweh, and to be honest, they have just as much biblical support as any other interpretation.

We have had to create a loving god because we are far more loving than Yahweh ever was. Most Christians these days have adopted a loving god, because they are fundamentally, loving people.

We do indeed create gods in our own image!

Easter – one of the oldest Christian observances. The historical records show it had become a religious event as early as the 2nd century.

Of course, it’s evolved over the centuries and now includes many pagan traditions, but it’s essentially all about Jesus.

The primary assumption is that Jesus was crucified, died and rose from the dead over 3 days and that this is the foundational theology of Christian “salvation”.

The “elephant in the room”, however, is the entire concept of “salvation”.

Interestingly, the Jewish concept of salvation is quite different to the Christian view; “Jews do not subscribe to the doctrine of original sin. Instead, they place a high value on individual morality as defined in the law of God” (Wikipedia), meaning that salvation wasn’t about reconciliation with god to avoid hell or punishment, but rather a saving from the states or circumstances that destroy the value of human existence.

Christians (Paul in particular) invented the theology of "original sin”, linked it with human sacrifice (despite the theological gymnastics theologians use to avoid that idea), and created the foundational belief that sacrificing Jesus was the only way god could “save” us from this original sin that doomed us to eternal torture.

There’s been different ways of viewing this belief, though, often softening it to far more palatable doctrines, but there’s always the underlying principle that we are inherently sinful/evil and need god to make us, well, not sinful/evil.

It’s a very tidy and functional belief, as is evident by its survival for 2000 years.

It works on one level, as an assurance that we won’t suffer some eternal damnation if we believe the right doctrines. It also works at a deeper psychological level to apply the ideas of grace, forgiveness, and love to parts of us that we readily accept as sinful.

This was Paul’s greatest theological invention, and in that respect, he invented the “perfect” religion! It was Paul’s interpretation of Jesus’ life and purpose that became Christianity as we know it— not the actual teachings of Jesus. In fact, even the teachings ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were written by authors who’d already been exposed to Pauline theology, so the reality is that we really have no idea what the real Jesus said or did. But even in these gospel accounts, Jesus never stated that he was a sacrifice for original sin. If we only had the gospels, Christianity would be an entirely different religion!

In some ways, Easter turns Christianity into a religion of a god who could only reconcile his fallen and evil creation through human sacrifice. But not just any sacrifice – it had to be a perfect, sinless human.

That meant the need to invent a way that a human could be sinless but still human, and that’s a concept that the Bible fails miserably to provide any convincing evidence for. In fact, the evidence is absurd and illogical, leaving us to just accept it by “faith”.

Anyway, Easter is a profound source of comfort for Christians, and I recognise the validity of that belief. As I said, psychologically, it works.

But no matter how we try to justify it, it’s nothing more than a belief system, built on ancient traditional dogma, that has no grounding in reality.

Do I have a better solution to the “human condition” and how we address the mess?

I think there are far more constructive and beneficial ways to look at humanity that don’t require believing in one set of religious dogma. But I’ll leave that for another day.

Enjoy your holiday!

The picture above often represents the way we introduce the concept of a personal relationship with God/Jesus to children. This often works because around 65% of 7-year-olds report having had an imaginary companion at some point.

Children at this age create imaginary friends with the primary goals and functions of companionship, love, and entertainment. Generally, they can be beneficial in a child’s growth, providing a practical experience for developing social practices, emotional support, language development, storytelling & communication, and perspective (empathy and compassion).

When we give Jesus as a replacement for a friend of their own making, we have provided a strict framework that we can control. We are subconsciously imposing our limitations and biases on a developing and tender mind.

We believe that Jesus is the perfect “imaginary friend” in that not only is he invisible and “private” but also someone the child can be far more open and personal with without having to worry about parents’ and others’ reactions and judgements. But we also have the upper hand by dictating the exact role and nature of this friend and how the child has to relate to him.

Kids from religious families are openly discouraged from traditional imaginary friends, often to the point where they are told they are “bad” and Jesus is the only real friend.

Naturally, this is a very complex psychological area, and I’ve only given a basic overview.

Now, transferring all that into an adult framework takes on an interesting perspective.

The psychological and neural makeup at the deepest level is still similar in adults. We grow out of imaginary friends and replace them with real ones, hopefully using the skills described above, to navigate the complexities of all interactions with other humans. But for a variety of reasons, the security of a personal and private imaginary friend can become a subconscious necessity!

One of the primary triggers is trauma - anything from serious accidents or health conditions to emotional extremes due to grief and fear etc.,

Our minds have developed to the point where we (generally) know that imagining a talking pony, dragon, or even a regular invisible human friend is ridiculous. However, when we frame that friend as a socially acceptable and superior alternative to any other human and provide strict frameworks for how that friend interacts with us, we regard it as beneficial.

So after all that, here’s my point. There is zero evidence that Jesus is actually having a personal relationship with anyone. The only thing anyone can offer is subjective experience as evidence (this in itself is a huge topic, so I won’t go into details here).

The relationship we apparently have with Jesus must be strictly based in scripture and current theology. If not, we are deceived at best, and in some circles even regarded as demonically influenced if it doesn’t meet the required criteria.

For many, this structure gives us the security that we are indeed having a genuine relationship with Jesus, because it looks like everyone else’s. The parameters are set, and if we don’t get all whacky, we’re all good.

Although our minds have matured, when we face trauma of some kind (and that trigger is different for everyone) the need for some sort of external locus of control kicks in, and that “imaginary friend” becomes a lifeline. We are incapable of sorting out the trauma and mess on our own, so having an all-powerful external force that appears as an intimate friend fills the need perfectly.

He’s not some random product of a deranged mind, but rather a perfect construct that provides a “safe space” for us to be vulnerable.

For many, this can be a “good” thing as it negates the need to descend into deeper fear and existential crises and protects our sanity (mostly).

But no matter how we attempt to frame it, it’s still imaginary. However, due to the depth of the illusion (and I purposely use that word instead of 'delusion') and its full approval by religious dogma, we will not, or even can not, entertain the slightest doubt. It’s often described as “more” real than physical friends!

From my own experience, I know exactly how it feels to have this relationship challenged. Jesus personally kept me alive and sane(ish) for over 40 years. Despite all my issues with the church, nothing could shake that relationship.

And yet, here I am.

Bethel Church is slowly unravelling. Just how far the unravelling will go remains to be seen.

This article (worth reading before continuing with my ramblings) shows the desperate attempts they are taking to whitewash and justify their modus operandi, while offering platitudes and fake apologies.

It’s a predictable chain of events and processes, which are standard fare for megachurches in particular, but also most Charismatic and Pentecostal churches. It’s the nature of the beast.

Small churches are, by their very nature, more accountable. Abuse and corruption are more easily exposed. They are small, personal communities where everyone pretty much knows everyone else, so the crap tends to come out sooner than later (mostly, sort of, sometimes).

But underneath all that stuff, we have to take a serious look at the whole problem with “biblical hierarchy” that churches espouse.

The writings/words ascribed to Jesus say very little about church structure other than to rip into the corruption and abuse of hierarchy – funny about that!!

And yet the writings of Paul outline structures that fully enable the issues that apparently really pissed off Jesus! Paul made huge assumptions about character, anointing, responsibility, holiness, and a whole heap of stuff that was nothing more than wishful thinking, or perhaps his own desire for power, which may well be the case given his barely concealed, arrogance and sense of importance.

The reality is that Paul completely missed the simplicity of what Jesus was saying, which is hardly surprising given that he had a “vision” and never met Jesus. Basically, the church was built on the delusions of Paul - NOT Jesus. But even then, we are in the dark because we only have the gospels that claim to represent what Jesus preached, and none of those writers were eye witnesses anyway.

But getting back to my original point - “Big Church” has always been a problem. You’d think after 2000 years we’d have sorted it out, but we haven’t, and perhaps that’s an indication that the entire structure was never meant to exist in the first place!

The neurodiverse mind is now simply categorised as ADHD, Autistic etc, and while these labels can be helpful, they do little to address the complexities of the spectrum we exist on, or underlying social and cultural attitudes that are the real problem.

This short video is a wonderful example of how the demands of modern western culture set us up to fail - to be faulty/broken, and in need of being fixed so we can fit in.

In my work among survivors of religious indoctrination and abuse, I’ve found so many of us are on this “spectrum”, desperately looking for ways to understand why we feel so different, why we get to the point where we can no longer go with the “system”, whether that be the religious beliefs we’ve adopted or had imposed on us, or the gender/sexual social norms that do not line up with our lived reality.

Unravelling this mess can take a lot of hard work – introspection, letting go of taught dogmas, stepping back from communities and relationships, and a willingness to do whatever it takes to be our “true selves” and live with integrity.

I’ve had the last year to gather my thoughts, reassess my priorities, and generally get some space.

I’ve been working more on my music (which is my main passion). You can check out my catalogue here, and especially my latest song If I’d Known, which is about working through the grief that accompanies coming out late in life. Please buy the song to help support my work!

Silent Gays is now going to be very much focused on supporting those who are questioning and deconstructing their religious beliefs. Although I’ve always had this front and centre, I also provided a lot of resources around the nature of sexuality and gender, often going on tangents that were definitely helpful but were really just duplicating work that so many others are providing.

I’ll also be providing more support on neurodiversity, as it’s become clear that so many of us are affected by this, often without realising it.

As a result, the website is now much cleaner, with a simple focus.

I’m also training as a group leader with Recovering from Religion, who already have a long-running and experienced support service to help anyone. Although not specifically LGBTI+ they are 100% affirming, and probably about half of their clients are Rainbow anyway!
Check out their website for details – they do incredible work.

Yep, this is a thing - a very large dark thing, that is, more often than not, ignored or glossed over because it treads on a lot of toes.

It’s one thing to find acceptance in LGBTQ affirming religious communities, but to actually address the deeper implications of religious beliefs and how they create such toxic enviornments in the first place, is often seen as offensive/taboo/disrepectful and generally something that is left to the individual to quietly process.

So many survivors of the various forms of “conversion practices” end up with nothing - their beliefs in tatters, loss of comunity and family, trauma and mental health issues, but desperate for the sense of cummunity they used to have in their old church. Many do find another church community that will tollerate them, and some even openly validate and support them.

Yes, this can be a good thing, but more often than not, the deeper damage is done, sometimes at a level that we don’t understand. It often means the trauma is ignored and although the community is loving, that trauma is either played down, “given to God” for healing, and many other well-meant platitudes.

For those who struggle to even set foot in a church again, there’s next to nothing. Sure, there’s secular therapy (highly recommended of course!), but there is no community any more.

There’s the Rainbow community in general, but it’s a very lose collection of diverse people that, as a whole, doesn’t come close to the depth of church communities. It can also be prone to its own dramas and conflicts.

Fortunately, the need is beginning to be recognised, but it’s still early days as we struggle to find the most beneficial solutions.

COOR is something I’ve been working on for a few years under my “Silent Gays” banner, but I’m now making this my focus, looking for ways to build community, safe spaces, loving support, and even having fun! Sometimes we get bogged down in the intensity of what we’ve been through, so humour and fun are essential parts of the process.

Let me know in the comments, what sort community you might be looking for (face to face, online, large, small, special interests, whatever), and what you miss about church communities.