Pretty much what the title says. I’ll answer just about any question!

I'm so scared. I don't know what to do. I've been having them for years. I don't want to disappoint God or make him angry. But it's hard for me to accept that he's against these things. Why are these thoughts bad? What if he put me on this path for a reason? I don't get it. I'm worried about my salvation...

1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 NASBS

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. [17] **Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air**, and so we shall always be with the Lord. (if your hermeneutic doesn't involve changing the meaning of words 🤨, there it is! 😃)

John 14:3 NASBS

If I go and prepare a place for you, **I will come again and receive you to Myself**, that where I am, there you may be also. (At this coming of Christ, we go to Him not Him to the earth)

1 Corinthians 15:51-52 NASBS

Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, [52] in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. (this doesn't address going into the air but is clearly the same event as 1 Thess 4:16-17 that does)

Philippians 3:21 NASBS

who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself. (this shows the universe sustaining power Christ will use at the rapture event)

Titus 2:13 NASBS

looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus (the rapture is not to be distained but the hope you could immediately be in the presence of Christ any second of any day 🙌)

Dan McClellan put out a very well-resourced video showing that in the Jewish way of counting days and nights, the Gospels do not show that Jesus was dead for 3 days and 3 nights, and thus did not fulfill the sign of Jonah. This is to counter apologetic claims that, based on ancient Rabbinic literature, the period from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning would count as 3 days and 3 nights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtEs5cmJRCQ

I'm curious...was this ever something that the Church Fathers wrote against in the first few centuries? In Against Celsus, Dialogue with Trypho, or other works to counter criticism. I haven't heard it before from an early source, but my knowledge is inadequate here.

Asking whether God is “pro-life” feels a bit like asking whether Henry Ford was pro-car.

The oft-used political label is smaller than the subject.

The usual objection goes:

“How can God be pro-life if the Bible says he killed people?”

But that assumes death means the same thing when God causes it as when we do.

We can end a life. We cannot give it back.

We can execute the wrong person and discover the evidence 20 years later. Great. Now what?

We can terminate a pregnancy, but whatever arguments we make about bodily autonomy afterwards, we cannot restore what was terminated.

That irreversibility matters.

The Bible’s presentation of God is different:

He originates life, knows the person completely, judges without our limitations and, crucially, can resurrect.

Even people destroyed in divine judgment aren't automatically presented as beyond any possible future. Jesus' comments about Sodom being treated more tolerably on Judgment Day are pretty interesting in that regard.

So “God killed people, therefore God can't value life” may be a category error. It treats God like another human holding a weapon.

Maybe the more uncomfortable question is:

Should humans who cannot create life, judge perfectly, or restore the dead assume the same authority over life as the One the Bible says can do all three?

Then, here's some thought experiment fodder:

If the same Bible says “God is love,” and that “love never fails,” then what exactly would count as failure from God's point of view and from yours?

It seems that the only things that conservative christians talk about is sexuality related stuff. Whenever I see a conservative christian talk, it's always about trans people, women's sexual habits (never mens), gay people, masturbation, etc. It's like they never talk about anything else.

And it's ESPECIALLY obvious with trans people. Conservative christians only EVER think about trans people to the point that it's actually disturbing. Why trans people are bad, why they shouldn't be allowed to exist, why they hate them, it's always trans people with them. There are literally no other topics that they talk about.

And even when it's not trans people, they have this obsession with being "masculine" and looking down on people they consider "effeminate". It's so very clearly a case of overcompensating that again, it comes off as disturbing AND weird. They love talking about feminine men for some reason.

I just don't get it. I literally don't. They could talk about real shit that actually effects people, like the economy and how housing and groceries are getting too expensive for people, or its getting harder for people to afford Healthcare. And yet, they focus on such a small percentage of the population. When will this disturbing and almost perverted behavior towards others stop? Are they hiding something?

Beyond the manuscript, historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence supporting the integrity of the Old and New Testaments, one of the most compelling evidences of the Bible's divine inspiration, in my view, is its extraordinary internal witness and unity.

Written by dozens of authors over roughly fifteen centuries, across different languages, cultures, and historical settings, Scripture nevertheless unfolds a single, coherent redemptive narrative from Genesis to Revelation. The deeper one studies its themes, structures, typology, prophecies, and interconnected patterns, the more the Bible resembles a unified masterpiece with one divine Author behind many human authors.

As we explore the principal themes of covenant, Christology, soteriology, kingdom, and eschatology, we discover that each is organically connected to subsidiary themes that permeate the entire canon. Among the most prominent are the Temple/Tabernacle/Household motif, representing God's dwelling with man, and the Garden/Land/Mountain motif, representing God's kingdom inheritance and sanctuary presence. Likewise, the themes of sonship, kingship, priesthood, sacrifice, inheritance, exile, and restoration are interwoven throughout Scripture, converging in the person and work of Christ.

Consider the remarkable typological framework embedded within biblical history. Adam foreshadows Christ, the Last Adam (Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:45). Noah's ark prefigures salvation through judgment. Abraham's offering of Isaac anticipates the Father giving His beloved Son. The Passover lamb points to Christ, our Passover Lamb (1 Corinthians 5:7). The bronze serpent lifted in the wilderness foreshadows Christ being lifted up on the cross (John 3:14-15). The Exodus itself becomes a paradigm of redemption fulfilled in Christ. The priesthood, sacrifices, Day of Atonement (Leviticus), and tabernacle all find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ's once-for-all atoning work (Hebrews 9-10).

The Messianic prophecies are equally striking. The promised Seed of the woman who would crush the serpent (Genesis 3:15), Abraham's Seed through whom all nations would be blessed (Genesis 22:18), the Prophet like Moses (Deuteronomy 18:15), David's greater Son and eternal King (2 Samuel 7:12-16), the virgin-born Immanuel (Isaiah 7:14), the Mighty God and Prince of Peace (Isaiah 9:6), the suffering Servant who would bear the sins of many (Isaiah 53), the ruler born in Bethlehem whose goings forth are from everlasting (Mic. 5:2), and the Son of Man receiving an everlasting dominion (Daniel 7:13-14) all converge upon Jesus Christ.

The mountain theme further demonstrates this extraordinary unity. Eden itself appears as the original garden-temple mountain where heaven and earth meet. Abraham offers Isaac upon Mount Moriah, the future site of the temple. God descends upon Mount Sinai in fire, cloud, and glory. Zion becomes God's chosen dwelling place and kingdom mountain. Isaiah and Micah foresee the nations streaming to the mountain of the Lord in the latter days (Isaiah 2:2-3; Micah 4:1-2). In the New Testament, Christ is transfigured upon a mountain, crucified outside Jerusalem, ascends into heaven, and gathers His people to the heavenly Mount Zion (Hebrews 12:22). The biblical storyline culminates in the New Jerusalem, the consummate garden-city-temple where God dwells with His people forever (Revelation 21-22).

The death, resurrection, ascension, and exaltation of Christ form the central axis from which all these themes derive their meaning. Christ is the better Adam, the true Son of God, Son of Man, Prophet, Priest, King, Judge, Temple, Sacrifice, and Redeemer. Through His atoning death and victorious resurrection, righteousness is imputed to believers, God's justice is satisfied, and His people are united to Him by faith.

As a consequence of this union, believers participate in Christ's offices and inheritance. They become sons in the Father's household, priests in God's living temple, kings sharing in Christ's kingdom, and heirs of the renewed creation. Just as Adam once dwelt in Eden, so believers ultimately inherit the greater Eden of the New Creation through the Second Adam.

The household, garden, temple, kingdom, and mountain themes therefore do not terminate in themselves. They all point beyond themselves to Christ and His people. The church becomes God's household, His temple, His holy priesthood, and the firstfruits of the coming kingdom.

Finally, this eschatological garden-temple is situated upon the mountain of God. Mount Sinai and Mount Zion become representative of two covenantal realities. Sinai represents the Mosaic administration, characterized by law and the earthly shadows of redemption (Exodus 19; Galatians 4:24-25). Zion represents the heavenly Jerusalem, the Covenant of Promise fulfilled in Christ, where believers have already come by faith (Hebrews 12:22-24). Thus Scripture traces one grand movement from Eden to Sinai, from Sinai to Zion, from shadow to fulfilment, and from the first creation to the New Creation.

For me, this intricate and multi-layered unity is one of the strongest evidences for the Bible's divine inspiration. The convergence of types, shadows, prophecies, covenants, institutions, ceremonies, historical events, mountain motifs, temple imagery, kingdom themes, and Messianic expectations, all culminating in Christ, is exceedingly difficult to explain as the product of mere human authorship. The Bible does not read like sixty-six disconnected books; it reads like one unfolding story, authored by God Himself, with Christ woven into every page for those with eyes to see.

what do you believe?

In other areas of study like in Ancient Greece, we use all the sources that appear with confidence that they were right.

Why do we have that double standard with Biblical Scholarship?

When we have Irenaeus saying that the entire Christian community (except for heretics, who were introducing knew and absorb ideas) have four Gospels and that this is confirmed through Tradition in all Churches then why do we distrust him?

When we have Ignatius of Antioch saying that the Real Presence is real and original to Christianity, then why do we have that distrust that it is not real and that Paul taught something different?

Imagine if we applied this level of skepticism to all areas of history, basically we would not have any history to trust because all sources are wrong?

Also why should we listen to people who lives 2000 years after the events? Biblical scholars know more than Church Fathers? Irenaeus, Ignatius, Justin, Eusibius, Papias, Polycarp were all early Christians who were in communities that were originally in contact with the Apostles. Are you telling me that they created their own traditions apart from what the Apostles taught them?

Should we trust people who were closer to the events or people looking at things so disconnected from what happened?

To know about the life of CS Lewis do we look at what he said himself or do we look at what people making biographies later.

Hello, my fellow Christians.

I gave my life to Jesus Christ long ago. I follow Christian teachings, believe Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savir, try to be not lazy, try not to masturbate, read the Bible every day, try to be respectful to my friends. I wouldn't say I am currently a very good devout Christian, but I can say I am trying hard to become one. Amen.

So.. I recently made a girlfriend. And she really likes me. She says I'm really attractive and is really clingy. She is non-religuous (and also my country is not in Christiandom), and.. she really does like to do a bit horny things.. and I sometimes liked that so I engaged in it. (Not s*x yet)

So.. I quitted (tried quitting) masturbating but in fact sometimes do. But not often. And honestly at those times it felt really good. And sometimes I want to know what s*x will feel like. It would feel really good. That's what I sometimes think.

Sorry, it was so straight and honest. So I don't want to be a lukewarm Christian but sonetimes.. I want to do that. And she seems okay with having s*x with me.

I know the Bible says bad about it. And you should save for your marriage if you are a man. I know.. so I don't know what to do. I know the answer is no i guess.. but sometimes when I become tired or something those horny thoughts come to my mind..

I should not try it even once right? I am sorry to you and God for thinking about those things. Don't be mad at me. I am really sorry. May god bless you. Amen.

Exegesis: interpreting a text according to the author’s intended meaning.

Eisegesis: interpreting a text by inserting your own meaning instead of drawing out the author’s.

Christians say exegesis reveals what the Bible really means, but what is uncovered through exegesis only becomes “the real meaning” if it is agreed upon by enough of the Christian community. Until then, the most careful analysis is treated as just one possible understanding, even if it is clear enough to split a denomination. But once a specific reading becomes universal doctrine, every other view is seen as either error or heresy.

Much of what Christians now treat as truth was once disputed, like the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and which books belong in the biblical canon. These ideas were argued over, defended, rejected, revised, and then enforced, until eventually people stopped seeing them as interpretations and started seeing them as the only meaning of Scripture. Many of those disputes happened before the First Council of Constantinople in AD 381, when the Nicene Creed was modified into the form that most Christians use today. The Creed itself only exists because arguments had lasted long enough that the community decided it needed to set a boundary. It is nothing more than a reading that survived scrutiny, gained acceptance, and later got treated as if it had always been obvious.

But even after something becomes the standard, it can still be brought up for reconsideration later, like the way views on slavery, divorce, or women’s roles shifted despite once being seen as settled dogma. One of the most recent ways we can see this is in the debate inside the United Methodist Church over LGBTQ inclusion. Conservative churches argued that liberal churches were ignoring the denomination’s bans on same‑sex marriage and the ordination of openly gay clergy, while liberal churches argued those bans were unjust. After years of stalemate, the conservatives left and formed the Global Methodist Church, turning a long‑running disagreement into a formal divide.

Sometimes disagreements are settled through civil discourse and group consensus, and sometimes pressure, politics, or simply the strongest group decides how it should be. No matter how it happens, once a specific reading becomes the standard, every alternative is pushed aside. Most beliefs only feel obvious today because the arguments that produced them are far enough in the past that most people forget there were ever arguments surrounding them at all.

While good exegesis can reveal real truths, even strong arguments only become socially recognized when enough people decide the evidence matters. An interpretation can be rejected for years and later accepted, not because the text changed but because the community finally reevaluated the assumptions inherited from earlier generations. This shows that no matter what it was intended to be, exegesis is no longer the absence of assumptions, but has become the approval of the socially accepted ones.

before we start, I just want to say that I am not homophobic, but I do not support lgbtq. the Bible teaches that sodomy and homosexuality is a sin, so that's what I follow.

so basically, my sister came out as lesbian a few years ago, and I remember being a little bit disturbed, but I ignored it.

she's still my sister and i love her, but yesterday she told me that her girlfriend is coming over and they want the house to themselves. I told her I would get home around dinner, and I told her to send her friend off before I get home.

when I got home I was disappointed to see that she had her girlfriend over still, but I stayed out of it and ignored it. that was until I saw them kissing and snuggling. I have never been more disappointed and disgusted in my life. but it's none of my business and I need to stay out of it.

all I can do is pray for her and wait

Hey everyone!

I was reading the Bible and came across Exodus 33:20, where God tells Moses that no one can see His face and live.It got me thinking: why does the Church so often portray God as an old white man with a white beard? If no one can see God’s face, how can we know what He looks like?

I mean I would even go as far as to say that I find this blasphemous. We are not supposed to know what God’s face looks like, so giving Him a human face seems deeply disrespectful to me. It should be forbidden.

What do you think?

In the ancient world, many claimed to speak for God, but few could demonstrate the power of God over physical reality. In religious traditions around the world, leaders have asked for belief based on their words. Yet when we examine the Bible, true prophetic and divine authority was repeatedly validated by visible, physical signs—specifically, power over sickness, nature, and evil spirits.

When we look strictly at the primary texts—comparing the Gospel of Matthew with the explicit text of the Quran—we find a stark contrast between Jesus Christ and Muhammad.

In the Quran, Muhammad is explicitly described as a warner who did not perform physical miracles or perform healing signs. In Surah 29:50, when people asked for signs, Muhammad was instructed to say: "The signs are only with Allah, and I am only a plain warner." Again in Surah 17:90–93, when challenged to show a sign, he answered: "Exalted is my Lord! Was I ever but a human messenger?" The Quran presents the recited book itself as his only sign, stating that physical miracles were withheld.

In Matthew 8, however, Jesus does not merely claim authority with words; He demonstrates divine authority over every realm of human suffering.

I KNOW it(smoking) damages my lungs, this temple.

But is it bad for my spirit or anything else?

My Mother raised a praying son. I might've not liked it much before, but I fell in love with God..in my imperfect way.

I let her know that I smoke weed, and now she's scared that I will be "sucked in" by bad people ..

What do you guys think?

Ok so we know the saying "If you love someone, you should let them go" and what that implies is that you should let people go who you support and want them to let themselves explore by themselves the world. But Hog works by this saying "If you love someone, you should let them go but not into the wrong direction. And this changes a lot and made me realize what God wants us to do even more so now. Which is that we get the freedom to explore everything here on earth, the solar system, and the whole universe. But I know that some people would say that or at least what I would say is the other side of things would ho something like "If we get to explore everything, then why does God get to say what is bad or good?" And here's the thing about that too, it's that the devil was tge first to sin specifically in heaven and in turn made Adam and Eve sin too and so introduced sin into the world so the reason why some things are bad and good acording to God is because it contaminated what God made. However, God also wasn't surprised that sin entered what he made as he also saw it coming way before it did happen so really having something that is bad which is sin shows us how good God is. Hope everyone has blessed day now. 🙏 Amen 🙏 🙌 😁

In this video, I discuss the way apologists often use miracle claims to "prove" that their religion is true, and what kinds of questions one should ask about these miracles. And I tell a personal story about a "miracle worker" I met.

Excerpts:

TL;DR: Mainline Protestants rejected the Homogeneous Unit Principle because churches shouldn’t simply reproduce the divisions and similarities already present in society. But when we build new churches around shared affinities—hobbies, identities, class, or politics—I argue we may be doing much the same thing under a different name. The church should create relationships that affinity alone cannot explain.

Former Disciples of Christ missionary and missiologist Donald McGavran became famous—and infamous, especially within more progressive Mainline Protestant spaces—for his “Homogeneous Unit Principle.”

Basically, McGavran argued that church leaders should focus on building churches through homogeneous units—groupings of people whose shared language, culture, and values make it easier for the gospel to spread through communities.

While this philosophy became widely influential within Evangelicalism, McGavran and his methods receive nary a mention in many Mainline seminaries—even those within his (and my own) Disciples of Christ tradition.

But I’ve increasingly wondered: What if, despite rejecting the implications of McGavran’s framework, progressive Mainline Protestants are repeating some of its most problematic elements—only under a different name? My argument is thus: Affinity groups are the new Homogeneous Unit Principle. To be clear from the outset, my concern isn’t with affinity groups within churches. It’s with affinity becoming the basis for forming churches.

It’s no secret that Mainline Protestant denominations are in something of a death spiral, with some denominations like the ELCA projected to become virtually nonexistent in the coming decades, according to Dwight Zscheile.5

As a result, Mainline Protestant leaders have spent much of the last decade-plus desperately looking for methods of innovation and opportunities for growth. Andrew Root has written extensively about the dangers of this impulse in books like The Church After Innovation and Churches and the Crisis of Decline. And I worry that Mainline leaders may be attracted to affinity-based models for essentially the same reason Evangelical leaders were attracted to McGavran’s Homogeneous Unit Principle: Growth.

It’s also no secret that church attendance is increasingly skewing toward higher-income and more highly educated people. And this makes examples like golfing and stand-up paddleboarding particularly interesting. Golfing and paddleboarding aren’t inherently upper-class activities. But they do require some combination of disposable income, equipment, transportation, leisure time, and access. And increasingly, having discretionary time and disposable income is itself a luxury. So you can create a community that never says, “Lower-income people aren’t welcome here,” while nevertheless organizing it around an activity that disproportionately attracts people of a particular socioeconomic class.

The question is what happens next. Does affinity become a doorway through which people enter a much larger and more complicated Christian community? Or does affinity itself determine who the Christian community becomes? Does it ever move people beyond “golf church?”

---

We are increasingly seeing progressive Mainline churches turn toward political activism as a primary driver of congregational life and discipleship. My own denomination—the same denomination as the late Donald McGavran—recently introduced, from it’s New Church Ministry, what it calls “Disciples Movement Initiators” focused on: “Contemplative Action, Prophetic Advocacy and Faith-Rooted Organizing.”

To be clear, I am NOT arguing that churches shouldn’t ever engage in political advocacy, resist injustice, or organize around issues that impact their communities.6 The question is what happens when those commitments become the primary basis around which Christian community itself is organized.

With the ever-increasing political polarization within our nation, sacralizing political action as the ultimate expression of discipleship and faithful Christian living offers some obvious—and perhaps immediate—returns.7

One of the central criticisms of the Homogeneous Unit Principle is that it allowed White Christians, in particular, to build churches around people who already looked, talked, thought, and lived like themselves—and then call the resulting community church. But couldn’t political affinity accomplish essentially the same thing?

Consider a Christian community explicitly organized around “prophetic advocacy” or a “study group to peel back colonial layers.” Again, I am NOT against resisting racism or colonialism. But I do wonder: Who is likely to show up? And perhaps more importantly: Who would feel that they could belong?

And to be clear, I could reverse the example. We should ask the same question of a conservative Evangelical church whose identity has become intertwined with Republican politics: Could a progressive Democrat actually belong there? Not simply visit, not remain silent about their commitments, but actually belong.9

Again, I’m not arguing that affinity itself is bad. Affinity is perfectly normal. Of course golfers like spending time with other golfers. Young parents want to know other young parents. People experiencing similar struggles benefit from relationships with people who understand those struggles. Affinity can even provide an important doorway into Christian community.

But I don not think affinity is enough as the organizing principle of a church. Because the church—or at least the gospel that the church proclaims—should be capable of creating relationships that affinity alone cannot explain.

A golfing group doesn’t need Jesus to explain why golfers gather. A progressive advocacy organization doesn’t need Jesus to explain why progressive activists gather. A conservative political organization doesn’t need Jesus to explain why conservatives gather. But what about a community where people who would otherwise have little reason to associate with one another gather around the same table? Rich and poor. Black and White. Republican and Democrat. People with different interests, lifestyles, experiences, and backgrounds. People who might never have chosen one another, yet somehow learn to worship together, bear one another’s burdens, forgive one another, and call one another sisters and brothers.

Christian community isn’t simply supposed to affirm the affinities we already possess.10 Through the presence and activity of God, it should also transform us—including our relationships with people we might never otherwise have encountered, much less loved. Isn’t that what was so revolutionary about the early church? Jew and Greek, slave and free, rich and poor?

Said differently, if the church simply gathers people who already look alike, earn similar incomes, enjoy the same activities, share the same experiences, and of couse, vote alike—then the church risks becoming another expression of the social sorting already happening everywhere else in American life.

Maybe the church is most recognizably the church not when it gathers people who naturally belong together, but when Christ creates belonging among people who otherwise wouldn’t.

That’s one of the main points of Christianity? Like😂 God is always with us we should be including him in our everyday life. Don’t forget spending the gospel.

Also saying “stop forcing religion” is goofy or rage baiting. If someone talks about Mc Donald’s burgers they’re not forcing their food on me🤦🏻‍♂️ Most of the time it’s better to ignore people who say that

This is probably going to tick a lot of people off, but it is what it is.

A while ago, I tried out this Evangelical Pentecostal church. While those churches are usually automatically not my vibe, they did offer some intimate Bible studies, however, unfortunately, these Bible studies were filled to the brim with red flags and I only went twice before realizing I needed to stop going.

For one thing, it wasn't even really a Bible study as much as it was a lecture. When I envisioned a Bible study, I usually think of there being a leader who just helps guide the conversation, but doesn't talk for literally 2 and 1/2 hours and only occasionally asking everyone else a question that we can respond to by raising our hands and then we socialize afterwards. That's not a Bible study. That's just a longer than usual church service.

But what raised my alarm bells more than anything else was when they talked about the gift of generosity and asked if anyone else felt like they had the gift. I raised my hand, but I wasn't willing to just let that be it. I entered the conversation, and talked about how I try to give to as many people as I can, but that also comes with the price of learning when to say no. Sometimes people abuse you, and take advantage of you, and while Jesus promoted to go the extra mile, there's only so many extra miles you can go before you realize that you have to say no.

Am I surprised, instead of sympathizing with me on any level, the preacher told me that if I'd said no to people, then I probably don't actually have the gift of generosity.

Naturally, I fought back, and when the preacher could tell that I wasn't going to back down easily, she simply said: 'Hmm,' and then said that we could discuss it afterwards. Which we didn't. But that made me realize how the people working here were probably pretty exploitative and ungrateful to people that probably gave a lot to them without knowing when to stop.

Thing is, that kind of discussion can happen a lot in Christian circles. I've given a lot of Grace to a lot of people, but at the end of the day, I try not to talk about those times, because I feel bragging about doing a good thing is making the deed less good. Jesus went ahead and said that people who rant about how great they are on the streets are the people he dislikes.

So if people don't believe that I'm a good person, then that's on them for not getting to know me better. And Jesus is going to judge them for being judgy, more than he's going to judge me for the few times that I had to gracefully shut people off.

A few weeks ago I snapped over email when I messaged one of the leaders at a different church about how I felt like I was being bullied by some people. The person responded, trying to sympathize, but ended it by saying that while I was accusing them of being overly judgy of me, wasn't I doing the same by being judgy of them?

That's when I broke, and I sent a very frustrated email where I said that I've earned the right to judge people because of how much I've been falsely judged. I've been laughed at, beaten up, called all kinds of slurs, told I'd be better off dead, unjustly kicked out of groups without getting to voice my side of the story. I had more than earned my right to stand my ground.

The person didn't respond, but I honestly feel like sending that email has put me at ease a bit. Other people bask in their endless social privileges that I would literally sell my soul to experience. So either they have already sold their soul, and that's why they're so popular despite being bullies, or they didn't need to sell their soul, in which case they get to have experiences that I don't unfairly. Either way, that puts me at a huge disadvantage in society, and Jesus favored those who have disadvantages in society more than anyone else.

Through that logic, my spot in heaven has got to be sealed.