To be furious at local church carol service

[YogaGrinch]

With our new "fundamentalist " vicar who included genesis 3 16

And other misogynistic patriarchal quotes and suggestions throughout the service -

Listening to the King's college Cambridge service tonight was a completely different service although there too there were some dated patriarchal views shared?

And basically using opportunity of a full church to preach hellfire and brimstone snd call us all hypocrites and sinners rather than preaching love kindness beauty

Never heard anything like it

Was absolutely 💔

Brilliant explanation

What's lost by telling the vicar directly that you didn't appreciate his sermon and that it's your church and would appreciate if he took his crap and spouted it elsewhere

Most of the Christians of the type who announce their ‘saved-ness’ have generally turned out to be disturbing after I’ve gotten to know them for like a minute. Quite often in the field of hypocrisy - as in not practising what they preach - and definitely not as loving and forgiving as they paint themselves if you ask any questions.

“we don’t understand that our very nature rebels against God all day long. God hates all sin and we all sin all day. He hates even small sins. I can see why atheists and agnostics hate this, but this is the core principle of Christianity. In order to fix the problem, God came down to earth to absorb the punishment that humanity deserved and took it upon himself to restore that relationship with us, in spite of our sin.”

But if God created us, he must have created us with the capacity for rebellion and ‘sin’, so he would have been aware that satan could corrupt Adam and Eve? Why would he be angered by the disobedience of a being that had an inbuilt tendency to rebel, a tendency that he designed?

Also if he came to earth to “absorb the punishment” that we deserved, why are sin and the infliction of suffering still carrying on regardless?

Every answer seems to provoke new questions when I talk to people about religion, so I go around in circles! (I hope I don’t sound like I’m trying to pick holes in it all)

I understand why that reading can feel jarring, especially when heard in isolation and without explanation. It is a stark passage, and the Bible doesn’t soften the brokenness of the human story.

But I think what’s often missed is that Genesis 3 isn’t endorsing blame, misogyny, or harshness—it’s diagnosing what goes wrong when trust in God is fractured. Adam blaming Eve is not presented as virtuous; it’s part of the tragedy. In fact, God’s questions expose how sin immediately damages relationships—between humans and with God. The judgment isn’t arbitrary cruelty, but the honest unveiling of what life becomes when we step away from the source of life itself.

Christians have historically read these verses not as a model to imitate, but as the backdrop that makes the gospel necessary. The Bible is strikingly honest about human failure—including male failure—and that honesty runs right through to the cross, where God takes judgment upon himself rather than placing it on us.

As for relevance: the Old Testament is certainly rooted in its historical context, but it’s also the foundation of the Christian story Jesus himself embraced and taught from. Jesus doesn’t discard it; he fulfils it—often by challenging exactly the kind of hard-heartedness and misuse of power you’re rightly disturbed by (Matthew 19:8, Luke 4:18–19).

And I share your concern about religion being used to justify oppression. The Bible itself is fiercely critical of that. The God revealed in Christ consistently stands against the abuse of women, the silencing of the vulnerable, and the use of power to dominate. When those things happen “in the name of religion,” they are a betrayal of the biblical story, not its fruit.

I don’t expect everyone to respond warmly to every passage—but I do think these readings, when understood within the larger arc of Scripture, point not to a harsh God, but to a God who takes human brokenness seriously enough to redeem it rather than ignore it.

I hear the strength of what you’re saying, but Christianity has never asked people to accept comforting myths or culturally convenient ideas. From the beginning, it has made public, testable claims about God acting in real history—claims preserved carefully, not edited to suit the mood of the age (Luke 1:1–4; 1 Corinthians 15:3–8). The Bible itself invites scrutiny: “Come, let us reason together,” says the Lord (Isaiah 1:18).

Christians don’t believe the Old Testament endorses everything it records; it exposes human failure with uncomfortable honesty and points forward to Christ, who challenges power, elevates the vulnerable, and condemns religious hypocrisy. Jesus himself said, “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), even while insisting it must be read rightly, with love of God and neighbour at its heart (Matthew 22:37–40).

It’s also worth saying that hostility toward Christian belief is not new. Jesus warned that his followers would be mocked, dismissed, and spoken against for holding to his words (John 15:18–20; Matthew 5:11). Much of what’s said about Christianity today would rarely be said face-to-face—or about other faiths—without rightly being recognised as religious prejudice.

You don’t have to agree with Christian claims. But they are not naïve, nor casually invented, nor endlessly malleable. They are ancient, historically rooted, and have always provoked strong reactions—precisely because they refuse to simply mirror the culture around them.

I don’t think you’re “picking holes” at all—these are the kinds of questions the Bible itself invites, and faithful Christians have asked them for centuries.

On the first point: yes, God created humans with the capacity to rebel—but that isn’t the same as creating us for rebellion. Scripture presents humans as created good, in God’s image, with genuine freedom to love and trust him (Genesis 1:27, 31). Love that is real cannot be coerced; obedience that matters must be chosen. The possibility of disobedience is the cost of creating moral beings, not a flaw in God’s design.

God’s anger at sin isn’t the irritation of a designer surprised by a defect. It’s the settled, loving opposition of a holy God to everything that destroys what he made good. In the Bible, God’s wrath is never arbitrary—it is his just response to evil that harms his creation and ruptures relationship (Habakkuk 1:13; Romans 1:18). A God who was indifferent to sin would not be loving.

As for Satan: Scripture never suggests that God was unaware of the fall. But neither does it portray God as delighting in it. From the very moment of rebellion, God moves toward restoration, promising that evil will ultimately be defeated (Genesis 3:15). The story is not “God lost control,” but “God chose to redeem rather than abandon.”

On the second question—why suffering and sin still continue if Christ has “absorbed the punishment”—the Bible’s answer is that redemption has been accomplished, but not yet consummated. On the cross, Jesus decisively dealt with sin’s guilt and power (Romans 8:1–3; Colossians 2:13–15). But the full healing of the world awaits his return. Christians live in this “already but not yet” tension: forgiven and reconciled now (2 Corinthians 5:17–21), yet still longing for the day when sin, death, and suffering are finally removed (Revelation 21:3–5).

If God eliminated all sin immediately, he would have to eliminate all sinners. Instead, in patience and mercy, he allows time for repentance and renewal (2 Peter 3:9). That delay is not weakness—it is grace.

Christianity doesn’t claim to answer every question exhaustively, but it does claim that God has answered the deepest one: not by standing at a distance explaining suffering, but by entering it. The cross doesn’t make faith easy, but it does make it coherent. God is not detached from our rebellion or pain—he bears it himself.

And it’s true: every answer leads to another question. The Bible never pretends otherwise. Faith, in Scripture, is not the absence of questions, but trust formed in the midst of them (Job 42:1–6; John 6:68).

Yes- it’s from Genesis.

I can understand why you’d feel that way. Sadly, hypocrisy among Christians is very real—and the Bible condemns it just as strongly as you do. Jesus repeatedly warned against people who talk about faith but don’t live it (Matthew 7:21; Matthew 23).

Christians aren’t meant to be moral showpieces; we’re sinners who depend on grace daily, not people who’ve “arrived” (Luke 18:9–14). When Christians become harsh or defensive in the face of honest questions, they’re forgetting the very mercy they claim to have received.

Jesus said his followers would be known by their love, not by how loudly they announce themselves (John 13:34–35). When that love is missing, the failure lies with us—not with the gospel itself.

The OP hasn’t yet provided any detail on the sermon. But it appears it was on Genesis 3. It may not have landed well for everyone, but it’s worth being clear about what’s actually being claimed. Preaching from Genesis 3 isn’t misogynistic in itself—it’s central to the Christian story. The passage exposes human sin, not female inferiority. Adam’s blame-shifting is presented as part of the fall, not as something to endorse, and God addresses both man and woman as morally responsible.

Unless something specific in the sermon was misogynistic—and nothing concrete has been identified—what was being preached was Christ and the gospel: why the world is broken and why redemption is needed. That message will always offend some, but offence alone isn’t the same as harm.

Disagreeing with a sermon is fair. Dismissing it as “crap” or demanding it be taken elsewhere isn’t a critique of content—it’s a refusal to engage with the gospel the church exists to proclaim. However, I think further specific detail would be helpful so we need to await the OP’s specific and grounded objections on this.

Not rtft so maybe repeating what others have said, but

1. it seems relevant to refer to labour pains when celebrating a birth. Also reasonable to acknowledge the connection that Christianity offers between all human suffering and original sin. You can disagree with a religion but it seems ridiculous to expect that they don’t teach it in their own services!

2. the pain of childbirth can be seen as a metaphor for the pain that Jesus suffered to “birth” humankind into a renewed parent-child relationship with god. In this reading, the verse you object to is part of demonstrating gods extreme love and connecting it to the love and sacrifice of a mother.

You are ridiculous to be upset that a religious leader chose not to sanitize their holy book or modify standard readings according to your personal preferences. If this is your faith then trust god and look deeper into the teachings, if it’s not your faith then butt out.

I am sorry you feel this way and have had bad experiences. I can only speak for myself and say that my faith pushes me to work harder to be kinder, more gracious, more loving, more forgiving, even when I don't feel like it. All of the relationships that I had struggled with improved after my conversion and I am definitely less reactive and don't hold grudges any more.
I know how much Jesus hated hypocrisy and examine myself carefully.

I am still human and still mess up but I am always striving to be better and do better because I want to be more Christ like. Not because that's what gets people into Heaven, but because I want to be a blessing to others.

Anyway, this isn't about my faith but about the original post.

The OP was offended by the sermon on Christmas Eve and I, and others, were contextualising it with Scripture and explaining that it's a key part of Christian theology and Christmas wouldn't exist without it.

This line from 'O Holy Night', a classic and much loved hymn says it all.

"Long lay the world, in sin and error pining/
Til he appeared, and the soul felt it's worth".

I am definitely not here to preach but do think it's important to explain why Christmas is actually about sin, whether somebody believes in sin or God, or not. Jesus fixed the sin problem. That's why Christians are so happy about the birth of Jesus and why some darker themed Scriptures are preached around Christmastime. You don't have to believe in any of it, of course, but it's a literally fact that the religious celebration of Christmas is all about Jesus being the saviour of the world and rescuing humanity from sin.

I am actually always more than happy to answer any questions anyone ever has that are asked in good faith. I think @ByLovingTraybake is doing a great job of explaining things more thoroughly than I ever could!

The OP might discover it's her views in a minority if she's only an occasional churchgoer. After all, someone interviewed and selected this vicar.

He also may enjoy debating his views. Lots of vicars do.

Personally its nice to have a faith, sometimes as you grow older and have the challenges in life thrown at you your faith can be something to hold on to… illness, the elderly relatives you have to care for etc are the greatest challenges in life and its bloody hard mentally and physically, i,m greatful for my faith in god there in the background

Sounds more measured than my original response ,yes have a talk with the vicar about the sermon

I’m no theologian but I can answer your questions. The answer is the same both times;
He gave humankind free will and people keep making bad choices ( sinning).

Why cherry pick what you don't like in a book. There's so much wrong in there, it's easier not to read it in the first place

Snort. Stopping the mental gymnastics necessary to believe in a benevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent god whose only non-punitive act since visiting the plagues on the Egyptians and parting the Red Sea appears to have been to allow a first-century Galilean itinerant preacher to die for humanity’s sins has been one of the most positive aspects of no longer believing.

I mean, why believe on a deity who’s doing such a terrible job? Isn’t your impulse to shout ‘No, YOU clean it up!’ as though to a teenager whose filthy bedroom they’re trying to claim is somehow your fault?

I’m afraid you don’t understand anything about Christianity.
Your choice to be an atheist but please show respect for those who think differently.
Christianity is in no way similar to the strange picture you’ve constructed.

I do understand, though. I grew up in a devoutly Christian household with parents who were (and still are) daily massgoers, and was educated at convent schools from 3 to 18. I was a devout believer. Christianity had plenty of time to earn my ‘respect’.

There’s an old saying that religion has to be ‘caught’ not taught.’
Clearly you had terrible examples. Why not research some of Christianity’s most admirable figures? That might give you a broader perspective?

It isn't 'a choice' to be an atheist. You cannot force yourself to believe, any more than you can force anyone else to believe.

I grew up the same, in a Catholic home and also attended a convent school from 3-18, just like you. I didn't understand the Gospel until I was 36. The years and years of religious indoctrination which I was subject to did nothing but turn me off religion and in no way qualified to me say I actually knew anything about the faith. I got an A* in GCSE Religion because our school forced us. If you didn't do A-Level Religion you had to do an uncertified Religious Education programme instead. I did the pre marriage course through the local diocese. Made all my sacraments etc etc.

I still didn't understand And would say that was typical of my entire friendship group who think Christianity is about being a good person. Not saying that means you don't, but having grown up in a Catholic home with church going parents and being educated in a convent school for one's entire childhood, 3-18 (like me) actually doesn't guarantee that one does know. I didn't, and I came from a very similar background to you. But that's just my story.

The belief that there is no God is a belief.

I think most vicars who are not out and out evangelical realise that the fire and brimstone angle is a hard sell- there is no harm in mentioning it, if others like this aspect, just change churches.
Just because this vicar was selected by interview does not mean the interviewer realised the extent of his beliefs- think of interviews you have had yourself.