I didn't MEAN to lie!

 Lying is weird. Usually, I know that I'm lying when I'm lying. Sometimes I sincerely believe that a fact is true and adamantly stick to it, just to find out later that I was incorrect.

Usually, it's somewhere in the middle.

I'd been suffering from some crises (yes plural) of faith, mostly because of the Evangelical support of former president, Donald Trump, so I said, "goodbye," to my church family, expressing that my beliefs hadn't changed, but I needed to be there for my girlfriend who was considering returning to church, but wanted to attend a PCUSA church in Champaign/Urbana. 

Yep, it affected me more than I thought it would. Looking back, it had affected me already more than I thought it had.

There are some foundational beliefs that I no longer hold. God cannot be all-knowing, all-present, all-powerful, AND benevolent in a world where evil exists. ONE of those things can't be true. Refusing to believe that God isn't benevolent, It has to be one of the omni-whatevers. I'm not sure which one, though.

Also, how can a benevolent God allow any of his children whom he professes to love to endure eternal damnation? I Corinthians 3 talks about building on the foundation laid by Jesus with, "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw," that the fire would reveal and test each one's work. I have come to believe that the fire may be unquenchable in that it cannot be avoided, but it doesn't burn everything. Gold, silver, and precious stones (good works and/or good fruit) will not be burnt, only that which is unacceptable. Paul clearly states, "the builder will be saved, but only as through fire."

"The builder will be saved."

Dr. Dan McClellan, Bible scholar, author, and TikTok creator, is adamant that we all negotiate with the text of the Bible because it is not univocal. If that is true, then I would feel free and justified in rejecting any part of the Bible -- or at least understanding it differently than it may have been taught by any of the denominations I've belonged to -- that seemingly or actually contradicts I Corinthians 3. I have found myself in the past agreeing more with the preterist view of Revelation of St. John than with the literal interpretation of the pre-millenialist view. This means that it was written as a polemic against a real world leader of the day in which it was written, and not as literal prophecy.

I shouldn't be surprised. My views on the Bible and Christianity have changed over the years. In the past, I've tried to find a denomination that "fits" me. I've given up on that. I am truly a sect unto my own.

Hurry Up Hermeneutic: Forgiveness

I've always thought that since seven times seventy was 490, and since I Corinthians 13 says that love keeps no records of wrongs, then we are supposed to always forgive our brothers, no matter how many times they sin against us.  Now, this is true, but this is not why it's true.  I understand that this is a bit of splitting hairs, but I think that proper hermeneutics and exegesis is extremely important, so I have learned that Peter was asking Jesus if they should forgive their brother once each day, and Jesus responded, "no, you should forgive them seventy times each day."  Now, since it would be really hard for someone to sin against you seventy times in one day, then you should always forgive your brother, no matter how many times they sin against you.  I Corinthians 13 is now not necessary to understand Matthew 18, but it does provide a bonus:  confirmation of the clear teaching in Matthew.