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 💔

I’ve given up debating the “is atheism a belief system” thing. It isn’t, obviously, but you can discuss that all day, and have no time left for more substantial things.

Yes, that's true.

I'd call it more of a simple belief - "I believe there's no God" - end of statement. I wouldn't call it a 'system' as there's nothing else to it.

Yes it is a challenge

christianity isn’t easy and I struggle myself but you have to be aware of the whole bible not just the gospels and some of it is uncomfortable , I think I read years’ ago in some bible notes not a pleasure cruise more of a battleship

I promised myself I wouldn’t get into this! But it’s a belief that is rooted in objective fact. Unlike a belief in god, which isn’t.

I appreciate the honesty in what you’re saying, and I get why you draw that contrast. But I don’t think it’s quite right to say belief in God isn’t rooted in objective fact, full stop.

Many beliefs we all hold are based on inference from evidence rather than direct observation — things like other minds, moral truths, the uniformity of nature, or even the reality of the past. God fits into that category: a conclusion some people reach from historical evidence (e.g. the resurrection claims), philosophical arguments (contingency, moral realism), and lived experience — not a blind leap without reasons.

So the real disagreement isn’t “facts versus no facts,” but how we interpret the evidence and what counts as a good explanation of reality. Reasonable people can disagree there — but it’s not accurate to say one side has facts and the other has none.

This is not accurate. All mainstream Christian denominations believe the OT is just as important as the NT. The OT is a picture of what a world without Jesus looks like, the NT is a picture of what the world looks like with Jesus. One doesn’t overwrite the other, the OT is a vital ‘explainer’ and still has much to teach us today.

I struggle with this a bit, because belief in judgment and hell isn’t a peripheral “fire and brimstone” add-on — it’s woven into Jesus’ own teaching and the creeds the Church of England claims to uphold. That makes it genuinely hard to see how someone could be ordained and appointed as a vicar while privately rejecting it.

And in the CofE this isn’t a casual hire: vicars are appointed through a panel process, with theological scrutiny and shared expectations about what the role entails. Of course interviews never reveal everything, but core doctrinal commitments aren’t incidental details — they’re foundational.

This isn’t about tone or emphasis, or demanding a particular preaching style. It’s about whether a church leader believes the substance of the faith they are entrusted to teach. If those core beliefs aren’t shared, for example, in this case where the OP doesn’t seem to be a Christian, it’s reasonable for congregants to feel confused. I guess it is like not liking fish and then getting a fish and chips takeaway…

The only ‘fact’ involved in Christianity other than its indubitable existence as a religion that emerged out of Second Temple Judaism and spread along the routes of the Roman Empire after the conversion of Constantine is that there probably was a historical first-century Palestinian preacher who was executed for sedition and whose followers believed he had risen from the dead.

Thank you for stating that so carefully — there is actually more common ground here than your framing suggests. Virtually all serious historians, including non-Christian ones, agree on several core facts about early Christianity that go beyond the bare minimum you outline.

It is indeed historically secure that Christianity emerged from Second Temple Judaism and spread rapidly through the Roman world. But the consensus also goes further. We have strong historical evidence — from both Christian and non-Christian sources — that Jesus of Nazareth was a first-century Jewish teacher, that he was publicly executed by Roman authority under Pontius Pilate, and that his earliest followers very quickly and sincerely believed they had encountered him alive after his death. These beliefs were not later medieval accretions or the product of Constantine; they are embedded in our earliest sources, within a generation of the events themselves.

What requires explanation, historically speaking, is not merely that “followers believed he had risen,” but why this belief arose so early, so widely, and at such personal cost. The resurrection proclamation appears in the earliest Christian material we possess (for example, in pre-Pauline creeds preserved in Paul’s letters), was centred in Jerusalem where the events could be checked, and transformed frightened disciples into public witnesses who were willing to suffer persecution rather than recant what they claimed to have seen.

None of this, of course, forces a theological conclusion. History cannot prove miracles in the way laboratory science can. But it can tell us whether the resurrection claim is a late myth, a power play of empire, or a sincere belief rooted in early testimony — and the evidence strongly favours the latter. Constantine did not invent Christianity; he inherited a movement that was already ancient, stubbornly non-conformist, and often persecuted.

Christian faith ultimately involves more than historical method — it involves trust. But it is not trust in a vacuum, nor belief against evidence. It is trust grounded in real people, real events, and a historical claim that is far more substantial than a single line summary allows.

If nothing else, Christianity deserves to be engaged as a serious historical phenomenon whose central claim cannot be dismissed without doing justice to the evidence on which it rests.

Jesus of Nazareth existed. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate. After his execution, his followers very early and very publicly proclaimed that he had risen from the dead — not as a metaphor, not as a vision, but bodily.

This belief appears within a few years of the crucifixion, embedded in early creeds preserved by Paul (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15), not centuries later. It was proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus had been buried and where claims could be checked. No body was ever produced, despite strong incentives for authorities to do so.

The first witnesses were reported to be women — an awkward detail in the ancient world, unlikely to be invented. Multiple individuals and groups claimed appearances, including skeptics like James and enemies like Paul, whose lives changed dramatically as a result.

Crucifixion ended messianic movements. Resurrection claims created one. Frightened disciples became public witnesses, willing to suffer persecution rather than deny what they said they had seen.

History cannot prove a miracle, but it can ask which explanation best fits the evidence. Hallucination, legend, or conspiracy each fail to account for the early, multiple, costly, and public nature of the resurrection claim.

The resurrection is not a blind leap of faith. It is a historical claim that deserves to be taken seriously — whether one ultimately believes it or not.

My parents were atheists and I ended up with no real religious education or even religious information, other than what I absorbed through general reading and an interest in ethical questions.

Admittedly at my C of E primary school there was some Christian stuff, but it was all presented to us as established fact, not a topic for debate.

For example (crudely paraphrased):

Jesus was good, far better than you or anyone else. (In what way?). He sacrificed himself to save you (you should feel grateful).

Mary was chosen because she was pure, a perfect example of womanhood. (Again, why, in what way?)

God sees everything you do and hears your thoughts (a frightening idea)

The prodigal son was welcomed home far more warmly than the good brothers who stayed behind and helped on the farm. (So the prodigal son could gallivant around the world to his heart’s content so long as he eventually rocked home - seems unfair from a child’s perspective)

Martha and Mary - is there a woman anywhere who hasn’t felt a bit sorry for Martha, rushing around trying to make Jesus comfortable? The message is obvious now, but not when you’re seven.
The only parable I actually liked and understood was the Good Samaritan.

And so on…I think teachers underestimated young children’s understanding and desire to ask questions, probably they still do.

Anyway, this has been an interesting thread, and I was wondering if any of the knowledgeable people here could recommend a book on what Christ actually said, from a neutral perspective (as opposed to a specific church or branch of Christianity) aimed at a reasonably intelligent sceptical person, looking at various interpretations and the different reports in the Gospels.

I know people will say ‘just read the Bible’, but I don’t really have time to read the entire thing - I’d rather be directed to relevant verses etc, with discussion of the questions and arguments these have raised over the centuries. There are thousands of books of course, but how to pick one?!

Thanks in advance

I'm reading 'Mere Christianity' by CS Lewis and I am finding it very thoughtful and insightful.

You could read Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles and Revelation in the Bible if you're looking for what Jesus actually said.

Interesting thread. I think it's worth a reminder that Jesus did believe in the OT.

Mat 24:37-39 "and as the days of Noah--so will also be the coming of the Son of Man; for as they were, in the days before the flood, eating, and drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered into the Ark,
and they did not know until the flood came and took all away, so will also be the coming of the Son of Man." (LSV)

Jesus said that, apparently. Across the 4 gospels he quoted the OT 283 times. And if we go to Acts, from 6:1 on, in the trial of Stephen, Stephen pretty much summerises the Pentateuch. They believed the OT to be true.

Re the new covenant. Mat 5:17-120 " Do not suppose that I came to throw down the Law or the Prophets--I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill;
for truly I say to you, until the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the Law, until all may come to pass. Therefore whoever may loose one of these commandsthe leastand may teach men so, he will be called least in the kingdom of the heavens, but whoever may do and may teach [them], he will be called great in the kingdom of the heavens. For I say to you that if your righteousness may not abound above that of the scribes and Pharisees, you may not enter into the kingdom of the heavens."

This law he said not one iota of would change, is of course Mosaic law. All 613 of them.

As an ex long time Bible studying evangelical, now atheist, I think not believing is a massive advantage for reading the Bible. Because we can read what it says, and not what we want it to say.

According to Jesus, Christians should be following Mosaic law. And if believers prefer not to, but want to follow the changes Paul made ( actual and presumed), then they should maybe really call themselves Paulines. Especially given that Paul never even knew or met Jesus.

Even the NT has God, or something killing people, reference Ananias and Sapphira in acts 5. Written before Paul came along. By the same author as Luke by the way.

Mat 18:6 is another interesting one, repeated in other synoptics, where Jesus advocates for a death sentence.

based on the old testerment and jesus believing in it. why do people then thing oh jesus he was so kind and how we should bow to him ?

Yes, God does not exist as an object. God is unlike my phone, my house and so on. So, agreed, God does not exist objectively.
For many Christians, God exists as a Force for Good, whose influence in the world Christianity characterises as an individual ie God the Father, who is honoured in rituals. Not all Christians think like this.
For Christians, God is a spiritual reality not an objective reality. God’s influence in the world is far reaching and many ‘atheists’ reach out for God at times of danger/ despair/ bereavement , as well as joy. It is entirely normal, human behaviour to feel religious awe.

but then they seem to believe in their own "good" myth way because when you study the core texts and take it as literately as would have been back in the early days ect god was a very omg type being / deity so how people conclude its a force for good etc is puzzling

I’m not trying to to evangelise you but you could also visit a variety of church services and listen to what the vicar has to say. You might learn a lot that way. Possibly.
The problem with a book is that there are so many ways of interpreting the Gospels but one does need help in understanding Jesus’ words.
Probably you already know this passage but many people’s favourite bit of the Bible is the Beatitudes ‘Blessed be the Poor in Spirit…’ ( Matthew 5 ).

How patronising. The poster has said that they were brought up as a Christian. I too was brought up in a very religious family and had a religious education.
I find it hard to show respect to a sadistic/powerless god with no scientific proof of existence. I don't tell people in real life how ridiculous they sound as I don't want to be rude, but if someone decides to be preachy and patronising then I will.

Indeed. And that's why I mentioned the story of Ananias and Sapphira in acts 5. That's what led to me de-conversion.

Because in that story, you have a married couple who have sold all they have to join a commune with the Apostles, but they are struck dead by the holy spirt, or whatever.

Acts 5: 9-10 "And Peter said to her, "How was it agreed by you to tempt the Spirit of the LORD? Behold, the feet of those who buried your husband [are] at the door, and they will carry you forth"; and immediately she fell down at his feet, and expired, and the young men having come in, found her dead, and having carried forth, they buried [her] by her husband". (LSV)

After all, here is Peter who heard had it all, and neither he nor his fellow apostles bat an eyelid at this. So much for forgiving.

And once that spell is broken, if one goes back and reads it yet again, starting with Mark, because Markian priority is proven, the NT looks very different. Most of the myth is actually post gospels.

Yeah. It's the old " you were never a real Christian" chestnut.

The American evangelicals usually accuse one of being a demon next, sent by Satan to tempt them away.

You’ve really hit the nail on the head with your questions - and I was in a very similar place myself not that long ago, wanting to understand what Jesus actually said without starting from a particular church tradition. If you’re open to it, I’d really recommend Christianity Explored, which works through Mark’s Gospel and is designed for thoughtful, sceptical people. Alpha is also worth a look (the latest videos are on YouTube) — the latest iteration is great because they’ve taken on board some feedback and made some great amendments to answer key questions and being historically informed, and very accessible.

In terms of books, John Chapman’s A Fresh Start is excellent — short and very clear. If you want something more explicitly historical, N. T. Wright’s Simply Jesus is written by a leading historian and engages seriously with what the Gospels say and why they matter, without assuming prior belief. I’ve found all of these genuinely helpful starting points rather than “sales pitches”, and good companions to reading one of the Gospels directly (Mark is a great place to begin).

It is important to ask the questions, test the claims, and really probe the evidence.

Thank you for sharing that so honestly — I can really relate, having also grown up in a religious environment and received a thorough religious education. It’s understandable that, when confronted with a portrayal of God as sadistic or distant, it can feel impossible to offer respect. Even within the Bible, we see people wrestling with this — think of Job questioning God’s justice, or the psalmists pouring out anger and doubt. Faith doesn’t require ignoring those feelings; it’s allowed to wrestle with them.

Historically, Christianity didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It arose in the very real, harsh context of Roman-occupied Judea, with people wrestling with oppression, injustice, and suffering. The God Christians worship is presented in Scripture not as distant or arbitrary, but as deeply involved in human suffering, ultimately showing love in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. You don’t have to pretend everything is neat to recognize that, historically and biblically, the God revealed in Jesus isn’t the cruel, powerless figure you describe, but one who is willing to suffer with humanity rather than remain aloof.

Yes very harsh

As others have said the Genesis reading IS traditional. Without sin in the world there would be no need for Jesus. If you don’t accept you are a sinner then you don’t need a saviour - and you won’t be saved.
It’s up to you. But the Bible isn’t getting rewritten to make you comfortable and if you don’t like church , don’t go. It’s not a selection box. You don’t get to pick and choose.
and don’t get me started on carols without God in them…..which would those be then? I think I can name precisely one.