Nearly everything we learned at church was wrong: What the Bible actually teaches about sex, hell, tithing, and much more


I originally wrote this post on April 22nd, 2017. I’ve made constant updates to it since then, however, and the date of the latest major update can be seen in the date stamp above.

This article could be considered to be my “statement of faith” in a way. In it I’ve attempted to lay out in a concordant manner what it is I see Scripture as actually teaching when it comes to some of the most important subjects in the Bible. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me on everything I write here, but please at least try to read it with your mind open to the possibility that you could be wrong about something you believe. I fully admit I could be wrong about some of the details in here myself, and if you aren’t equally capable of admitting a similar possibility about your own interpretations of Scripture, you’ll never learn anything.

I’d like to think it would go without saying, but in case it doesn’t, I should point out that just because I link to a video or other article doesn’t mean I agree with everything the creators of said videos and articles believes (even some of the creators of those videos and articles don’t agree with each other 100%), so you’ll have to be careful to “eat the meat and spit out the bones,” so to speak, when reading and watching them (by the time you finish reading this post, you should be able to put the pieces together and see for yourself which parts line up with Scripture and which parts they get wrong). Also, as I mentioned, this article is constantly being updated with new thoughts, as well as new links to more supporting articles and videos, so if you’re curious to learn more as I edit and add to the article, refresh it and reread it regularly. And please do click all the links and learn what the supporting materials in them teach (they’re full of Scriptural references and exegesis that help explain in far more depth what it is I’m trying to say), since I couldn’t possibly fit it all into the article itself.

Finally, if you notice any broken links or mistakes, please let me know so I can look into getting them fixed.]


Every weekend (mostly on Sundays, although some prefer Saturdays), billions of followers of the Christian religion all around the world head over to a building to sing some songs, donate some money, and listen to a speech (and, in some cases, have a bite of bread and a sip of a grape-based beverage), completely unaware of the fact that nearly everything practiced and preached in these buildings is contrary both to the teachings of Scripture and to how the first Christians themselves gathered as the church, since not only have most of them never been taught the “meat” of God’s truths, the majority of those in Christendom still haven’t even been given the basic “milk” by their leaders that they should have moved beyond long ago.

If you attend many traditional church services at all you’ll inevitably hear the preacher telling people they need to get back to the Bible, yet if the congregation listened to him and took his statement to heart, they’d quickly stop attending that gathering. In fact, I don’t believe a single believer from the first generation of the church would recognize much of anything that happens or is taught within a modern church building. This is why I’ve walked away from Churchianity, as I like to call the Institutional Church and the religious/”orthodox” version of Christianity that most people are familiar with (as opposed to the religionless/”heretical” Christianity that I believe the Scriptures teach is meant for the body of Christ). Growing up, I attended the meetings of many different denominations within Christendom over the years, but when I began to study the Scriptures for myself I came to realize just how wrong almost everything about Churchianity was. Not only did I come to understand the true power behind the Christian religion and what its eventual end would be, I learned just how different Christianity is supposed to be from what we’ve been taught all these years. At first I resisted many of the things I learned, certain there was no way they could be true since they were so different from anything I’d ever heard about God or Scripture in any church gathering I’ve attended, but the more I studied, the more I came to realize just how wrong I was about nearly everything I believed, and that God really is far more powerful, loving, and glorious than I’d ever been taught by anyone within Churchianity, and that not only has He had a plan for all of creation from the beginning, He truly is in complete control and will indeed accomplish His plan fully.

The problem is, rather than teaching the members of their assemblies what the Scriptures actually say, most religious leaders simply continue to pass along the traditions that have been passed down to them by their teachers and denominations, misguided traditions based on five serious mistakes: mistranslation, misappropriation, misunderstanding, misassumption, and misanthropy.


The first thing that people who do believe Scripture was inspired by God need to do is A) pick up a concordance, and B) learn a bit about the original languages the Scriptures were written in. While some are worse than others, pretty much every translation has some passages in it that are badly rendered thanks to the preconceived doctrines of the translators, doctrines they often (mis)translated into their versions (or which they were told they had to “translate” into their versions by those who commissioned the translations). Because of the presuppositions and preferences held by the translators, and biases held by their benefactors, translations of Scripture ended up with all sorts of things that put them at odds with what they actually said in their original languages.


In addition, most religious Christians aren’t ever taught how to “rightly divide the word of truth.” Unfortunately, without knowing how to do this it’s basically impossible to understand what sort of doctrines today’s Christians are supposed to believe and follow. It’s extremely common for those within the Institutional Church to believe that certain things in Scripture which were meant only for specific people in specific times apply to everyone always, causing them to think they have to follow commandments that don’t apply to them, and try to claim certain experiences and benefits that don’t either (sometimes with deadly results).


There’s also the fact that far too many religious Christians tend to fail to understand basic logic and science, and will often believe what their religious leaders tell them about how reality works rather than looking into and accepting how it actually works for themselves. This leads to doctrines that are not only unscientific but that are unscriptural as well, one such doctrine being the idea that the universe and Earth are only about 6,000 years old, even though both science and Scripture support the idea that they’re both a lot older (I’m not a KJV-Onlyist, so I don’t agree with all of their conclusions [as you continue to read the rest of my article here you’ll likely come to understand which parts of it I disagree with, so it might be better to come back to it after you’ve finished reading the rest of my article], but the website by The Bible, Genesis & Geology Ministry does go into some interesting interpretations and theories on this topic), so Young Earth Creationists (whether they be willingly ignorant about this topic — Peter wasn’t talking about Noah’s flood when he wrote about this — or are just uninformed) are a good object lesson to us, serving as a warning to be careful not to leave science out of our exegesis.


Simply believing their religious leaders rather than studying things for themselves also often causes religious followers to make major assumptions about what is written in the Bible, leading them to believe any number of theological and ecclesiological ideas that are never even hinted at in there. Because of these presuppositions, you’ll find members of Churchianity have all sorts of unscriptural ideas about what God wants them to believe and how they should behave, as well as how they think the rest of the world should be forced to act, based on doctrines they’ve simply assumed are in the Bible without bothering to take the time to confirm whether they actually are written anyplace in there.


Finally, the most important thing we are told we’re supposed to do (aside from having faith) is the one thing that is far too rare within Churchianity (at least in my personal experience). Christians are called to love those around them, but despite their lip service to love, I’ve almost never actually witnessed any real love towards other people inside or outside the Institutional Church by its members. Rather than love, we often see hatred (or, at the very least, apathy) towards their fellow humans manifested among many religious Christians. This goes for the rest of the Fruit of the Spirit as well, I should add; it isn’t only love that is lacking. None of the Fruit of the Spirit seems to be a common trait of Churchianity in my experience. Instead we see the Fruit of Religion (paranoia, selfishness, peer pressure, intolerance, hostility, anti-intellectualism, arrogance, hypocrisy, and guilt) manifested throughout the Institutional Church (perhaps this isn’t the case in your local assembly — I can only speak for the ones I’ve attended — but I can honestly say that the amount of true love I’ve seen demonstrated by most of the people within Churchianity I’ve interacted with or heard speak is minuscule).


In order to truly dig deeper into Scripture and learn the doctrines and practices that most of us were never taught by our pastors and priests, one needs to first know how to rightly divide the word of truth. In order to do so, it’s important to first understand that when you read the term “the word of truth” in the Greek Scriptures (meaning the books in the Bible that are generally referred to as the New Testament) it isn’t just yet another synonym for Scripture, so this isn’t simply referring to dividing the Bible into the two sections that are commonly called the Old Testament and the New Testament (although dividing Scripture rightly will be a valid side effect of this practice since, while every Scripture inspired by God was written for all of us, not every part of the Bible was written to or about all of us). If you look up each time the term is used in the Greek Scriptures, it appears that it actually refers to the Evangel or Gospel rather than the Bible itself. When one comes to this understanding, it becomes clear that the Good News (which is what Gospel means; the Greek word euaggelion [εὐαγγέλιον], which we translate as Evangel or Gospel in English, literally means “Well Message,” “Glad Tidings,” or “Good News”) has to be properly divided, and the Apostle Paul tells us exactly what it means to divide the Good News.

To put it simply, there is more than one Gospel in Scripture that the word of truth can be divided into, two of which are known as the Gospel of the Circumcision and the Gospel of the Uncircumcision. It’s important to note that Paul didn’t just say that Peter was called to preach the Gospel to the Circumcised while he himself was called to preach the Gospel to the Uncircumcised in his epistle to the Galatians (despite how some translations might render it, not seeming to grasp the difference between the genitive and dative cases in Greek; Circumcision and Uncircumcision are both in the genitive case here, so the possessive “of” is the correct translation, and “of” doesn’t mean “to” as some seem to think it does: If I were to serve the food of the Greeks and you were to serve the food of the Jews we’d both be serving different sorts of food [even though what both of us were providing would still be called food, and might very well have overlapping ingredients, we’d still end up with two different types of meals], whereas if I were to serve food to the Greeks and you were to serve food to the Jews we could very well be giving out the same food, so understanding that the word “of” means something very different from the word “to” is extremely important). Rather, these were two separate Gospels meant for two separate groups of people (even if anybody can technically be saved by whichever Gospel they happen to be predisposed to follow — Gentiles can be saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision just as Jews can be saved under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision [and many were; in fact, Paul preached to the Jews first many times, which demonstrates that he didn’t simply mean he was preaching the Gospel “to the Uncircumcised” but was rather giving us a title for the particular Gospel he was preaching] — as long as they don’t try to combine the two of them). So, the terrestrial Jesus and His disciples taught the first one specifically to Israel (Jesus, while heralding the Good News of the impending arrival of the New Covenant, had an earthly ministry that was still pretty much entirely under the Old Covenant and was only a minister of the circumcision while He walked the Earth; despite making a couple exceptions and helping a couple of them [where the Bible makes clear how unusual this was, just as it does on the one occasion Peter spoke with Gentiles in the book of Acts], His earthly ministry [aside from His death and resurrection, of course] was not directed towards the Gentiles, and His teachings were about the Kingdom of Heaven coming to Earth rather than the body of Christ going to the heavens as the later teachings of the celestial Jesus through the apostle Paul were), while Paul was singled out by the glorified Christ to teach the second one to the world (which means a Christian ignoring or rejecting Paul’s special Gospel, not to mention his other unique teachings and ministry, could be said to ultimately be ignoring or rejecting Christ), and it’s the second one that is meant for the body of Christ today. Other parts of the Bible are important for context, among other things, but it’s only Paul’s epistles that are written specifically to the body of Christ. As useful as the rest of the Bible is, anything other than the 13 epistles signed by Paul was primarily intended for Israelites (Hebrews, regardless of who wrote it, was meant for them too, which should come as no surprise to anyone who happens to notice the title of the book), and we can’t forget that fact when studying Scripture if we want to come to the correct conclusions (and even the 13 Pauline epistles themselves can be said to have to be rightly divided in a sense, or at least a progression of revelation and sometimes even change of exhortation has to be recognized, since not everything in Paul’s earlier, pre-prison epistles was still necessarily relevant by the time he wrote his later, prison epistles, such as the charismatic spiritual gifts for example, which I’ll touch on a little later).

So what is the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, also known as the Gospel of Grace, or sometimes just called “my Gospel” by Paul (who would be the Bible’s egotist for calling it that if this wasn’t a distinct Gospel given specifically to him), and how are we saved under it? I’m going to begin by stating what it isn’t. The Gospel of the Uncircumcision isn’t that one can be saved by asking God to forgive them for their sins and/or “asking Jesus into their heart,” as are common ways many religious leaders mistakenly share the Gospel. If that’s all one has done, they probably haven’t really been saved yet, relatively speaking (at least not under this Gospel; some people who call themselves Christians have very possibly unknowingly been saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision instead, however — God always kept a remnant of believing Israelites for Himself [although, of course, Gentiles could also become included in this remnant, and I see no reason to believe this is no longer the case], and we know the remnant can’t refer to those Jews who are saved under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision and brought into the body of Christ because there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the body of Christ, so this must refer to those Jews who were [and the remnant of Jews who currently are] saved by another Gospel). Rather, this Good News is simply that Christ died for our sins, was entombed, and that God raised Him from the dead after three days. As I’ll explain later, I suspect that very few Christians actually do, but if you truly believe in Christ’s death for our sins (those three little words make all the difference, and differentiate this Gospel from the one most preach), His entombment, and His resurrection, you’ve already been saved (again, relatively speaking; everyone is reconciled by Christ, from an absolute perspective, by His death and resurrection). Nothing else is required for salvation under this Gospel other than that faith; no “asking Jesus into your heart” is needed, nor is asking God to forgive you for your sins required, and water baptism is definitely not something you have to do to be saved (relatively speaking) under this Gospel. And on that note I should probably add, while most people assume that after you believe the Gospel you should be baptized with water, this isn’t actually the case for those under the Gospel of Grace. Yes, Paul did baptize a few people in water, but he stopped pretty quickly. I’ll also say, though, that the body of Christ does still get baptized. It’s just that we’re not baptized in water (nor are we baptized with the Holy Spirit). Water baptism was actually a part of the law of Moses and the two Covenants, and those under this Gospel are not under the Mosaic law in any way (no, not even the Ten Commandments) or a part of either Covenant.

The Gospel of the Circumcision, on the other hand, was the Good News that the Kingdom of Heaven was ready to begin on Earth (which is why it’s also called the Gospel of the Kingdom), and to be saved under this Gospel one had to repent (of sin in general, and later of murdering Jesus in particular) and believe that Jesus is the Messiah (Christ) and the Son of God, followed up by being baptized in water, following the commandments Jesus taught His disciples during His earthly ministry, confessing one’s sins when one slips up (then also forgiving others who sinned against them), and enduring to the end (of one’s life or of the period commonly known as the tribulation, whichever comes first). While works never saved anyone, baptism, following Jesus’ commandments (which includes following the law, since it doesn’t pass away [although parts of it have been fulfilled and other parts have possibly been temporarily paused] for those under this Gospel until the new heavens and the new Earth begin after the Millennial Kingdom ends; don’t confuse the end of the Old Covenant — which, while being ready to vanish away, won’t actually fade away fully until the New Covenant begins in earnest around the beginning of the Millennium [while the New Covenant got its start, or was at least confirmed, by Christ’s death, the results of that covenant haven’t fully come into effect yet] — with the end of the law, which happens at the conclusion of the Millennium one thousand years later when “the third Heaven and third Earth” are created), confessing sins, and enduring to the end still seem to be necessary to maintain salvation under this Gospel, but at its simplest, followers of this Gospel just have to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God in order to be saved and enjoy the Kingdom of Heaven when it arrives on Earth (which is what the relative salvation of this Gospel entails — it has nothing to do with going up to the kingdom of heaven from Earth in a spiritual state after one dies [or to do with the Kingdom spiritually residing within oneself while still alive; while there is a spiritual element to the Kingdom, few seem to know much about the physical side of it, so I’m focusing mostly on that in this article], and everything to do with the kingdom coming to them physically on Earth from the heavens, either while they’re still alive or after they’ve been resurrected after the tribulation period). While faith is ultimately the basis of both Gospels, nowhere was Israel told by Jesus or His disciples to trust in His death for our sins, His entombment, or His resurrection for justification or salvation. You won’t find the Gospel of Grace explained anywhere in the books traditionally called the four Gospels, not even in the famous John 3:16 passage that evangelists quote so frequently. Yes, Jesus did tell His disciples about His impending death and resurrection (and His death was even prophesied beforehand), but not only did they not understand what He was telling them, He also failed to explain it as being for our sins or as something they had to believe in to enter the impending Kingdom of Heaven on Earth (nor was the mystery hidden in the prophecies of His impending death). And while Peter did mention that Jesus died and was resurrected in his sermons in the book of Acts, it was only brought up as an accusation against those who killed Him, and as proof that He is the Messiah and that He is still able to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth since He’s no longer dead; it wasn’t explained as the method of salvation to those under the Gospel of the Circumcision in these sermons either (just believing that Jesus died and was resurrected isn’t enough to actually be saved under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision; one has to also believe that His death was for our sins, and Peter didn’t preach that fact about His death in his Acts sermons). As an example, the statement of faith made by the Ethiopian eunuch (who was most likely Jewish himself [of the diaspora, like those who were visiting Jerusalem in Acts 2], based on the fact that no mention of his being a Gentile was made even though just two chapters later such a big deal is made of Peter talking to Gentiles) to Philip before his baptism had nothing to do with faith in Christ’s death for our sins, but rather that he believed Jesus the Messiah is the Son of God. So faith, in the Gospel of the Circumcision, is in the identity of Jesus, while faith, in the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, is in the work of Jesus. Likewise, the cross means (and meant) something very different to those under the Gospel of the Circumcision than it does to those under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision (it wasn’t something anyone was looking forward to, nor was it something anyone understood prior to Paul outside of the context of the New Covenant and the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth).

As should be obvious at this point, these Gospels aren’t even remotely similar to each other, so how anybody ever concludes that they’re one and the same is quite perplexing (if someone thinks the message that “the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” and “Jesus Christ is the Son of God” is the exact same message as “Christ died for our sins, was entombed, and was raised from the dead on the third day,” just worded differently, or that Jesus and His disciples were teaching the latter, I’d love to hear how they came to that conclusion), but somehow the vast majority of people have confused them for each other and assumed there’s only one Gospel recorded in Scripture, a mistake that even some in the body of Christ have made recently (this also demonstrates they missed the fact that Paul used two Greek words rather than one to refer to the Gospels that weren’t his being preached when he spoke of a “different” [heteros {ἕτερος}] Gospel and “another” [allos {ἄλλος}] Gospel in Galatians; one was “another” [fully legitimate] Gospel, being preached by Peter, and one was a “different” Gospel, that wasn’t even “another” actual Gospel at all like Peter’s was, but was rather a bastardized mix of Peter’s Gospel and Paul’s Gospel that couldn’t save anyone. Likewise, Paul wasn’t saying people who taught that there were other Gospels were under a curse, since he did so himself just a few passages later; he was only teaching that those who would preach any other Gospel to the body of Christ than the one they had already received as something they should follow were, but Peter and the rest of the apostles could preach their particular Gospel as something to be followed to anyone that they wanted to without fear as long as it wasn’t to members of the body of Christ). Unfortunately, if one doesn’t come to understand the difference between the Gospels, they’ll assume that many commandments in the Bible are meant to be followed by believers in the body of Christ today that actually aren’t (while also conveniently ignoring certain parts that aren’t meant for them simply because they don’t like them rather than because they actually understand right dividing), they won’t understand which church they’re a part of (or when it actually began), and they can even come to completely misunderstand what the Gospel the body of Christ is saved by actually is, causing Christians to present a convoluted Gospel message to the world that doesn’t actually lead anyone to salvation.

One reason I suspect so many Christians insist that there’s only one Gospel in Scripture is that Paul tells us there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the body of Christ, and they then go on to make a major assumption: that every believing Jew is brought into the body of Christ. But if that were the case, this would mean they lose their standing above the Gentile nations that faithful Jews are promised to be given by God one day, and that they’re no longer under either the Old or the New Covenant, both of which were only ever given to Israel (this is also a result of confusing the new birth, which Paul never wrote about, with the new creature or creation, which only Paul ever wrote about). This assumption reveals first and foremost that they don’t understand God’s purpose for creating “the body of Christ, the ecclesia (or church)” any more than they understand God’s prophetic purpose for Israel (or understand the difference between the “mysteries” [or “secrets,” which is a better translation] of the dispensation of grace and the prophecies that don’t apply to this dispensation at all), and that being a part of said ecclesia was never meant for every believer in Christ throughout history. The body of Christ has a future job to do in the heavens (among the celestials), and our true citizenship is in those heavens rather than here on Earth. That can’t be said about Israel however, at least not the faithful Israel known as the Israel of God. Unlike the body of Christ, who will be out there working in the heavens (referring to outer space, out among the stars and planets where most of the celestials presumably reside [even if perhaps mostly in higher dimensions if they’re not just somehow invisibly living on our plane of existence]), the Israel of God will remain here on Earth and maintain their earthly (Jewish) identity and citizenship throughout the Millennial Kingdom, and will rule over the Gentile nations throughout the 1,000 years. Since only Jews who “are saved” are among this group, if “being saved” means they’re no longer identified as Jewish and that they are going to rule far off in the heavens (which would be the case if they were brought into the body of Christ), how are they going to also be Jews (which they apparently no longer are since there is neither Jew nor Gentile in the body) reigning on Earth? This confusion is easily cleared up as soon as one comes to realize the difference between the body of Christ and the Israel of God, and how each of these two groups are saved (and what each of their salvations entail).

So, while Abraham is the father of us all (the fact that Paul often quoted the law and prophets does not mean said law and prophets as a whole apply to everyone, nor does it detract from his unique Gospel), and both groups can be said to be “in Christ” (which is one of those trans-administrational terms [such as “baptism” or “light” or “mystery” or “Gospel” or “the Kingdom of God,” to name just a few of many examples] that is used by both but can mean something slightly different to each), those saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision are known, as I’ve already said, as the Israel of God and are promised the earthly blessings of the New Testament (or New Covenant) during the renascence or regeneration (the period also known as the Kingdom of Heaven [or the Kingdom of the Heavens, which is a subset of the much larger Kingdom of God], the 1,000 years, the Millennium, or the Millennial Kingdom, something that has not happened or even really begun yet) that has been promised to Israel long ago, while those saved under Paul’s Gospel are, as I’ve also already explained, known as “the body of Christ, the ecclesia,” and are promised spiritual blessings and are destined for far greater things (at least at first) out there in the heavens (and are no more under the New Testament — or any covenants for that matter [nor would they want to be if they truly understood what that would mean for them] — than they are able to be born again like Israel needs to be, and they’re definitely not a replacement for, or a spiritual Israel, or even the kingdom of priests that Israel as a whole will finally be one day), because they have been circumcised of the body of the sins of the flesh rather than circumcised of the foreskin of the heart (a spiritual circumcision which, like the physical circumcision, is only meant for Israel). Basically, Churchianity needs to stop stealing the covenants, commandments, prophecies, and promises (not to mention punishments) that were meant only for Israel and trying to give them to the body of Christ (and, likewise, stop trying to take the blessings given to the body of Christ and trying to apply them to the Israel of God).

The lack of understanding regarding the many differences between the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel of Grace, as well as what parts of Scripture are written to Israel (and her proselytes, for whom the requirements after believing the Gospel of the Circumcision are slightly different than the requirements for [and exhortations directed to] actual Israelites are) and what parts are written specifically to the body of Christ in the dispensation of grace, is also a major cause of the disagreements one finds between the many denominations within Christendom, whereas right dividing resolves a lot of the confusion and apparent contradictions that seem to be prevalent in the Bible, especially between Paul’s epistles and the rest of the Greek Scriptures, particularly the book of Revelation and the letter that James wrote (which, despite the efforts of many well meaning but confused theologians to fit a square peg into a round hole, does not line up with the teachings of Paul), but really all of the rest of them (although using a better translation also helps in other cases). So not only is this concept extremely important for believers to grasp, it’s so central to understanding what the Bible is saying that one can’t properly interpret much of Scripture at all without beginning from this perspective (even something like evangelism will be a confusing task for those who don’t understand that “the Great Commission” wasn’t meant for the body of Christ; instead, we have a greater commission, and are called to be stewards of the mysteries that were kept secret since the world began just as Paul was), which is why I suggest digging deeper into this important topic. Once you’ve learned how to rightly divide, you’ll be ready to also dig deeper into the rest of Scripture with a framework that will make it that much more clear what else the leaders of the Institutional Church throughout history have misinterpreted and mistranslated thanks to their pre-existing assumptions about what Scripture says.


There’s probably no better example of where the Institutional Church makes incorrect assumptions about what the Bible teaches than the ideas they hold on the topic of morality. Because many are under the mistaken impression that the Mosaic law is applicable to the body of Christ, and also because they’ve been taught that certain things are sins that Scripture never actually calls sinful, they’ve got all sorts of mixed up ideas of what is right and wrong today. This causes religious Christians to try to be more “moral” than God Himself, acting just like modern-day Pharisees, teaching that any number of actions, many of which are never even mentioned in the Bible, are forbidden simply because they either misunderstand Scripture or have never actually studied it for themselves and just assumed their religious leaders know what they’re talking about.

Before proceeding any further on this topic, I should discuss a couple important principles when studying hamartiology in Scripture that really should be obvious to all Christians but normally isn’t.

First, it’s important to understand why humans (other than Adam and Eve; they had a different reason that I don’t have time to get into here) actually sin and why Jesus didn’t. The reason humans sin is because we’re mortal/dying, and we’re dying because Adam sinned (missing the word “that” when reading a passage in Scripture can change everything and make you completely miss the point of the passage). Contrary to what most Christians have been taught, we don’t die because we sin (only Adam and Eve died because they sinned — or, rather, began to die/became mortal because they sinned: “on the day you eat from it, to die you shall be dying” is the literal translation of what God said in the Hebrew Scriptures about the “forbidden fruit” — it wasn’t that they “died spiritually,” as most Christians assume [yet which you won’t find taught in Scripture, probably because it’s actually a completely meaningless expression]; it was just that they were paid the wages of sin: to die they began dying, meaning they gained mortality eventually leading to death), we sin because we’re dying/mortal (“for that reason all have sinned,” or “because of that mortality all have sinned,” is what Paul meant in Romans) and don’t have abundant life in us the way Jesus did to keep us from sinning the way He avoided it, and we’re dying because we genetically inherited the wages of the first Adam’s sin. And, just as a quick but related aside, please don’t confuse “death” with “judgement” or “condemnation.” Death (which in some instances, yes, can technically be a punishment for certain sins, such as in the instances of capital punishment in the Mosaic law) is really just a natural genetic effect of being born into the line of Adam; in general it isn’t actually a punishment (not outside of specific “legal” cases, anyway) or judgement in and of itself (at least not for anyone who isn’t Adam or Eve), or else babies would never die. Even the second death isn’t a punishment; it’s just to keep certain people from entering into the eon of the eons (which is something that will be explained later) since it wasn’t made for them to enjoy. Judgement or condemnation, on the other hand, is what we get because we sin and is experienced by those who are not saved (relatively speaking) when they appear at the Great White Throne Judgement.

Secondly, as I’ve already said multiple times, the body of Christ isn’t under the Old Covenant or the Mosaic Law. That said, some parts of it do still help us understand what sorts of actions would be considered to be sinful, and it also helps us interpret teachings, commandments, and exhortations in the Greek Scriptures in many places as well. Basically, if an action isn’t ever taught to be sinful anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures (what most Christians refer to as the Old Testament), to claim that it is wrong would be a major assumption that would require some serious (and “rightly divided”) exegetical support rather than the usual eisegesis that religious Christians commonly use to force their preconceived ideas about morality into the text. The parts of the Mosaic Law regarding morality made it pretty clear what people were commanded to do and avoid back then. In general, it wasn’t just vague ideas that could mean multiple things; each sin mentioned in there was spelled out pretty specifically and plainly. So, when trying to understand what something we’re told is better to avoid in the Greek Scriptures actually means, we can’t just read our own modern ideas about morality into it. Instead, we have to ask ourselves how the original audience would have understood it back then in light of their understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures (or even their lack of understanding in the case of Gentiles who weren’t necessarily entirely familiar with it). And, of course, we also have to take the historical context of a passage into consideration as well, since not all terms mean the same thing today that they did back then.

For instance, you’ve probably been taught that premarital sex is a sin. While there definitely are sexual acts that God would prefer people avoid (particularly if they’re under the Gospel of the Circumcision), this doesn’t seem to be one of them. The primary reason that most religious Christians are so against premarital sex is one little word: fornication. Depending on your English translation, you’ll find fornication criticized as a very bad thing that one should flee, and if you look fornication up in an English dictionary you will indeed find that it means sexual intercourse between unmarried partners. The problem is, the word translated as “fornication” in some translations of the Bible is the Greek word porneia (πορνεία), which does not literally translate to “premarital sex” as most Christians believe it does. Of course, some modern versions of the Bible now use the term “sexual immorality” to render the word porneia, which is somewhat better than “fornication” as a translation, but it’s still quite problematic since it’s just a broad and general term that doesn’t tell us anything on its own about what sexual acts would actually be considered to be immoral. Some of the better translations of the word are “prostitution,” “harlotry,” or “whoredom,” but even there we have to be careful not to confuse this with consensual sex work as we would currently use the words, since the word actually had to do with the sex work that women who were basically slaves would be forced to do (which we’d consider to be rape today), not with the voluntary trading of sex for favours (which had a different Greek word that one would use when referring to that concept: hetaira [ἑταίρα]). Whatever translation of this word we use, though, the most important thing to ask is what the word means, and the best Bible scholars (see Vine, Thayer, Knoch, etc.) agree that the English meaning of porneia is closer to “illicit sexual intercourse” (or “unlawful intercourse between the sexes”) than anything else.

If we take the term “illicit sexual intercourse” literally, it means sexual intercourse that breaks the law. Generally, here in the western world, premarital sex doesn’t break the law, and it certainly wasn’t against the law among the Gentiles Paul wrote to when he told believers to avoid porneia either. And if one digs into the Mosaic Law, they’ll see that it also wasn’t ever spelled out as being illegal there. While there were sometimes civil consequences for premarital sex among Israelites back in Bible times without first getting the permission of (and likely paying a brideprice to) a woman’s father (sadly, women were considered to be property in ancient cultures including that of Israel, and were often basically sold from one “owner,” her father, to a new “owner,” her husband, through marriage), and deceiving someone into thinking a woman was a virgin when she wasn’t could also result in harsh penalties, premarital sex on its own was never specifically forbidden or called sinful in the Hebrew Scriptures. Of course, premarital sex (or sex outside of marriage) technically could fall under the broad label of porneia in some parts of the world (and still can today), but it could (and can) only legitimately do so in regions where this actually was or is considered to be illegal (such as in parts of the Middle East today, for example). Outside of those more conservative regions of the planet, however, it wouldn’t be considered to be wrong by the law or the dominant culture and hence wouldn’t be a sin to do so since it wouldn’t be a crime.

So what sexual acts would be considered illicit (or immoral) when the word porneia was used in Scripture? Well, it would, of course, cover the specific sexual prohibitions that actually were mentioned in the Mosaic Law (at least it would for those who were required to follow said law). But it primarily spoke of sexual idolatry, referring to sleeping with temple prostitutes (Paul would have also been speaking against the rape of the women forced to participate in prostitution when he spoke against porneia, not just the idolatry aspect of it, although the connection to idolatry was admittedly a large part of it) who did so as a part of worshiping other gods (in Bible times, Satan used sex to lure people into idolatry; today, now that temple prostitution is no longer a thing, he uses it instead as the new circumcision), although it could also be used in reference to sexual practices that actually were considered illicit by the culture in question, practices such as incest, for example (this particular instance of porneia actually demonstrates quite conclusively that premarital sex was not considered to be a sin. If it were, the Corinthian believers would never have even considered letting things go this far; they would have stopped long before accepting, and seemingly even taking pride in, this relationship happening among their church members if Paul or anyone else had previously taught them that sex outside of marriage fell under the category of porneia-based sins, and he also apparently forgot to tell them it was a sin in this epistle as well when he was telling them to avoid porneia, so one who claims it is sinful is just eisegeting their own preconceived moralistic bias into their interpretation of the word porneia in this and other parts of Scripture). In addition to these more literal interpretations, there was also a figurative meaning to the word (and its Hebrew equivalents in the Hebrew Scriptures), having nothing to do with physical sex at all, but simply being a metaphor referring to outright idolatry.

The one thing it never meant, however, is premarital sex, or at least by now it should be obvious that there’s zero reason to believe it did (some will claim that Jesus’ comment about “lust” and “committing adultery in one’s heart” makes premarital sex sinful by default since you wouldn’t have sex without sexual desire, but as will become clear shortly, He was actually speaking about something else altogether there from what most people assume), despite the fact that your parents and pastor would probably prefer you believed it did. Of course, they likely only think they want you to. If they understood just how many STIs and unwanted pregnancies this teaching is responsible for, they might change their minds (unless they’re the vindictive sort who want those they consider to be sinners to be punished physically for defying their rules; I have known some religious Christians with this mentality). The idea that premarital sex is sinful causes many parents to actively make sure their kids don’t learn about condoms and birth control, but since pretty much an equal number of Christians have premarital sex as non-Christians (the religious can’t fight nature and biology any more than the rest of the world can), only without any knowledge of how to minimize the potential risks, young people in conservative areas or with religious parents tend to end up with more diseases and unwanted pregnancies than those who don’t, and if you’re going to judge a doctrine or religious teacher by its or their fruit, it’s easy to see that the traditional “Christian” view on sexuality is rotten to the core.

I should add that there is a lot more that can be said about this, and that I’ve admittedly simplified this complex topic a great deal here, but the bottom line is that modern religious Christians are following in the footsteps of the fourth century Institutional Church (who made many blunders that Churchianity never recovered from; so many of the errors of the Christian religion find their roots in that time period) and are making the same mistake of reading their own biases into the original text just as those so-called “Early Church Fathers” did, although it’s even worse today since so much time has passed and most Christians are now unaware that, in the first century, sex among the people Paul taught almost never took place between people who were considered equals, and this included sex within marriage. The idea of a boyfriend and girlfriend, as we understand them today, in love with each other and sleeping with each other probably wouldn’t have ever crossed Paul’s mind since that wasn’t how relationships between the sexes generally worked back then, but there’s literally no reason to think he’d have a problem with consensual sexual relations between a couple in love today as long as there’s no power imbalance, no worship of other gods was involved, and it wasn’t actually illegal where they lived.

Premarital sex isn’t the only thing Churchianity has insisted that people shouldn’t participate in, however. There are so many other traditional religious ideas that aren’t in the Bible but that you’ve no doubt been told you must abstain from as well. For example:

Lust is always wrong. When you discover what “lust” actually refers to in Scripture you’ll realize that it is often encouraged, and that it’s also time to reconsider your thoughts on pornography as well. In fact, anyone who cares about women at all should be encouraging the spread and consumption of pornography because when porn usage increases, sexual assault decreases. To put it plainly, to “lust” in Scripture, in its original languages (chamad [חָמַד] in Hebrew, with epithymeō [ἐπιθυμέω] being the verb form of the word in Greek, and epithymia [ἐπιθυμία] being the noun), doesn’t simply mean to have sexual attraction to someone, but rather it just means to “covet” or “desire” something or someone, and sometimes lusting/desiring is a good thing (the Lord’s statutes and judgements are to be lusted for/desired more than gold, and even Jesus “lusted/desired” according to the Bible. In fact Paul himself encouraged epithymia at times as well). What Scripture does condemn when it comes to epithymeō is coveting something that already “belongs” (so to speak) to someone else, such as someone else’s property (or wife, since, again, women were considered to be property back then, unfortunately), which is what the 10th Commandment is all about. But to enjoy the way someone looks, or even to fantasize sexually about someone, isn’t what is being criticized in the instances that epithymeō actually is spoken against in Scripture; intent to take someone’s “property” without permission also needs to be there for the coveting to be wrong (otherwise, accepting something you desire as a gift would also be wrong). So for epithymia over a woman to be considered “committing adultery in one’s heart,” in addition to needing to have intent to actually possess her, she would have to also belong to someone else already, which is, thankfully, not possible in the western world today since women are no longer considered to be property (and, of course, that passage wasn’t written to those under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision anyway. But even if it was, the word “adultery” in that passage really tells us everything we need to know about the context of the passage; one couldn’t commit adultery with a woman who wasn’t married back then, since adultery in Bible times wasn’t defined the same way we do so today). In fact, those who do try to force sexual desire out of their (and others’) lives are actually demonstrating a symptom of a far more pernicious form of lust than any mentioned already, one which affects (and infects) those in Churchianity to a fatal degree. I’m referring, of course, to the religious lust of self-righteousness that religious Christians all live by as if it were the most important commandment God ever gave.

Abortion is condemned by the Bible as murder. Regardless of your feelings on abortion (and whether it happens to actually be wrong or not, which I’m not taking a side on either way in this section), it isn’t ever mentioned in the Bible; and since murder is a legal term, it can’t legitimately be defined as murder in places where it’s not illegal. Most Christians today also aren’t aware that abortion (at least if performed during much of the first two trimesters) was not actually considered to be wrong by most Christians throughout history. It’s only extremely recently that certain conservative Christians gained enough political power to sway nearly everyone to suddenly assume it was always thought to be a sin (not that we should base our theology on what religious Christians have historically considered to fall under the purview of “orthodoxy” or “orthopraxy,” of course, but it is still something interesting that anti-abortion Christians should be aware of).

Homosexuality is forbidden. Like the topic of porneia discussed previously, this is a tricky topic, but whatever Scripture does say about homosexuality, at most one could argue that it might forbid anal sex between males outside the context of rape and/or idolatrous prostitution (which is always wrong, and quite possibly what it’s actually forbidding according to many scholars). Regardless of whether it does, however, it doesn’t say anything about love, romantic relationships, or other forms of sexuality between males, and it definitely never says anything about love, romantic relationships, or sexuality between females (the passage in Paul’s epistle to the Romans about idolatry that some mistakenly use to argue against homosexuality does not actually condemn women lying with women as many believe, and may in fact be talking about women lying with animals when the context of worshipping the creature in that passage is taken into consideration, although it could also be argued that it instead refers to women participating in a certain sort of shrine prostitution. Either way, the idea of women lying with women had never previously been forbidden in Scripture, so there’s no reason to assume it was all of a sudden being forbidden at that point — and, of course, there’s also the fact that the actions mentioned here were actually “punishments,” so to speak, themselves; Paul’s point in this passage wasn’t that he was telling people to avoid certain sexual sins, but rather that the sin of idolatry would lead people to certain consequences). As far as males go, as I mentioned, there are some who make persuasive arguments that it’s only idolatrous prostitution and rape between males that’s forbidden (much like the “porneia” issue between men and women), but I haven’t studied this issue enough myself to be dogmatic about it either way. What I will say, however, is that Scripture is very clear that it’s the anti-gay conservatives who are actually guilty of “the sin of Sodom” (which had nothing to do with homosexuality at all) today, and I wouldn’t want to be in the shoes of these religious conservatives at the final judgement.

Monogamy is the only acceptable form of romantic relationship. Honestly, I’m fairly certain that pretty much every Christian is aware of the fact that polygamy and other forms of non-monogamy were considered to be an acceptable practice for people by God in the Bible, with the possible exception of local church overseers and deacons (depending on how one translates/interprets those particular passages; there’s reason to believe that the common understanding of them is far from correct), but you’d never know it to hear them talk about it. God even told David that if he wanted more wives, rather than taking someone else’s wife, all he had to do was ask God for more. So basically, those conservatives who claim they’re fighting to promote “traditional marriage” really aren’t (if they were, they’d be promoting polygamy at the very least), and I also personally happen to think that if monogamy was actually natural, cheating wouldn’t be so common in so many relationships (yes, even in Christian relationships).

Swearing is shameful. The Bible actually has plenty of profanity in it in its original languages. In fact, the only thing that looking down on profanity does is demonstrate what an unspiritual (and likely hypocritical) snob one is.

Drinking alcohol is not allowed. While it might not be pro-drunkenness, the Bible actually recommends the consumption of alcohol in some places.

Dancing, movie theatres, certain music, card games, and various other “worldly” activities should be avoided. Some Institutional Churches are worse than others, and most aren’t this extreme, but these examples, along with the various so-called “sins” I’ve already covered, are a great example of how the religious like to add rules to the Bible that were never mentioned in there to begin with, or twist teachings that are in there to try to make them say things they never actually meant.

Look, the Bible already tells us plenty of things that God would like people to avoid without us needing to add to it (even if the list differs depending on which dispensation one is living under; it’s perfectly fine for members of the body of Christ to eat a BLT). In fact, Scripture even gives us a good list of things God hates. But there’s nothing at all about most of the things religious Christians dislike on that list, including the biggest hangup religious conservatives have (it seems the creator of sex is, understandably, a lot more liberal about sexuality than most humans are). What He does hate, however, is a lying tongue, and I suspect that religious lies are at the top of that list. Basically, if a particular action isn’t on one of those lists, insisting that it’s sinful and making new rules that God Himself never made is really lying about what God wants, just like the religious leaders in Jesus’ time did. And remember, it was those very same people who opposed Jesus, and who conspired to have Him (and, later, His apostles) killed. That’s right, it wasn’t the pagans, atheists, or liberal theologians who tried to eliminate Christ and His followers. Rather, it was the religious conservatives of His time who didn’t like the idea of freedom or grace who tried to squash those ideas (and those who preached them), just as they do today (as it was then, the greatest enemies of Christ and His true followers are still religious conservatives, even if these “ministers of righteousness” call themselves Christians now).

All of that aside, though, worrying about morality (at least the way conservative “Christians” understand morality) is a huge red herring. What followers of Churchianity don’t seem to realize is that all of the “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots” causes them to completely miss the point of Paul’s teachings to begin with (since, again, it’s Paul’s teachings that the body of Christ is supposed to concern itself with in the dispensation of grace). Starting with a flawed presupposition about doctrines like sin and grace will cause you to think that you’re supposed to be concerned with religious rules when being a member of the body of Christ is actually about something else altogether. Basically, Paul’s Gospel isn’t a proposition (“do this or else!”); rather, it’s a proclamation (“it’s already been done by Someone else, so why not believe this Good News and stop trying to please God yourself?”).

While most religions are a set of rules that people need to follow in order to A) live an enjoyable life, B) avoid suffering negative consequences (either imposed by followers of said religions in this life or by God or other beings in an afterlife, or by being reincarnated to live another mortal life again on Earth after death), and C) make God happy, Pauline Christianity (the Christianity that the body of Christ is concerned with) isn’t even a religion to begin with, and Paul promised that A) believers of his teachings are less likely to have a fun life than those who don’t believe his message since they’d be persecuted by those who do prefer religion (including the Christian religion) to the truth, B) explained that we don’t have to do anything to avoid suffering a negative afterlife since we’ve already been justified regardless of what we do, and C) told us that God is already happy (“blessed” literally means “happy” in the original Greek). Instead of following a bunch of rules the way followers of other religions (including the Christian religion) do, members of the body of Christ don’t have to actively try to avoid sinning by their own strength at all (and, in fact, should actually not ever try to), since they are justified (and living) by faith (although not their own faith but the faith of Jesus Christ), and are walking according to spirit, not according to flesh. Those who are walking according to spirit are trusting that Christ will live the life He wants us to live through us and will end up doing the things God wants us to do and avoiding the things God wants us to avoid Himself through us. It’s only when we start walking according to flesh, meaning we start worrying about religion and trying to follow rules and prohibitions, that we begin doing the very things that God doesn’t want us to do because trying to follow the (Mosaic) law only leads to more sin.

Bottom line, never trust a teacher who tells you to avoid the appearance of evil, or who says you should “touch not; taste not; handle not.” And if you hear someone espousing “traditional family values” or telling you to follow the Mosaic law (at least if you’re in the body of Christ) in any way, don’t walk; run! It means that they are very likely a wolf in sheep’s clothing, trying to lure you into their religious trap. At the very least, they are extremely confused and likely have nothing useful to teach you (at least from a spiritual perspective). Remember that, while not all things are a good idea, all things are permitted, and also that to the pure all things are pure (but those unbelievers in Paul’s Gospel who are pretending to be believers [likely lying even to themselves about their faith, telling themselves that there’s really only one Gospel while also completely failing to understand what Paul’s Gospel actually means in the first place] have a defiled mind and conscience that causes them to consider pretty much nothing to be pure).

To be fair, the Bible does seem to teach that those Christians who happen to be saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision do have to be careful not to “lose their salvation,” so to speak, or they’ll miss out on the Millennial Kingdom, if not more. But as far as those of us in the body of Christ go, while we might not all get to reign, we are safe, as far as our salvation goes, regardless of what we do, because we’ve been justified from Sin rather than just forgiven of our sins.

Now please don’t get me wrong. I don’t want you to think I’m telling you to commit sins here (at least not actual sins; I’m not talking about the innocent actions that the religious confuse for sins). I’m the last person who would want to encourage anyone to actually sin (although, if you aren’t accused of encouraging people to sin, you probably aren’t teaching the same things Paul taught about sin and grace, since this false accusation was also levelled against him). The problem is that, while nearly everything religious Christians think is sinful actually isn’t anyway, almost all of the actions and attitudes that they live by are extremely wrong (and often quite evil). As anyone looking in from the outside could tell you, greed, pride, fear, hunger for power, envy, prejudice, hypocrisy, malice, spite, and all manner of other actual sins are the hallmarks of most of Churchianity. That said, where sin increases, grace superexceeds, so even religious Christians can technically experience God’s grace (but as far as those who don’t embrace His grace go, I really wouldn’t want to be a conservative religious leader at the final judgement, and those who willingly follow these leaders are in for a world of sorrow at that time as well [yes, I suspect most Christians will actually end up at the Great White Throne Judgement due to their unbelief]. If the citizens of the cities that rejected Jesus’ disciples are going to be judged more harshly than those of Sodom because they had the light revealed to them, how much more severely are those in Christendom who have the completed Scriptures going to be judged for ignoring, and even rejecting, the truth found therein, following the myths of their religious leaders instead because they prefer to have their self-righteous ears tickled?).


Regardless of one’s views here, however, whatever the Bible might actually say about morality within the body of Christ, it’s limited to the body of Christ, contrary to what so many in the Institutional Church seem to believe. Trying to force those who are not a part of the body of Christ to live a supposedly “Christian life,” by legal means or otherwise, is not even slightly justifiable. Nowhere in the Bible is it even hinted at that the body of Christ is called to influence (or force) our cultures to be more conservative or follow religious laws. In fact, the only thing we’re asked to do regarding the government is to obey the secular laws and to pay our taxes (even when said authorities are ungodly). Yes, in a democracy we the people technically help determine the secular laws to a certain extent, but there’s still zero biblical excuse for trying to create laws based on religious morality (especially when we consider the fact that most religious morality isn’t at all biblical, as already discussed). And culturally, there also isn’t any reason to go around putting down non-believers for doing things that go against one’s moralistic and legalistic sensibilities (particularly, again, since most of the things the religious think are sinful aren’t actually even slightly sinful to begin with), for trying to pressure the rest of the world into acting the way conservatives want them to, or for any number of the cruel or unnecessary actions that so many of the religious seem to feel obligated to perform against those in their communities and countries. Actions such as trying to get people fired, kicking people out of their homes, or not being willing to sell things to people, all based simply on who they happen to be attracted to or what gender they identify as, for example; or actions such as trying to enforce prohibitions against consuming certain beverages or plants, or at least enforcing prohibitions against purchasing such things on certain days of the week (to name just two of many examples). Any attempt to legislate religious morality, or to pressure the rest of the world into following one’s conservative leanings, will do nothing but drive people even further away from the faith one no doubt wants them to embrace, and will also continue to cause everyone to misunderstand what Christianity is actually about (hint: it’s not about trying to be as big of an asshole as possible towards those who don’t believe and act the way you do, as so many conservative “Christians” act like they think it is).

This is an important factor for parents to keep in mind too, by the way. Raising your kids to be good citizens who live peaceable lives is important, but trying to force people to live “godly lives” misses the entire point of Paul’s teachings. You can’t force the Holy Spirit into somebody, and trying to force people (children or grown adults) to live according to religious rules will only cause them to sin and rebel all the more, as Paul makes quite clear (that was the whole purpose of the existence of the Mosaic law, after all). And even if Churchianity was correct about what is right and wrong (which they definitely aren’t), getting people who aren’t already Christians to live “righteous” lives and stop sinning isn’t going to get them saved, or make them any less lost, unless you believe that salvation actually is by works, so it just doesn’t make any sense to begin with to try to force the rest of the world to live by religious standards since it won’t help them in the long run anyway.

History is very clear about all of this as well, of course. When religious “morality” gains control of government, people suffer. There’s almost nothing scarier, or more antithetical to freedom, than a theocracy or theonomy (remember, it is for freedom that we have been set free; it wasn’t so we would put ourselves back under religious bondage). When religious conservatives run governments without a liberal and secular hand to restrain them, people are censored, fired, expelled from their homes, imprisoned, tortured, and even executed simply for their beliefs (or lack thereof), as well as for the most innocent of actions. If someone challenges the religious status quo or does things considered sinful in a theocratic society, religious conservatives become extremely evil towards such heretics and infidels (and even today in more secular countries you find religious conservatives trying to take or keep civil rights away from people who might live differently from them for no reason other than the fact that these differences might not line up with their religious beliefs). This is one reason I like to stay far away from religious conservatives in general (or at least only meet with them in public places). Perjury, assault, torture, theft, and killing are a major part of the heritage of nearly all conservative religions, and I have no doubt that many of them would bring that legacy back into practice if they could. That’s not to say all religious conservatives would do this if they had the opportunity, but I still wouldn’t want to take that chance. And regardless of their propensity towards violence, I have no doubt that most of them would definitely (and happily) fight against freedoms and civil rights for people who are different from them in various ways, particularly when it comes to sexuality, and I see no good reason to have much to do with people who would be so heartless and cruel.

Religious conservatives sometimes talk about a culture war, and they are right, there is one happening. The problem is, they’re on the wrong side of this battle, having exchanged the truth for an attempt at holding political power (although I believe Daniel warned us that the conservative Christian religion [along with the other three major world religions, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam, although they’ll outlast the Christian religion somewhat], will be utterly destroyed eventually, and that God will kill many within this religion during the great tribulation, so they do this at their own peril). Conservatism is basically about greed, hunger for power, paranoia, racism, sexism, homophobia (among other forms of erotophobia), and just having a lack of empathy towards one’s neighbours in general. All of this ultimately leads to people trying to control the lives and actions of those who might be a little different from “the norm,” and religion only makes conservatism worse since it leads people to believe their harmful mindsets and actions are sanctioned (or even commanded) by God. So if you wonder why some of us remain wary of religious conservatives (“Christian” or otherwise), I hope it should be obvious at this point.

All that being said, I should add that I’m not claiming liberalism will save the world (or even your country). Scripture is quite clear that no human government can ever do that. Still, liberalism is actually about compassion, empathy, and taking care of those in need (basically, the exact opposite of what conservatism is about), and those living under truly liberal governments (and not just liberal governments in name only) have much better lives in general than those living under more conservative governments do, so I’d much rather be in a more liberal part of the world (which, thankfully, I am) any day of the week.


As I’m sure you know, religious leaders don’t only tell us that certain things are forbidden. They also try to convince us that certain things are required. If you do attend traditional church services and become a member of a particular assembly, you’ll likely sit through a number of sermons meant to make you feel guilty if you don’t give them a percentage of your money on a regular basis, sermons that completely ignore the fact that the tithe was meant solely for followers of the Mosaic law. Christians in the body of Christ (Jewish or otherwise) are not supposed to follow the law of Moses, and those who do try to follow any of it are under a curse of being obligated to follow all of it, according to Paul (that means no more bacon or shrimp, or clothes with mixed fabrics, or doing chores or running errands on Saturday).

Of course, a true biblical tithe is actually in the form of food, drink, or livestock, and only goes to the Levitical priests and to the poor (with the exception of the tithe that wasn’t given away at all, but was rather consumed by the tithers themselves). Unless your pastors are Levites who perform animal sacrifices, they have no scriptural basis for demanding it from anyone (no, not even Abraham’s tithe to Melchizedek helps their case, unless perhaps your pastor is the king of Salem and you’re tithing of the spoils you took from your enemies in battle). There’s absolutely nothing in the Bible about the body of Christ having to give a tenth of their money to their religious leaders or organizations.

While tithing isn’t a biblical idea for today’s believers, what is recorded as having apparently happened among the body of Christ is people giving financial gifts to those in financial need. They didn’t, however, just give money to pastors who simply wanted to live off church members’ hard-earned money or keep the power running in a church building.

Those church buildings and pastors themselves, by the way, are also a big problem, since modern church services, and the buildings they take place in, don’t have any biblical justification for existing in the first place. The early church didn’t meet in chapels or temples specifically meant for Christian worship. Instead, they met in each other’s homes. And a gathering wasn’t a few songs and then a sermon by a pastor. There might have been songs, and even a speech or two, but the early church gatherings generally included a meal (“The Lord’s Supper” appears to have been a part of a real supper meant to demonstrate the communion or unity of the body of Christ, not just a little snack, although I’m actually not 100% convinced that it’s still meant to be practiced by the body of Christ at this point, but that’s something I’m still digging into so I can’t be definitive about that just yet) and discussions (actual conversations and dialogue rather than just a monologue by one preacher). Church buildings didn’t exist until quite some time later, when Christianity became more formal and institutional rather than relational.

To be fair, it’s not the buildings themselves that are the real problem; it’s the “organization” and lack of real, spontaneous, Spirit-led fellowship. Yes, you will almost certainly hear the word “fellowship” in most traditional church meetings, but you also almost as certainly won’t experience any there, despite how much so many pastors seem to love the word (it’s hard to fellowship with the back of someone’s head while sitting in pews listening to a sermon). But you can technically meet in a home and still be an Institutional Church, or rent a room in a building other than a home and be a relational, Open Church (as biblical church gatherings are often called). As nice as a home gathering is, it’s really the openness and fellowship that are the important factors. That said, if a local assembly owns a whole building that they meet in — even if they just call it a chapel or a hall — you should probably stay far away. Owning a building for worship and sermons is a good litmus test for a church, demonstrating that they likely know extremely little about biblical theology and what Scripture actually says. In fact, you’d be much better off spiritually in a strip club than in a so-called “house of God” (as many mistakenly call these buildings). At least in a strip club nobody is deceiving you about what Scripture teaches when they try to take a percentage of your money.

Speaking of those pastors, the idea of a pastor or priest or any professional clergyman who rules over a church (a word which simply refers to the “group” or “assembly” of believers in an area, by the way; it never referred to a building) isn’t in the Bible either. Local churches were overseen by a group of unpaid elders or overseers (or “bishops,” depending on your translation), not run by one paid man (that’s not to say that evangelists shouldn’t be paid to evangelize, but elders and evangelists aren’t necessarily always the same people). If you have one person leading (and basically performing the entire ministry in) a local gathering of believers, I would suggest not having much of anything to do with their gatherings if you value your spiritual wellbeing (and while not all clergy are dangerous or are con-artists [many are just confused], I’d suggest you do play it safe and be cautious when interacting with them, just in case, since a lot still are). Also, just as a quick aside on the topic of spiritual things, the charismatic spiritual gifts that some pastors say one should have really aren’t meant for those in the dispensation of grace today either (meaning for those in the body of Christ; they might still be active for some saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision, since they were basically meant as a sign for Jews anyway — even those in the body of Christ were mostly doing it for the sake of helping Jews believe — but for those under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, they came to an end when Israel as a whole fully rejected the Messiah in Acts 28 as evidenced by the fact that even Paul, whose simple handkerchiefs could heal those who touched them at one time, could no longer heal people by the time he wrote the final book of the Bible, and even suggested that Timothy take some wine for his stomach and other ailments rather than seek the gift of healing). That’s not to say God can’t or doesn’t ever do miracles anymore (and it definitely doesn’t mean that God can’t still speak to us directly, although for those of us in the body of Christ, He does so primarily through Scripture today); just that they’re the exception and not the rule while the reason for the sign gifts has been temporarily paused (so, until the final Gentile meant to enter the body of Christ does so and God’s focus returns to Israel and the Gospel of the Circumcision becomes the preeminent [and, eventually, only] Evangel to be proclaimed on Earth once again).

Aside from tithing, there’s one more unbiblical tradition that religious leaders will condemn you for if you don’t do it on a regular basis, and that is attending their gatherings on the day they believe to be the Sabbath. Now this is one where various sabbatarian denominations are partially correct, while also being quite wrong about it at the same time. The Sabbath is indeed Saturday as they claim; it was never changed to Sunday (and Sunday is not the Lord’s Day either; the Lord’s Day, also known as the Day of the Lord, is an event that hasn’t happened yet, at least not as of the time this was written). But since those of us saved under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision are not under the Mosaic law in any way whatsoever, it doesn’t really matter what day the Sabbath is. In the very beginning of the church, believers didn’t pick one specific day to gather together; they could meet any day of the week (possibly doing so more than one day a week, and very likely often happening later in the afternoon or evening after work rather than first thing in the morning). That said, there’s nothing technically wrong with meeting on a Sunday. In fact it’s often the most convenient day to do so on at this point in history since the Institutional Church has managed to convince most people that it is the new Sabbath thanks to the influence it’s had over our society, but it’s really not any different from any other day of the week so don’t feel any obligation to treat it like a special day.

And on the topic of esteeming certain days above others, be they new holidays invented by (or pagan holidays that were “Christianized” by) the Institutional Church (such as Lent, such as Easter, and such as Christmas, to name just three) or days that are observed by Jewish followers of the Mosaic law, while I don’t think it’s a great idea, I also don’t think it’s necessarily wrong to celebrate a specific day if it’s something one enjoys doing just for the fun of it (or if it’s something one who is weak in faith still feels they need to do). Just realize that none of these days are required for the body of Christ any more than the Sabbath is, and that nobody should be looked down upon for not participating in these “holy days.” And, of course, I hope that everyone is aware of the fact that Jesus didn’t actually die on a Friday, wasn’t resurrected on the day we call Easter on our modern calendars (which should be more obvious than it seems to be to most since it’s on a different day each year), and wasn’t born on December 25th either (while it doesn’t really matter when He was born since we aren’t told to celebrate His birthday in Scripture, there’s good reason to believe it was actually in September or October on our modern calendar). That said, if you’re going to celebrate Christmas or Easter, I’d suggest doing so mostly from a secular perspective, focusing on the chocolates and eggs and gifts and such. To do otherwise (meaning, to celebrate them as remembrances of Jesus’ birth and death) is to know Christ after the flesh, which is something the body of Christ is called to move past.


While there aren’t specific dates that we’re supposed to observe, there are specific ages (or, better put, eons) that humanity experiences, although not everyone experiences them the same way. Only those few people God has elected (chosen) for eonian life (a transliteration that, as will be explained shortly, is a far superior rendering of what most Bible translations call “eternal life” or “everlasting life”) will be given faith and be reconciled (again, from a relative perspective; as I’ve said before, everyone is reconciled by Christ, from an absolute perspective, by His death and resurrection) and saved in this lifetime; they will get to live through all of the eons to come (both those under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision and those under the Gospel of the Circumcision, even though these two groups will experience the next eon differently from one another).

This faith is not something you can just decide to have, however. You can’t choose to believe the Gospel (either Gospel) without God first giving you the faith to believe (faith, including the faith to believe the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, is not of yourself; it’s by grace, rather — a gift of God [or, better put, an approach present] to certain chosen people who are predestined for eonian life for a specific purpose), and to teach otherwise is to teach salvation by works or salvation by self.

I’m sure the idea that “choosing to accept Christ in order to be saved is actually salvation by works or salvation by self” goes against what most of Churchianity has probably taught you, but if you need to stop sinning and decide to choose Jesus as your lord and saviour in order to be be saved, how could it be anything else? The first part of that should be obvious enough, since forcing yourself to stop sinning in order to be saved is obviously a works-based salvation, but even having to choose to believe is a work. If you don’t agree with me, try choosing right now to truly believe in Thor as your lord and saviour. Can’t do it, can you? Forcing oneself to believe something that one hasn’t organically come to believe is one of the biggest mental works a person could do, and I doubt that anybody is actually capable of it. Regardless, even if someone could somehow brainwash themselves into believing something they really didn’t previously believe, it would still be an action (even if just a mental action) they had to accomplish to save themselves (or accomplish to participate in saving themselves). Pretty much every denomination and cult (not that there’s much difference) out there teaches salvation by a combination of Christ’s sacrifice plus our own “free will” (aside from Calvinist denominations, who at least sort of understand God’s sovereignty and know better than to believe in “free will,” even if they’re fatally confused about nearly every other doctrine), but if salvation is by grace plus something else, it’s not by grace alone.

To put it simply, religious Christians actually reject the free gift of salvation because they don’t truly believe that it’s what Christ did that saves us (since otherwise they’d have to admit that everyone will eventually be saved) or that salvation really is a free gift given to all, but rather they believe that Jesus saved absolutely nobody at the cross (He only made it possible for people to save themselves by making the right choice with what He did there) and that it’s actually one’s acceptance of the gift of potential salvation that saves them (if they happen to be smart enough or wise enough to make the right decision, of course — people who believe in “free will” ultimately believe that salvation depends on human intelligence or wisdom to make the right choice; only those people who are good enough [meaning smart or wise enough to make the right choice] are able to be saved according to most of Churchianity). If they accepted that it was what Christ did that saved them rather than their own good choice, they’d also have to accept that Christ’s death and resurrection saved everyone regardless of whether everyone chose to believe it or not, which is just unacceptable to those in the Christian religion. To be fair, yes, you do need to “accept Jesus is your saviour,” so to speak, if you want to experience eonian life (which is limited to those who actually do “accept the existence of the free gift” under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, but is quite different from the everlasting life that everybody will eventually experience because of what Christ did). However, accepting Jesus as your saviour doesn’t mean choosing to allow Him to save you (which would mean you would have a role in your own salvation, even if just the small role of making the right decision). Rather, it’s accepting that He has already saved you after you’ve been given the gift of faith to believe the Good News of your (and everyone’s) already existing reconciliation because of His death for our (meaning everybody’s) sins, and His subsequent entombment and resurrection. Basically, most Christians put the cart before the horse, thinking they first had faith and were then saved because of this faith, when it’s actually that they were first saved and (if they were elected) were then given faith by God to believe the Good News of their already existing salvation and impending everlasting life (which is what salvation is from an absolute perspective), giving them eonian life (which is what salvation is from a relative perspective, which I’ll get into more details on shortly). And if one isn’t among the elect, then judgement is a part of God’s sovereign plan for that person, and they couldn’t possibly believe the Gospel before they die and experience eonian life no matter how hard we try to get them to (yes, the light that is Christ might illuminate all men, but all will fail to perceive that light unless God opens their eyes to it). This doesn’t mean they haven’t been saved from an absolute perspective, however. They’ll still be given everlasting life at some point in the future thanks to what Christ did for them 2,000 years ago. They just won’t also get eonian life the way those God did give faith to will, and so they’ll miss out on some things that the few who are saved from a relative perspective will get to enjoy.

The sovereignty of God and His purposes for creation from before it all began is one of the most important factors in the Bible (and while most Christians would claim to believe in His sovereignty, not very many actually do), yet very few people are aware that He has a reason for everything that has happened in creation, and has had very specific plans for the eons (and those in each eon) from the beginning. In fact, thanks to bad translations of Scripture, most Christians aren’t aware of the concept of the eons at all. Rather, most religious Christians believe that God really hoped humanity wouldn’t sin, but is now on Plan B because we did. They don’t realize that everything about creation, be it good and evil, righteousness and sin, pleasure and suffering, faith and unbelief, even the Devil and the crucifixion, were all intended by God from before the beginning of creation (God is not only able to see the future, He declares what it is going to be done from the beginning, and what He desires to be done will be done). Of course, because of their soteriology, many people dislike the idea of predestination since it would mean God decides that certain (indeed most) people will suffer forever in a literal lake of fire. It’s only when one realizes that God has a specific reason for electing only certain people to be saved in this lifetime and for choosing others to miss out on eonian life, and that nobody stays in “hell” forever (not to mention that both “hell” and the lake of fire aren’t what most people think they are), but rather that God actually had a plan all along that works out for everyone in the end (not just for every human but for every spiritual being as well), that one might come to understand that predestination is ultimately in our best interests. Of course, if we don’t accept that predestination is a fact, we’re giving the responsibility for not “accepting Jesus” to those who don’t, which also means we’re giving the credit for “accepting Jesus” to those who do, again making them their own (at least partial) saviours. But that aside, the Bible tells us that God takes credit for both the good and evil that exists in the world anyway (even Satan was created the way he is for a specific purpose), as well as for who ultimately experiences reconciliation first and who has to wait until later, so I’m happy to let Him have the credit rather than blaming my so-called “free will” for it.

Speaking of which, many who are uncomfortable with the idea of predestination like to say things along the lines of, “God doesn’t want robots,” and teach that God gave us something called “free will” so we could decide to choose Him for ourselves (not quite grasping the irony of their belief that God won’t force anyone to go to heaven even though He will apparently force these very same people to go to “hell” if they don’t make the right decision before they die, not considering the question of, if “free will” only matters while one is alive, why would God not give them a better end if He’s no longer respecting “free will” after they die anyway [unless one believes anybody would actually choose to be tortured in literal fire and want to continue to remain there forever, which seems highly unlikely to anyone who has ever burned themselves even for a second — of course, if you really want to test the resolve of someone who claims respecting “free will” is paramount, ask them if suicide and euthanasia should be legal and whether the supposed “free will” of the one who wants to die should be respected]? And don’t give me that old “faith in something one can’t see is required for salvation” answer, since there will be plenty of people born during the Millennium who will see the truth of God’s and Christ’s existence firsthand and hence not need blind faith in their existence to be saved). These people don’t understand that, aside from being unscriptural, “free will” is also a complete impossibility from a purely logical and scientific perspective and can’t actually exist in reality. That said, I don’t think most people know what the term “free will” even means. What it doesn’t mean is the ability to choose. We can definitely choose things; it’s just that those choices are all predetermined (we all have a will, it’s just not free), either by our nurture and nature (meaning life experiences and genetics), or by influences outside the sphere of the physical universe (such as by God). Remember, events always either have a cause or they don’t; there’s no way for an event (even an event such as a decision or choice) to be anything other than caused or uncaused. If it’s caused, it’s predetermined; if it’s uncaused, it’s random (which I doubt any religious Christian would think is better than being predetermined). Nobody has ever been able to give a third option that works within the limits of reality, which means it’s time to throw the idea of free will away and accept that God is fully in control, even when it comes to salvation and judgement. And don’t worry, this doctrine doesn’t mean you’re a robot. Because, honestly, that would actually give you too much credit.


Just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive, but each in their own order. It’s important to note that this passage doesn’t say, “so also shall all in Christ be made alive.” Rather, it’s a parallelism (everyone affected by the action of first Adam is also affected by the action of the last Adam, and completely outside of their own desire or will; just as nobody had any say in joining in the first Adam, they also have no say in joining the last Adam, and just as condemnation came upon all men because of the offence and disobedience of one [and not because of their own offences or disobedience], justification of life will also come upon all men because of the obedience of one [and not because of their own obedience]) that also tells us there’s an order to when all shall be made alive. Paul is talking about three different orders or groups of humans to be made alive, and these three orders combined consist of all humanity. The first order mentioned is “Christ the firstfruits,” which I believe refers to the body of Christ vivified (“quickened” in the KJV, zōopoieō [ζῳοποιέω] in the Greek, meaning brought beyond the reach of death/made fully alive — not to be confused with resurrection, which only the dead experience; both the resurrected dead and the still living in the body of Christ experience vivification) at the “snatching away” (which is the actual version of the event often called the rapture that many Christians believe — mistakenly, I suspect — will eventually happen to them, and which should also not to be confused with the Second Coming), who then go on to fulfill their purpose in Christ among the celestials. The second is “they that are Christ’s at his coming,” referring, I believe, to those vivified at the time of the former or “first” resurrection (also known as the resurrection of the just) near the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom, 75 days after Jesus returns to Earth and the Tribulation period has concluded (people such as “Old Testament” saints, and those [both the resurrected dead and those still living at the end of the tribulation] who are saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision, for example, although you could group the body of Christ in with this order as well if you wanted to, and say it applies to everyone saved under both Gospels while the first is just speaking of Christ Himself, even if some are vivified three-and-a-half or more years apart from each other. Although I tend to think placing the body of Christ in the first order rather than the second makes the most sense, by the end of this second order everyone saved [relatively speaking] under both Gospels will have been vivified anyway so it doesn’t really make a huge difference to the rest of my point). And finally, “then cometh the end” (eita to telos [εἶτα τὸ τέλος] in Greek), referring to the “telos” of humanity (since he’s still speaking of this order of vivification here), meaning the final group or the rest of humanity, fully vivified either during the fifth and final (and most glorious) eon (known as the eon of the eons) or, more likely, at the consummation of the eons (after the final eon is completed). So, while every human who is affected by the curse will also be equally (if not more so) affected by the cross, it doesn’t happen to everyone at the same time. Only those predestined for eonian life will live through the eons to come and experience salvation during those eons (well, those born during the next eon will also live through them, if they don’t die during the next eon, of course); everyone else will go through eonian judgement first (which doesn’t necessarily always involve death or “hell” for everyone, I should add; sometimes it just refers to a negative judgement while remaining alive on Earth, the “goats” of Matthew 25 being a good example of this, as I’ll touch on shortly, so, as I mentioned earlier, please don’t make the mistake of thinking that “death” and “judgement” or “condemnation” refer to the same thing).

What this judgement actually is, however, is a point that few people today ever come to understand. Most think it refers to “everlasting punishment” in a fiery place called hell, but this is a doctrine that didn’t exist among the first believers in Christ (and you won’t find it in the Scriptures Israel accepted – which Christians normally call the Old Testament – either, which is strange since you’d think God’s chosen people would have been warned about something so terrible). This is another great example of one of those pre-existing beliefs that caused many translators to mistranslate Scripture from its original languages, in this case causing them to translate the Hebrew word `owlam (or olam [עוֹלָם]) and Greek words such as aión (αἰών) and aiónios (αἰώνιος), all of which refer to a set period of time with a definite end, even if that end date is unknown (so aiónios and aiónion should literally be transliterated as “eonian,” which just means “pertaining to an eon,” and aión should simply be transliterated as “eon”), into words that mean “never ending.” They also mistranslated the word aión as “world” in places as well — even though there was already a Greek word (kosmos [κόσμος]) for “world” — realizing that translating it as “everlasting” in those cases would literally make no sense at all and that they wouldn’t be able to get away with their usual mistranslation, they had to give it another meaning; so, because of their preconceived doctrinal biases against translating aión into the word it actually means, they were forced to come up with another word for it instead (at one point they even “translated” both aión and kosmos as “world” in the same verse, showing just how ridiculous this translation is). That said, even if we were to translate these words as “everlasting” or “forever” in some places, we’d still have to interpret the words based on the context of the rest of Scripture, and aside from the fact that Scripture tells us everyone eventually will be saved, there are also plenty of things in the Bible that seem to be said to be everlasting (if one translates it that way) that it also says will eventually end, and Scripture even talks about a past fire that was said to never be quenched or go out (just like the fires of “hell” are supposed to be, depending on your translation) but that is no longer burning today, so good exegesis is imperative here if you’re going to translate it that way for some reason (this means that, while one could theoretically “translate” these Hebrew and Greek words into words that mean “everlasting” in English, the reader would still be required to interpret them figuratively so as to not end up making Scripture completely contradict itself, which means a KJV-Onlyist could technically [and, to be consistent with the rest of Scripture, would realistically have to] believe in Universal Reconciliation). That said, for those of us who haven’t been indoctrinated into KJV-Onlyism, translating these words concordantly does make a lot more sense, and means we can actually interpret the passages literally rather than being forced to interpret them figuratively just so we can remain consistent (not that theological consistency is something most Christians concern themselves with, but it is important). In addition to all this, while I don’t agree with all of his theology, the nineteenth century theologian J. W. Hanson also did a good job of demonstrating from extra-biblical writings that these words didn’t mean “everlasting” outside of Scripture back then, so there’s no reason to believe they do in Scripture either (outside of preconceived doctrinal bias, of course).

Because of these presuppositions and bad translations or interpretations (as well as a lack of basic logical analysis of Scripture), most religious Christians are under the impression that, while God tried to save everyone through Christ’s sacrifice, He will ultimately fail when it comes to 99% of humanity since He just isn’t powerful enough to convince them to choose the right religion, probably because He didn’t make most people smart enough or wise enough to come to the right decision in the first place. Those who believe this aren’t aware that God’s purpose for the eons was never about hoping people will choose the right religion so they can be among the lucky few who escape never ending torture, but rather that He saves those who are helpless to save (or even participate in saving) themselves (although, again, each in their own order, or in their own times).

Aside from being completely unscriptural, the horrible doctrine of everlasting torment in hell is also probably the biggest cause of religious evil. How so? First, it’s caused millennia of psychological torture for children (and adults). Somehow, religious parents have rationalized the idea that instilling the fear of this mythological torture chamber into their children is a good thing, but all it does is cause sleepless nights for millions of kids who are terrified they or their loved ones will suffer horrific agony for eternity with no chance of escape if the wrong decision or action is made (“end times” doctrines should also probably never be taught to young people for similar reasons; based on the testimony of so many, my own included, I would recommend that parents not let their offspring be exposed to the topic of eschatology until their very late teens if they value the mental wellbeing of their children).

Perhaps worse, though, is the fact that once this doctrine has been completely absorbed into the psyche it makes emotional empathy an extremely difficult thing to possess, causing religious people to think it’s okay to reject and even eject family members (sometimes from their own homes) who believe differently from them, and discriminate against or even be violent towards people who don’t follow their religion or who might not think certain actions are actually wrong (“if God is going to torture people forever in the afterlife for even the smallest infraction, what’s a little temporary violence in this life?” is what it seems many religious people believe).

Aside from the fact that anybody who sat down to actually think about it would realize no sin or crime could ever warrant torture that lasted forever, however, the Bible tells us that the wages of sin is death (“wages” is not necessarily the best translation of ὀψώνιον [opsōnion] here, but because the end result is basically the same regardless of the translation, for the sake of simplicity I’m going to use the common rendering of the passage for this point), not never ending torment (and that said wage comes from the sin of Adam, not our own sins, as I’ve already discussed earlier). If the payment for sin was nonstop pain that never ends (which is taught nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures — the absolute worst penalty for breaking the Mosaic law was execution; no Israelite was ever threatened with perpetual torture after they died as a result of sinning in the law of Moses, and there’s no good reason to think that this changed when Paul talked about sin either), then Jesus would have to still be suffering for our sins (and would need to continue doing so forever).

Fortunately, there isn’t anything in the original Hebrew or Greek that implies that “hell” (which itself is a bad translation of multiple words that actually refer to different places and concepts from each other) lasts forever anyway, nor that the lake of fire (which is different from “hell”) does either when properly interpreted. Not even the parable of the rich man and Lazarus helps support the idea of everlasting torment when it’s properly understood, unless you believe Lazarus was literally sitting inside Abraham’s chest, and that there’s actual physical water in the spirit realm. It’s funny how things pertaining to “hell” are literal in their mistranslations until they’re not when it comes to Churchianity; see also the lack of bodily mutilation and the general avoidance of helping the needy among religious Christians who don’t understand right dividing (and don’t know the true identity of the sheep and the goats of Matthew 25, or what their actual “outcomes” refer to; nobody in this prophecy “goes to heaven” or “goes to hell” during the judgement — this parable is actually very figurative all the way through) as similar examples.

What few religious Christians seem to understand is that, when Jesus spoke about the future, He wasn’t talking about ethereal, spiritual “afterlife” “states” in another dimension called heaven and hell. Rather, He spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, an actual, physical 1,000-year long kingdom here on Earth (not in a supposed afterlife dimension) that is sometimes referred to as the Millennium or Millennial Kingdom, and Gehenna (Geenna [γέεννα] in Greek), an actual, physical garbage dump in Israel (again, not in another dimension one enters after death) — although it’s quite pleasant at the moment — that Jesus’ Jewish audience would have immediately recognized as a reference to Isaiah’s prophecy about the place the corpses of lawbreakers during the Millennial Kingdom would be burned and devoured by worms in, and He sometimes also referred to hades ([ᾅδης], which is simply the word used in Scripture for sheol [שְׁאוֹל], the Hebrew word for “the unseen,” when written or spoken in Greek), which is just speaking of the state of no longer being conscious because one is dead (when it’s not being used figuratively in parable form). Basically, Jesus wasn’t promising an existence in a spiritual realm called heaven for the righteous when He spoke (nor did He ever offer anybody everlasting or eternal life either, since eventual everlasting life for everyone is already a given thanks to His death for our sins and subsequent resurrection, which is actually what the Good News that is the Gospel of the Uncircumcision is proclaiming), nor was He warning about never-ending torture in a spiritual realm called hell for sinners. Instead, He was A) teaching the people of Israel how to be sure to enjoy eonian life on Earth during the next eon or two in the messages He gave while on Earth, and teaching those elected for the body of Christ how to enjoy the fullness of salvation, including eonian life among the celestials during the next two eons, in the messages He gave Paul after He physically left the Earth (while everyone eventually gets everlasting life, only a relatively small number of people will experience eonian life), and B) warning them about how to avoid being killed and suffering the humiliating sentence of having your dead body displayed and destroyed in public in Gehenna (also on Earth), not to mention missing out on the joys of the Millennial Kingdom (and quite possibly the next eon after that as well) because they’d be dead (which would be what eonian death refers to). And, again, since the Hebrew Scriptures never threatened never-ending torture as a punishment for breaking the Mosaic law or even for sin in general — at most it threatened physical death (there is one passage in the book of Daniel that some mistranslate as saying some will be resurrected to “everlasting contempt” but, aside from the fact that contempt and torture are two very different things, the Hebrew word mistakenly rendered as “everlasting” here is “olam” which, as we’ve already discovered, is a word that refers to a temporary duration, and as we’ve also already covered, there’d never been a threat of such a punishment before this passage so there’s no good reason to assume it’s suddenly being proclaimed here some 2,000 years after the giving of the Mosaic law when we’ve never heard of it before and it isn’t even explaining who would be experiencing such a thing or why [or how to avoid it]) — but did speak of the earthly Gehenna as a place where the physical (not spiritual) bodies of the dead lawbreakers would be burned during the Millennial Kingdom, and since Jesus didn’t ever correct these beliefs when He spoke of judgement and Gehenna when read properly in the original Greek (when read without a preconceived bias, it’s completely clear that He was teaching the exact same thing the Hebrew Scriptures said about the topic), there’s literally zero reason to interpret (or translate) these things the way most Christians and English Bibles have. To put it simply, Churchianity is assigning the earthly rewards and punishments that Jesus taught are meant for Israelites (and to those who bless them or don’t bless them during the tribulation) to a supposed afterlife state meant for everyone (even the Great White Throne Judgement — which does apply to people other than Israel — and its resulting sufferings will happen on Earth prior to the bodies of those who don’t enter the new Earth at its beginning being physically [not spiritually] cast into the lake of fire [an actual body of water on Earth, I suspect, quite possibly referring to the Dead Sea] just like the dead bodies of previous sinners were physically cast into Gehenna on Earth), attempting to spiritualize physical and geographical places and events when there’s absolutely no good reason to do so. These (and many other) facts, combined with the fact that Scripture is quite clear that everyone eventually will experience reconciliation and immortality (yes, even those who commit the supposedly “unforgivable” or “unpardonable sin“), makes it pretty obvious that the only reason for the morally and spiritually depraved followers of religion to continue believing in a demonic doctrine like everlasting torment after learning these truths is because they want to believe it (and continuing to believe and teach it tells the rest of us just how hardened their hearts and cauterized their consciences are, as well as just how little they understand about God’s character and His purpose for the eons and dispensations). Sadly, the religious only seem to want Good News as long it’s not too good.

So, while everyone will eventually enjoy immortality (everlasting life), those who aren’t predestined for eonian life will first go through judgement (not to be confused with punishment — or with death, as we’ve already covered), and some will even experience the second death (not as a judgement, but because they’re not predestined for eonian life and as such have to miss out on the final eon). However, at the consummation of the eons (after the final eon is over), “the grave” or “the unseen” (which is all that “hell” really refers to as far as anyone in the dispensation of grace is concerned) will have no victory and death (all death) will have no sting because it will have been destroyed (and anyone still dead will have to be made alive for death to be truly destroyed), and God will be “all in all” (yes, in all; not just in a lucky few). This truth is lost on those who are lost thanks to their slavery to the demonic teachings of the Christian religion, but if this weren’t the case (if most of humanity were to suffer consciously in the lake of fire forever), all this judgement would do is torture the majority of people who ever existed nonstop, which would serve no purpose at all other than to stand as an everlasting reminder that Satan ultimately won in the battle for souls (a Pyrrhic victory though it might be, a victory over God it would remain nonetheless) and that God was a failure in ridding creation of evil, ultimately making Him and Jesus A) monsters (only the most horrific of monsters could force, or even allow, someone to be tortured forever; the worst person to ever live could never do anything like that, but religious Christians want to accuse God of doing something that would make Hitler look like a saint in comparison), and B) the biggest sinners of all. Thankfully, that’s not the case. The religious think the best plan God could possibly come up with is everlasting incarceration and torture, locking the majority of His creation up to suffer forever (God actually does lock His creation up, just not the way most Christians think He  does; the Divine Lockup is something few Christians ever truly understand [at least not in this lifetime]), but this just shows us that the religious don’t think very highly of God and His abilities to make things right (or accomplish His ultimate intentions), which is what judgement really means. Rather than failing, as Churchianity insists He will, in the end God will successfully destroy evil, sin, “hell,” and death (again, all death, which would have to mean even the second death) completely because He actually is God and is fully capable of doing so.

For those who are still skeptical of the idea that God truly is the Saviour of everyone (even if those who believe this Good News have a special, earlier [eonian] salvation than everybody else does), in spite of all the evidence I’ve presented you with, I have one last thought for you to consider. I once asked a scholar of Koine Greek (one who knows far more about the language than I can claim to) who did not believe in Universal Reconciliation, but rather believed that most of humanity would be tormented forever in the lake of fire, to tell me what he thought the writers of Scripture (at least the Greek Scriptures) would (or, really, what God would have inspired said writers to) have written differently than they actually did if my conclusions about Universal Reconciliation (from eonian salvation and judgement, to avoiding having one’s dead body burned in Gehenna, to everything else about the topic) were correct, and his response was that it wouldn’t have been recorded any differently at all, which tells me that belief in everlasting torment for non-Christians really is just a matter of wanting it to be true.


In addition to understanding the purpose of God for the eons, one also has to understand the character of God, and those who teach everlasting torment in “hell” seriously slander the character of God. In fact, misunderstanding the character of God might be one of the biggest causes of the presuppositions that led to religious Christians making the five big mistakes I listed at the beginning of this article, which in turn are the source of all the confusion within Churchianity I’ve been writing about.

God has many attributes, but perhaps the most important way to understand God is to remember that while the Bible tells us that God has wrath, it also tells us that God is love (and not the other way around). Religious Christians will claim to agree with this statement, of course, but they completely fail to understand what love is. Among all the other things that Paul tells us love is, he tells us that love always perseveres and never fails, and then insist that the God who is love Himself will fail to save the majority of His earthly creation. Paul also tells us that love is kind in the same passage, but while few people (perhaps with the exception of religious conservatives) could actually do something as unkind as to torture someone (or simply let someone be tortured) for even a few minutes, much less forever, Churchianity insists that God is far less kind (which would mean He’s not loving) than us mere humans who would never do such a horrible thing to anyone. Yes, those whom God loves He chastens, but the purpose of this is to help, not hurt; it isn’t simply an end in itself. And since He loves the whole world, He’ll chasten the whole world, even if in different ways at different times for different people (the case of how God treats the inhabitants of Sodom, both in the past and in the future, is a great example of this).

What the religious always forget is that Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God, so if you want to truly understand the character of God, all you have to do is look at what we’re told about Him. For instance, Jesus often kept His teachings a secret from those who weren’t meant to understand them at that time, speaking in parables so that “seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand,” which tells us that not all of God’s truths are intended for everyone to understand just yet (not even religious Christians who are reading this, most of whom have already rejected everything I’ve written here because God has made sure they aren’t able to see the truth). But even with His truth hidden from most, we also see that Jesus insisted on extreme forgiveness (seventy times seven, and even forgave those who killed Him), and ultimately sacrificed Himself to save the world. When you want to interpret Scripture, you have to ultimately do so using a hermeneutic that begins with Christology. If you don’t do that, it’s easy to misunderstand the passages about judgement, and just as easy to forget that everything in Scripture needs to be read with Christ’s character and His purpose in mind. If you really want to understand God’s character, you don’t go looking to the Hebrew Scriptures. I mean, you’ll find bits and pieces of information about His character there (and you’ll certainly learn about His power there), but to truly understand who God is and what He’s actually like, you have to look at His Son and who He is.

It’s no wonder that so many misunderstand the character of God, though, when they also misunderstand “the nature of God” (for lack of a better term), thinking that Scripture teaches God to be three people rather than one. Within Churchianity it’s incredibly common to assume that one can’t be a true Christian without believing in the “orthodox” tradition known as the trinity, which is ironic since, in addition to the fact that it’s a tradition that is completely contradicted by Scripture (the Bible teaches that there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, but not in all men is there this knowledge — in fact, practically not in all of Christendom is there this knowledge), it seems to me that one might not even be able join the body of Christ while truly believing in this doctrine (since it means they don’t believe Christ actually fully died for our sins, but that only His body did; God can’t die, so if one believes that Jesus is God, they don’t believe that Jesus truly died), so I would posit that the reason it’s become one of the most important ideas in the Christian religion is because Satan wanted to make sure as few people as possible could become a part of the body of Christ and take his reign from him during the future eons. I’d also suggest that belief in the trinity might keep those under the Gospel of the Circumcision from eonian life as well, since belief that Jesus is the son of God is required for salvation under that Gospel, and the trinity teaches that Jesus is “God the Son” (really nothing more than a title for a certain part of God) rather than the actual son (offspring) of God. Sadly, the true deity of God, and what this actually means, is a doctrine that has been lost to most of Christendom for centuries now.


The trinity is just one of the various “orthodox” traditions that I suspect Satan made sure were taught in the Christian religion to keep one from eonian life under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision. The others, of course, are everlasting torment in “hell” (if someone believes that anybody at all is left behind in the grave at the consummation of the eons as a punishment for sin, it seems to me that they don’t believe Jesus actually died for our sins [which is referring to the sins of everyone, not just the sins of Christians], taking care of them Himself 2,000 years ago, but rather believe that we still have to do something about our sins ourselves today), free will (if we have to do something about our own sins, even something as supposedly simple as making the right decision, it was us who finally dealt with our sins at the end of it all rather than Christ taking care of it all through His death and resurrection. He only performed the first step; we had to complete the final step ourselves by making the right choice, making us our own saviours, or at least partial saviours), and the immortality of the soul (which is not only an unbiblical concept, it’s an entirely pagan idea that was likely adopted by the Pharisees due to confusion about the state of the dead learned during the Babylonian captivity, and was later carried into much of Christendom as well due to misunderstandings of Scripture. “Ye shall not surely die” might be the first recorded lie the devil told, but today it’s being told by those in the Christian religion, trying to convince us that death isn’t actually death at all but is rather just a change in our state of consciousness, seemingly unaware that the dead know nothing (meaning they aren’t conscious at all). And, of course, if the soul is immortal then, again, that means Jesus didn’t truly die, only His body did. On top of that, if those who are saved [relatively speaking] “go to heaven” as soon as they die, then death isn’t really an enemy to be defeated, as Paul put it [although this doesn’t find its ultimate fulfilment until the end of the fifth eon], but would instead be a friend finally bringing us to God, with our eventual resurrection just being icing on the cake [the resurrection and vivification of our human bodies has become nothing more than a small side note in most of Christendom, when it’s what we’re actually supposed to be looking forward to]). Ultimately, belief in any of these traditional “orthodox” doctrines appears to me to mean one hasn’t fully believed Paul’s Gospel and has not joined the body of Christ.

Basically, if something is an important teaching or practice (or is considered to be an “orthodox” tradition) among the majority of the followers of the Christian religion, it’s pretty much always safe to assume that it’s a doctrine of demons and that the opposite is true instead (particularly if it’s a major tradition, doctrine, or practice taught by Rome, who, no, did not give us the Bible as they like to claim). When it comes right down to it, there’s almost nothing that the Institutional Church gets right about God or Scripture. Although some denominations do occasionally stumble upon parts of certain truths seemingly accidentally, it’s extremely rare, and no one denomination within Churchianity ever seems to get more than two or three things at most somewhat right — and even then, they rarely understand even a small portion of the full implications of the parts they sort of appear to grasp (I question whether one single member of the Institutional Church could even give a satisfying, or even remotely biblical, explanation as to why God created humanity and allowed [or, really, arranged for] sin and evil to enter creation [when you study the Scriptures concordantly, you discover that sin and evil didn’t derail God’s original intentions for the universe at all but are actually 100% necessary for the completion of His purposes]). It seems Satan works hard to keep people in these denominations from joining the body of Christ, and also to use these churches to keep the rest of the world from learning spiritual truth as well. Using bad translations and even worse interpretations, Satan’s false apostles, deceitful workers, and ministers of righteousness within Churchianity (aka the conservative leaders and teachers within the Christian religion) have hijacked the Bible, convincing billions that Scripture is actually a much more conservative set of documents than it really is, and have also managed to deceive billions into thinking that God is capable of allowing never-ending torture to occur (causing people to reject God altogether thanks to the monstrous false image of God we’ve been told is the real God). These lies, along with the deceptions that seem to keep the majority of humanity (including many Christians) from experiencing eonian life, make the Christian religion the most nefarious cult (which, ultimately, is what the failure known as the Christian religion really is: an idolatrous cult of confusion, hypocrisy [so much hypocrisy], guilt, erotophobia, and fear) there is. The truths of actual scriptural Christianity sets people completely free, but the conservative “orthodox” teachings of traditional Christianity only enslaves people into the bondage of religion through its rules, discrimination, and shame.

That’s not to say that all Christians who believe in free will or everlasting punishment will definitely miss out on eonian life if I’m correct in my suspicions, however (although my belief is that a pretty large number of people who call themselves Christians very likely will). I personally suspect that some Christians outside the body of Christ will still experience the next eon. It’s just that, due to their ignorance, those Christians are unknowingly under the Gospel of the Circumcision instead of the Uncircumcision. So, while most Christians aren’t a part of the body of Christ and will miss out on celestial blessings in the next eon (and even in this eon), some of them might still get to enjoy the impending eon here on Earth if they follow the requirements of their particular Gospel (and don’t try to mix their Gospel with Paul’s Gospel; it’s either one or the other. Just as those saved under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision aren’t the bride of Christ, those under the Gospel of the Circumcision weren’t and aren’t a part of the body of Christ. The justification of those in the body of Christ is quite different in nature from the justification those the “circumcision letters” were written to is as well). As Cornelius demonstrated in the book of Acts, even Gentiles can be saved under the Gospel of the Circumcision (no, he wasn’t saved under the Gospel of the Uncircumcision, contrary to the assumptions that many who still don’t truly understand how to rightly divide mistakenly hold to, although it’s sometimes easy to understand why some might be confused). However, they might not experience the full blessings that Israelites saved under it will, so if they are able to believe the Gospel given to us by Paul instead, they’ll be much better off.


I could go on and on about the multitude of ideas that those within the Christian religion are confused about thanks to the flawed assumptions they begin with, and a lack of desire to actually take the time to pick up a concordance and dig into what the Bible really says, taking their pastor’s word for it instead, but that should be more than enough to explain why I couldn’t ever return to a modern Evangelical or Protestant congregation. Of course, at this point the real question isn’t why I couldn’t return to a traditional church, but why you yourself might still consider having anything to do with such an unbiblical, not to mention harmful, institution (and why you would risk your soul within her “sanctuaries”).

Sadly, while nearly everything I wrote here should really be considered “Christianity 101” that every believer should already be completely familiar with, I suspect that most of what I’ve written here is brand new for many of you, and that you’re not sure what to believe (or think it’s so foreign to what you were taught growing up that you’ll just reject it out of hand, which could just mean that God hasn’t chosen you to be a member of the body of Christ, or at least hasn’t called you yet). However, for those chosen few of you who do dig deeper and then realize that you need to reject organized religion and the teachings and practices of Churchianity, you’ll be left wondering what you should do instead. Well, first of all, it means that you get to sleep in on Sunday mornings if you want to. Beyond that, however, if you can find an Open Church that actually teaches what the Bible says, it might be a good group to check out. That said, many, if not most, of the members of the body of Christ have to go it fairly alone, or at least without a regular ecclesia to fellowship with, since it seems there are very few members of the body of Christ in any particular area. I should say that this is not a new problem; the ecclesia made up of the body of Christ has been extremely small from almost the beginning (it fell into apostasy very early on and it seems to have never regained its original size), and I’d be surprised to see this change before the snatching away occurs. So, if you can’t find any fellow members to fellowship with where you live, just keep studying the Scriptures. You’re far better off not participating in any church gathering than you are attending an Institutional Church. Yes, it’s beneficial to fellowship with likeminded believers if you can find them, but you won’t find many of them in the traditional denominations, at least not if you happen to agree with what I’ve written in this article, so I’d suggest leaving the Institutional Church behind completely.

Bottom line, to those of you who are inspired to do so, pull out your Bibles (preferably a good literal translation; if you’re going to really study Scripture in depth, don’t use a translation as badly flawed as the King James Version — although I believe God did arrange for various bad translations of Scripture to be made in order to reveal to us who actually cares about the truth, and so we can be rewarded for digging beneath the surface for the gold of that truth, it doesn’t mean they’re particularly useful for deeper study), concordances, and Hebrew and Koine Greek dictionaries, fire up your search engines, and start studying to “shew thyself approved.” Be warned, however, that if you do come to the conclusions I have about the Bible, you’ll likely be called a heretic by the “orthodox” members of Churchianity, and even shunned (if not worse) by many of them. But to that threat I simply repeat the words of A. E. Knoch: “Heretic” is the highest earthly title which can be bestowed at this time.


If you’ve been clicking the supporting links, you’ve probably noticed that I link to Grace Ambassadors quite a bit throughout this article, and with that in mind I should probably reiterate what I pointed out in my introduction, that I don’t agree with everything that everyone I link to believes. While the Grace Ambassadors website (and their pastor, Justin Johnson) has some great teachings on many Scriptural topics, and recognizes that there are two Gospels taught in the Bible, they unfortunately haven’t yet come to understand the full implications of Paul’s Gospel (they still believe in “free will,” “hell,” the immortality of the soul, and the trinity) so my belief is that they’re probably not actually in the body of Christ themselves. That said, their site had some of the best articles available online to introduce people to the topic of the two Gospels (along with various other related topics), so I still decided to link to their articles very liberally. Whether that’s for the best, I leave to God to judge, but I do pray that Justin Johnson and his assembly will come to understand the fullness of the Gospel of the Uncircumcision soon, not only because would make them one of the strongest assemblies teaching the full truth of Scripture out there, but also simply for their own sakes (so they can experience eonian life themselves). In the meantime, please do be careful to keep in mind what Martin Zender (whose website and videos I also link to quite often, and whose teachings I do highly recommend, even if I don’t always agree with him 100% of the time either) refers to as “the Five Pilars of Truth” when reading anything on their site, so you yourself do fully understand the full Gospel of the Uncircumcision:

“1) a recognition that Paul’s gospel is to be segregated from the gospel to Israel as heralded by the terrestrial Jesus, and Peter

2) a knowledge that God is working out His purpose through a series of time periods known as eons

3) belief in the sovereignty of God, which requires a disbelief in Human Free Will

4) an understanding that death is non-existence, and that Jesus Christ, in fact, died

5) belief that, through the cross of Christ, God will reconcile all things to Himself”

If you keep these things in mind, you’ll be able to understand how one is actually saved (both from a relative and absolute perspective), and who the actual members of the body of Christ are when reading that and other Mid-Acts Hyperdispensationalist websites I’ve linked to (such as the “For What Saith the Scriptures?” site by Shawn Brasseaux and the “Wielding the Sword of the Spirit” site by Matthew McGee) in this post where the writers understand some of the basics of Paul’s Gospel but don’t yet believe it fully (I suspect a major reason for this on some of these sites is that the authors are KJV-Onlyists, a mistake that keeps many from seeing some of the deeper truths in Scripture, although another reason is simply a refusal to fully let go of all the traditions and practices of Rome just as so many other Protestants and Evangelicals have also declined to do).]