#deconstructing

He so clearly hasn't actually recovered because he doesn't even seem to understand what's wrong with his actions in the first place. The way he talked made me think of how people who leave cults and never deconstruct do when they believe that all they had to do to be better was stop attacking people and hanging around cultists/skinheads/extremists when in reality you have to work on each belief you have and deconstruct it entirely.

Why does the idea that segregation has a lingering impact on black people feel like a personal attack against you? Why did you hear about how people in marginalized groups have been oppressed and immediately hear "all white people are evil"? Is it perhaps because you still hold onto the Nazi ideology you were so indoctrinated into? Have you considered that the class you took never actually taught that all white people were bad and that was your own skewed interpretation after leaving a cult and you went to the opposite extreme end as way to cope and distance yourself and you never got to actually understand the real discussion and thus have labeled human rights as a non-issue?

There's so many people who act like this. I'm an ex-cult member and I've been in cult recovery spaces- I know damn well the majority of people never properly deconstruct. I myself am still working through things. And I left over a decade ago with my family.

For many, the belief that the Bible has been perfectly and faithfully preserved across time is foundational. It offers a sense of certainty, stability, and divine protection over the text. But when we step outside of tradition and examine history, that claim begins to unravel. Not because the Bible has no value, but because its journey to us is far more human, complex, and edited than many have been taught.

The Bible is not one book. It is a collection of writings composed over more than a thousand years, by different authors, in different languages, and in different cultural contexts. These texts were not originally bound together. They existed independently, circulated, copied, translated, and interpreted within various communities long before they were ever gathered into what we now call the Bible.

That alone challenges the idea of a single, untouched, perfectly preserved document.

Another uncomfortable truth is that the Bible as we know it did not fall from Heaven fully formed. Human beings made decisions about which books would be included and which would be excluded.

In the early centuries of Christianity, there were many writings circulating, gospels, letters, apocalypses. Some communities read texts like the Gospel of Thomas or the Shepherd of Hermas alongside what we now consider Scripture. It was not until centuries later that church leaders began to formalize a canon, a process influenced by theology, politics, and power.

Councils and influential figures helped shape what was considered orthodox and what was rejected as heretical. Those decisions were not neutral. They reflected the beliefs and priorities of those in authority at the time.

If a text has been copied, edited, and expanded over centuries, it cannot honestly be described as unchanged.

What if faith does not require pretending the Bible dropped from Heaven untouched?

What if it is strong enough to hold complexity, history, and even contradiction?

Recognizing that the Bible has been edited, compiled, translated, and debated does not strip it of meaning. If anything, it reveals something more profound, that people across generations found these writings worth preserving, even in their imperfection.

The real question is not whether the Bible has changed.

It has.

The question is what we do with that truth.

Do we cling to certainty at the expense of honesty?

Or do we step into a more mature, nuanced faith, one that is not afraid of how the story actually unfolded?

Click the link to read all: