믿음 해체하기: 믿음에 도전하는 성경 구절

### 신앙의 해체: 나의 여정을 촉발시킨 다섯 가지 성경 구절
* 👋 안녕하세요, 저는 **13년 넘게 침례교회에서 자란 신앙을 해체**하고 전통적인 신앙의 제약을 넘어 나만의 진리를 찾기 위해 노력해 온 크리스티입니다.
* 📖 오늘은 저의 이해에 깊은 도전을 주었고 궁극적으로 믿음을 잃게 만든 **다섯 가지 성경 구절**에 대해 이야기하면서, 성경의 불미스러운 측면을 강조하고자 합니다.
* ⚖ 로마서 9장의 첫 구절은 제가 믿어온 사랑의 하나님과 모순되는, **오로지 사람들을 정죄하기 위해 창조하셨다는 것을 암시**하기 때문에 하나님의 본질에 의문을 품게 했습니다.
* 👶 시편 137편 9절은 **유아에 대한 폭력에 대한 기쁨의 이미지**를 제시하며, 그러한 감정을 정죄하지 않고 고무하는 하나님에 대한 도덕적 우려를 제기합니다.
* 💔 신명기 22장 28~29절에서 남자가 아버지에게 돈을 주고 가해자와 결혼하라는 명령은 **신성한 율법으로는 용납할 수 없는 도덕적 허점**을 보여줍니다.
* ⚔ 신명기 20장 10~18절에는 **평화로운 도시를 노예로 삼거나 주민을 죽이라는 하나님의 명령**이 나오는데, 저는 자비로운 신이라는 개념과 화해할 수 없습니다.
* ❤ 마지막으로, 하나님의 사랑의 증거로 자주 인용되는 **요한복음 3장 16절**은 개인의 행동이나 의도를 무시하는 믿음 기반 구원 체계의 공정성에 대한 의문을 제기합니다.
* 🤔 이 구절을 통해 이러한 가르침의 도덕적 함의를 생각해보고, 이러한 가르침이 종종 **하나님께 귀속되는 은혜와 사랑의 가치**와 어떻게 일치하는지 생각해 보시기 바랍니다.

크리스티는 성경의 도덕적 진실성에 도전하며 성경의 하나님에 대한 묘사에 의문을 제기하고 다른 사람들이 자신의 믿음을 탐구하도록 격려합니다.

hi guys, welcome back to my channel, where we deconstruct all of the things we were taught not to question growing up in the Evangelical, fundamentalist, or Conservative Christian churches. My name is Christy, and I grew up in the Baptist Church. I was a Christian until my early 20s when I deconstructed everything I knew about my faith and about my reality, and I set off on a journey to find truth. It has now been 13 plus years later. I have not found the ultimate truth, but I think that that's the point. I think the point is to get to a point where you become comfortable just saying, I don't know. I don't know what's beyond this. I don't know who God is. I don't know what my purpose here is on Earth. I'm just, I'm going to live, and I'm going to enjoy it, and um, I'm not going to hold myself accountable to all of these rules and obligations that were put upon me by other people. My goal here is to help and encourage you to find

your own path and to help you deconstruct conu and sort through these things that again we weren't allowed to question when we were growing up in the church. So today I want to talk about five Bible verses that sparked my deconstruction and caused me to inevitably lose my faith. There are a lot of unsavory things in the Bible, but these specifically are verses that I felt I could not justify. I could not find a good reason that they would be in the Bible, that they would be a part of God's Divine inspired word, and it just made me realize that this is a man-made book written and used as a tool of oppression. If you do like what I do here and you want to support me, you can do that by watching the video all the way through, by liking it when it's done, and then also leaving a positive comment. If you are not already subscribed, you should be, and you should be ringing the notification bell because if you don't ring the bell, then you won't be notified.

when I post new content, don't forget about my merch shop, Jezebel vibes.com shop, where I take hate comments that I've received and reclaim them on clothing. If you want to be shirt twins, if you want to support me, if you just want to wear something that's a little irreverent and expresses your attitude toward traditional Christian values, just go to Jezebel vibes.com shop or visit the link in the [Music] description. So, the first passage I want to talk about is from Romans 9, which was the starting point of my deconstruction Journey. Up until the point that I read and studied and chewed on the words in r 9, I believed in a God who created all people, gave them Free Will, and that he wanted all people to be saved, but he couldn't violate their free will to save them, and that it was the most loving thing he could do to give people freedom. And within that freedom, they could either choose him and go to heaven, or they could reject him and go to hell, and

that would be entirely their choice. I was an evangelist, so I believed in going out into my communities, spreading the word, trying to win as many Souls as possible, because I looked around, and there were people going to hell, and I didn't want that to happen. But when I was 17 years old, I was introduced to the concept of Calvinism. And when I was introduced to this, I said, No way. There is no way that God created people just to go to hell. And then I read Romans 9, starting in verse 16: It does not therefore depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For scripture says to Pharaoh, 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the Earth.' Therefore, God has Mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me then, 'Why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will? But who are you

a human being to talk back to God shall what is formed say to the one who formed it. Why did you make me like this? Does not the Potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some Pottery for special purposes and some for common use? What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath prepared for Destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his Mercy, whom he prepared in advance for his glory? Even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles. It says at and starting in verse 16, It does not therefore depend on human desire or effort but on God's mercy, meaning there is nothing about you that can come to God and choose. God has to choose you. It says in verse 18, Therefore God has Mercy on whom he wants to have mercy and he hardens whom he wants to harden. When Christians talk about you have a

hardened heart against God. The Bible says that God's the one that hardened it, and then it even goes on to ask, Well, then why does God still blame us? You know, if he created this way, how come he blames us? And Paul is saying, Who are you to question God? How can the clay question the Potter and ask, 'Why have you made me like this?' It says, What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath prepared for Destruction? If he has decided he wants to create you just to destroy you, then he's going to do that, and that's his right. You don't get to question that. And realizing this, this changed everything about my perspective of God. Realizing this made me see a God who did not desire people to be saved, but instead creates people as puppets, does what he wants with them, and then tells them, You're not allowed to question it. That is just in direct contradiction to any kind of a loving, kind um father God that I was taught.

growing up in the church, I was fed one version of God, who was a loving father, but I'm learning about this completely different god, um, who intentionally creates people to go to hell. That right there really shattered my perception of God. It really caused me to start this journey of questioning what I believed and why I believed it. The second passage that really caused me to question the Bible was Psalm 137:9, and you've probably heard it. It's a popular one that is used within the deconstruction Community to really talk about these atrocities in the Bible, and it says this: Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. Now, it is really important to understand the context of this verse. This is what's known as an imprecatory prayer, um, it is praying evil against your enemies. It is lamentation. It is an expression of grief. Basically, what this psalmist is writing is about how they were treated so badly by their enemies, and so they want to repay them for what

they've done, and this is often justified by Christians in this way: you know, well, they were just expressing themselves. They weren't actually bashing babies into rocks. They just, you know, wanted justice. They wanted revenge. But my problem with that is that this is supposed to be the inspired word of God. God is supposed to be inspiring every word of this book, and God never condemned them for praying this prayer. He never said, Hey, don't think that way. Don't be so vengeful. Don't be so angry. Don't wish for the harm of innocent babies. No, this is perfectly fine in God's eyes, and this is perfectly fine in the eyes of Christians today who defend it and justify it. But Jesus came, and he said, Turn the other cheek. Love those who hate you. Do good to your enemies. That is in complete contradiction with this verse, and these are God's people that are praying it, and God isn't condemning it. And I just have a very difficult time finding moral value in a book where the

the people of God, the people that are supposed to represent God in the book, are rejoicing over the thought of harming innocent babies. That doesn't make any sense to me, especially when you consider this is also the pro-life crowd, and I would imagine that Christians today don't feel that it is an appropriate thing to find joy in the thought of harming babies. So, I find it really interesting that because of the context or the time or just because it's in the Bible, it is justifiable, and I just don't find that to be justifiable. The third passage that really just struck me, big red flags popped up when I read it, was in Deuteronomy 22, starting in verse 28. If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and he assaults her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father 50 shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as she lives. Now, when I read

this in the earliest stages of my deconstruction journey. I was very confused, and I thought there has to be an explanation for this. There's no way that God commanded women to marry men who assaulted them if they just paid their father. Like, there's no way the Bible says this. I need to figure this out. I contacted my old pastor, and I asked if I could discuss something with him because I had some questions. So, we set up a night to have dinner. I went over to his house. I pointed out this verse, and I said, What does this mean? Like, how can you justify this? And he said, Yeah, you know, this is what it says. It's true at that time in the culture. You know, if a man did that to a woman, she would be considered unclean and not eligible to be married, and that would ruin her life. And so, the best thing they could do is have him pay money to her father and buy her, and then he'd have to marry her, and he'd have to

take care of her for the rest of her life. He would be obligated to do that. That is his punishment. And some people who are indoctrinated, who are taught not to question it, will just go, Oh, okay, that makes sense. But not me. I couldn't. I could not make sense of that. Um, it'd be one thing if these were just rules that men made up, that God did not approve of, but this is a direct law of God in the Bible. This kind of loophole for men to find a wife if they just assaulted her, and then they could marry her if they just, you know, paid her father some money. And supposedly that was a lot of money back then, so that was a very big punishment. But really, that, that's how we, that's how we punish the man. I don't know any woman that would ever want to spend her life being married to and having to submit to the man that assaulted her. And I've had people ask me, What do you recommend? What's the solution? I mean, she would

have been an outcast. She would have been unclean. She wouldn't have been eligible for marriage. And so, what are they supposed to do? They were trying to protect her. I don't know, maybe God could have commanded the community to come together and take care of that woman. Maybe God could have commanded the men to marry women even if they aren't virgins, to not worry about if a woman was a virgin when he married her. That would solve the problem right there. I just came up with a better solution than God could, a more moral solution. An all-powerful deity couldn't come up with a better solution than a woman must marry the man who assaults her. That doesn't add up for me. It doesn't sit right with my sensibilities. And so, when I got that answer from him, it was not satisfactory. The justification, the apologetic response for this verse is just not satisfactory for me to find good moral value in it. The fourth passage that I had a really difficult time with that I still cannot find a good justification for.

is in Deuteronomy 20:10-18. When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to the city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock, and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves, and you may use the plunder your Lord, the Lord your God, gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. So God is commanding his people to go around to all the neighboring cities to offer them peace, to say, Hey, you know, we're giving you a peace offering. Would you like to make peace with us? And if that city agrees to being peaceful with

you you are to capture them and enslave them. You are to force them to work for you, to be your slaves. So, so right here, right on in the very beginning, it it's it's saying to harm people that are peaceful with you, to force them to work for you, to enslave them. This is God specifically endorsing and commanding you to enslave other people, even if they're peaceful. Then it says, if they are not peaceful, then you are to just kill them all, kill every single one of them, and then take the women and children as plunder and do whatever with the plunder that you want to do. Those are The Spoils of your War. What do you think that means? Like, what do you think it was intended when they said take the women and children and do whatever you want with them? And then in verse 15, it says, this is how you were to treat all cities that are at a distance from you and don't belong to the Nations nearby. This is xenophobia. This is genocide. This is God

endorsing slavery all right here in this just this small little passage. There is no justification for that. There's no reason that an all-powerful, fully benevolent God would command His people to do this to other people. And I can appreciate this as a book that is a commentary on the struggles of people at that time, written by men, but I cannot accept this as some kind of divinely inspired word of God meant to provide a moral code for all people on Earth. The last verse that I want to bring up that I think was very, very crucial in my deconstruction was probably the most famous verse in the Bible, and that's John 3:16. For God so loved the world that He gave up His only Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but will have everlasting life. And most people point to this and they say, How could you find fault in that? How could you have a problem with that? Look at the love. All you have to do is believe. Do

you see how easy that is, but let's break it down just a little bit. Let's deconstruct John 3:16. For God so loved the world. So, first of all, considering the other verses we've talked about, I don't think that's accurate. I don't think God so loved the world. I don't think God loved all of those surrounding cities of the nation of Israel that he was commanding Israel to go and kill or enslave. I don't think God loved all of the women and children that God was commanding them to take as plunder and do with whatever they wanted. I don't think he was loving the women that he was forcing into marriage with men that assaulted them. I'm not seeing the love God has for the world in that. So, right off the bat, I feel like we're lying here. Okay, God so loved the world. Okay, that he gave up his only son. Now, this is loaded because it's his son, but it's also him, depending upon what you believe or which denomination

you're a part of, or even which time frame you came out of, because in the very earliest days, people did not believe that Jesus was God. They believed Jesus was God's son, um, perhaps adopted into the kingdom by God, or he was given some kind of a Divine status at Birth, um, but it actually took a very long time for Christians to actually believe that Jesus was God himself. That was doctrine that evolved and was created later on, but modern Christians believe that Jesus was God. Jesus Is God. And so, when it says he gave up his only son, well, he's God. It's not his son, it's him. He gave up himself. Okay, so he gave up himself, but why did he have to do that? What was the point? In my last video, the manipulation of the crucifixion, um, we talked about that, about how he never had to do that. He was never obligated to die or to put on this big death display in order to guilt Humanity into believing in him or following him or whatever. That was never a requirement of

him. He chose that he made the rules. He decided that blood needed to be shed in order for humanity to be forgiven. He couldn't have just decided to forgive them. That would be silly, right? So, his choice to give up his life. I mean, that was entirely his choice, and it was unnecessary. It was only made necessary because he decided it was necessary. So, it's really not that much of a gift. It's not that much of a display of love when it was never necessary to begin with. But that's not even the worst part. The worst part to me is the end of the verse where it says, whosoever believes shall have eternal life and not perish. Whosoever believes. So, right here, the Bible is telling us the measure for determining whether someone deserves to be punished forever or they deserve to be rewarded forever. It is belief. It's just belief. It's what you believe. How is that fair? How is that a just system? That it has nothing to do with how good of a

person you are. It has nothing to do with your intentions. It's just about what you believe. And people believe all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. People that are raised in other cultures, under other religions, they believe in their religion because that's how they were raised, just like many Christians today are Christians because they were raised in a Christian culture, in the Christian church, by Christian parents. They don't question it. They don't leave it because, well, that's how they were raised. That's their culture. People all over the world are raised in different cultures with different religions, and that's why they believe what they believe. Not only that, but people also believe because they have their own personal experiences. They have their own holy texts, their own evidence for God that doesn't look anything like the Christian God. But because they don't believe in the Christian God, they deserve to perish. They don't get to have eternal life. They don't get to be rewarded, no matter how good of a person they are, no matter how good their intentions are. They don't

believe so they perish. You cannot choose what you believe. If you believe in God, if you're someone who believes in God and you're watching this right now, and you might disagree with everything I'm saying, you might be a Christian, and you might truly believe in your heart of hearts that this God exists and he saves and you're going to go to heaven one day. Can you for one minute stop believing that? Like, could you set a one-minute timer on your phone and just TR, like, be convinced, not just pretend, but like, be truly convinced in your heart of hearts that it's all fake, it's not real? Because if belief really is a choice, if you can just turn it on and off like a switch, if you can just choose to believe one day and choose not to believe the next day, then you could easily do that. If you're honest with yourself and honest with me, I think you would say no, because you believe, you believe without a doubt, you're convinced, and unless something comes

along to make you unconvinced. You're going to maintain that belief, and so knowing that, how is belief an appropriate measure for what someone deserves in the afterlife? I just don't think it adds up, and I don't think that a good guy, I don't think a smart God, would create the system where all you have to do to be eternally rewarded is just believe. Like, God is a fairy, like God will fall over and die if you don't believe. You know, there are a lot of Bible verses that I find to be very unsavory, but these were very specific verses that prompted me to really question what I believed, question the ideologies, um, and question the system as a whole. And I hope that by taking you through this, maybe I gave you an alternative perspective, something to think about, some questions to ask. Maybe you have justifications for these verses, maybe you find these to be um, you know, justifiable. I don't, but I think it's important to really consider what is being presented here and how it could be

compatible with grace, goodness, love, light, and all of the good traits that they describe God to be. Thank you so much for watching. Please like, comment, share, subscribe, ring the bell, do the whole thing if you want to continue to support my channel and what I do here. See you next time.

5 Bible Passages That Caused Me To Lose My Faith

Kristi Burke

침례교회에서 자란 크리스티가 자신의 신앙을 해체하고 복음주의와 보수주의 기독교 교회의 가르침에 의문을 품게 된 13년간의 여정을 공유합니다.

그녀는 자신의 신앙을 해체하고 사랑의 하나님에 대한 개념에 의문을 품게 만든 다섯 가지 성경 구절을 강조합니다.

크리스티는 다른 사람들이 자신의 길을 찾고 전통적인 종교적 가르침이 부과하는 규칙과 의무에 도전하도록 돕는 것을 목표로 합니다.

성경에서 하나님의 권위와 도덕적 딜레마에 의문을 제기하기

이 구절은 하나님을 다양한 목적에 따라 흙을 빚는 도공에 비유하여 하나님의 결정에 의문을 제기하는 아이디어를 탐구합니다.

이 구절은 하나님의 자비와 진노에 대한 문제를 제기하며, 하나님께서 의도적으로 어떤 사람들은 멸망하도록 창조하고 어떤 사람들은 자비를 베풀도록 선택하신다는 것을 암시합니다.

화자는 시편 137편 9절에 나오는 사랑의 하나님과 폭력적인 불의한 기도의 대조적인 이미지에 대해 고민하며, 그러한 해악을 위한 기도를 묵인하는 듯한 책의 도덕적 가치에 대해 의문을 제기합니다.

화자는 무고한 아기를 해친 것에 대해 하나님의 백성이 표현한 기쁨에 괴로워하며 그러한 감정의 정당성에 의문을 제기합니다.

그들은 남성이 자신이 폭행한 여성의 아버지에게 결혼하여 돈을 지불하라는 명령이 도덕적으로 문제가 있으며 하나님의 법과 조화를 이룰 수 없다고 생각합니다.

목사에게 해명을 구하려는 화자의 시도는 해당 구절에 대한 만족할 만한 정당성을 제공하지 못했고, 결국 성경에 제시된 도덕적 가치에 의문을 품게 되었습니다.

전쟁과 노예제에 관한 논란의 여지가 있는 성경 구절

신명기 20장 10~18절은 하나님의 백성에게 먼 도시에 평화를 제안하라고 명령하며, 이를 받아들이는 도시에는 강제 노동과 노예제도가 따르게 됩니다.

도시가 이를 거부하면 남자는 죽이고 여자와 아이는 약탈물로 잡아가야 합니다.

이 구절은 노예제, 외국인 혐오증, 대량 학살을 지지한다는 비판을 받으며 자비로운 신의 명령에 대한 도덕적 정당성에 의문을 제기합니다.

예수를 하나님으로 믿는 신앙의 진화

처음에 사람들은 예수를 신적 지위를 가진 하나님의 아들이라고 생각하며 예수를 신이라고 믿지 않았습니다.

예수를 신으로 믿는 현대 기독교의 믿음은 시간이 지남에 따라 진화했습니다.

인류의 용서를 위한 예수의 희생과 영생의 척도로서의 믿음에 대한 강조는 이 제도의 공정성과 정의에 대한 의문을 제기합니다.

신앙의 본질과 신의 체계에 대한 질문

연사는 믿음은 선택이라는 개념에 도전하며 시청자들에게 신에 대한 믿음을 진정으로 켜고 끌 수 있는지 생각해 보라고 요청합니다.

그들은 믿음만으로 영원한 보상이 결정되는 시스템의 논리에 의문을 제기하며, 그것이 선하고 현명한 신의 자질과 일치하지 않는다고 주장합니다.

연사는 특정 성경 구절에 대한 그들의 투쟁을 공유하고 시청자들이 자신의 믿음과 그들이 가진 이데올로기에 의문을 제기하도록 장려합니다.