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 💔

Luke 4:18

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed

I think that most sincere Christians will attest to this having been true in their lives. I don't know of any true, Jesus loving Christian who has not found freedom from something they felt enslaved to in the past. Most people who have been truly transformed by Christ will have a story of something heavy being lifted from them.

Scripture tells us that Jesus spent a lot of time admonishing the religious pharisees of the time for the burdens they were putting on people with their spiritually back-breaking demands.

The true Jesus in the Scriptures is about freedom.

Great question! From a biblical perspective: God didn’t create a broken world; He made everything good (Genesis 1). Adam and Eve’s sin—their choice to disobey God—introduced suffering, death, and separation from Him into creation (Genesis 3). Being cast out of Eden wasn’t God abandoning them, but a consequence of their choices, and it also points forward to God’s plan to redeem humanity.

Christians believe God didn’t leave us in that broken state. Through Jesus, God entered the world, suffered with us, and offers restoration and salvation to all who trust Him (Romans 5:8). Worship and trust aren’t blind—they’re a response to a God who resolves the problem of sin and suffering, not someone who causes it for no reason.

Questions like yours are exactly why courses like Christianity Explored or the Alpha Course are fantastic—they tackle these questions deeply, provide space to explore doubts, and help people understand what the Bible teaches about God, sin, and redemption. I hope to be explaining the Christian perspective well but your thoughtful questions deserve thoughtful answers and it sounds like you’re searching to understand more - it would be lovely to do that with people who are hopefully patient in person too!

Yes, Galileo’s case shows that the Church, like any human institution, is imperfect and full of sinners. People in positions of power made mistakes, acted out of fear, and even punished someone wrongly—just as we see in other parts of history. The actions of fallible humans don’t negate God’s truth. Christianity isn’t about perfection in the Church—it’s about the relationship with God through Jesus and the work of the Holy Spirit, which remains trustworthy even when human institutions fail.

but by those very actions how can anyone then trust the institution when they have a hand in writing and preaching the texts etc so when anyone does say its wrong etc

Humans have always been involved in writing, teaching, and preserving the Bible, and the Church has certainly made mistakes. But Christians believe that God guided the process of Scripture’s composition and preservation (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”). The fact that humans are involved doesn’t mean God’s truth is invalid; it just reminds us that people can misapply or misrepresent it, as with Galileo’s trial.

Trust in Christianity isn’t in the perfection of institutions or individuals—it’s in God Himself, revealed in Jesus, and the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding hearts and understanding. The Church can fail, but the relationship with God and the truth of the gospel remain trustworthy.

Have you considered reading the Bible or doing something like a CE or Alpha course to further explore your thoughtful questions? I hope to represent the Christian faith well here but of course would love to see people questioning well supported in real life too!

personally helping people in the community on a daily basis is more productive than reading about how we should help others

maybe your right and we need gods guidance so i choose : Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, the gospel of success, seed-faith gospel, Faith movement, or Word of Faith movement)

I wasn’t clear. I grew up Christian. I realised it was a human fabrication based on wishful thinking and fear of death in adulthood. The historical Jesus was a human first-century preacher with an undoubted gift for storytelling, one of the many Messiahs associated with Second Temple Judaism, whose brief public life and execution were singled out as divine by an unusually active following, assiduously linked to OT prophecies when his followers still identified as Jewish, found a particularly early good PR in Paul, and his followers grew exponentially once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.

I don’t think that makes it anything other than historically interesting, like the other world religions.

Trying to avoid massive walls of text here, so I will pick a few of your points. I am not cherry picking here as I am sure you appreciate.

You said " Joshua 7 is a more direct example of divine judgment, and I can’t dodge that. Achan’s sin isn’t portrayed as private theft but as covenant-breaking that endangers the whole community. That doesn’t make it emotionally easy I don’t think — but biblically, it’s not arbitrary cruelty either I would say."

"Sin" and "covenant". The covenant, or the deal, was simply that YHWH would deliver Jericho, but that all the gold, silver and bronze was to be kept aside for YHWH. Why on earth would an entity that created the universe is 6 days want spoils of war ? Wanting the shiny stuff for himself is more the actions of Trump than any all loving god.

Ananias and Sapphira, there is a reason. And it's not one that any Christian would see. It's extortion. Simple as. Give us all your stuff to join us, or we kill you. It's a mafia level threat. It's something that a cult would do.

As evidence, just read Mark through, then straight to acts. Miss out the padded Luke and Matthew, and the Gnostic John.

Mark 6:11" and as many as may not receive you nor hear you, going out from there, shake off the dust that is under your feet for a testimony to them; truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom or Gomorrah in [the] day of judgment than for that city."" (LSV)

May not receive you or hear you. Christians will concentrate on the "hear you" part.

But now look at the line before, Mark 6:10 "And He said to them, "Whenever you may enter into a house, remain there until you may depart from there," (LSV).

Ahh right, so shaking the dust from your feet is really about households not giving free board and keep. It's hell and burning Sulphur for them. Jesus is telling his followers to use the OT to threaten and extort people.

Yup, read Mark, then Acts, and Ananias and Sapphira makes total sense. Where it does not sense is if one tries to make Jesus and God into some sort of all loving full of mercy entity.

This is the sort of thing that once seen, cannot be unseen. And one can get that true moment of understanding and enlightenment, it gives freedom. Freedom from an oppressive dogma, and freedom from the mental gymnastics needed to keep that dogma valid in ones mind. Freedom from lying to oneself.

God gives people real freedom — to choose Him or to trust in something else. I respect that.

My point is simply to be clear about what the Christian gospel actually is. It isn’t a prosperity gospel that promises health or wealth, but good news about God’s grace — that we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ, not by success or comfort in this life (Ephesians 2:8–9 - “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God’)

What anyone chooses to trust in for their own salvation is their decision. Christians choose to trust in Christ and His finished work on the cross. I hope that makes sense as to what Christians believe.

Thank you for explaining more — I really appreciate how thoughtfully you’ve put that, and I can see why you’ve reached those conclusions. I don’t think you’re being flippant or dismissive; you’ve clearly engaged seriously with the history and grown away from what you once believed.

Where I’d gently differ is this: I don’t think Christianity rests only on wishful thinking, fear of death, or later institutional success. The historical consensus is that Jesus existed, was crucified, and that very early — within years, not centuries — his followers were worshipping him as divine, even while remaining Jewish monotheists. That’s a very strange development if he were simply another failed messianic figure or gifted moral teacher.

This is where I still find C.S. Lewis helpful, not as a slogan but as a question. Jesus didn’t just tell stories or teach ethics — he spoke and acted in ways that, if reported even roughly accurately, don’t really leave space for him to be only a wise preacher. Claiming authority to forgive sins, redefining Israel around himself, accepting worship — those are extraordinary claims. So either the accounts are fundamentally deceptive, Jesus was profoundly mistaken about himself, or there is something genuinely unique going on.

For me, though, this isn’t just an abstract historical judgment. What ultimately keeps me Christian isn’t the Church’s later power, or even Paul’s brilliance, but the fact that I’ve come to know God personally through Jesus and the Holy Spirit — not perfectly, not without questions, but in a way that has shaped my life, conscience, hope, and understanding of love in a way I can’t reduce to psychology or sociology alone.

I completely accept that you see it differently. I’m not trying to “win” the argument because it makes no difference to my own salvation or faith; I hope to just to explain why, for many thoughtful people (past and present), Christianity is more than an interesting historical phenomenon. It’s not just about what happened in the first century, but about a living relationship that people across cultures and centuries genuinely experience as real.

Thank you for engaging so honestly — conversations like this matter, even when we don’t land in the same place.

I hear how strongly you feel about this; I’m also not here to convince you or change your mind — just to explain why I read these texts differently, and why Acts 5 doesn’t work for me when it’s lifted out of its wider story.

For me, Acts can’t really be read on its own. It’s the second half of Luke–Acts — written by the same author, to the same audience, with the same theological aim. Luke goes out of his way to emphasise Jesus’ compassion, care for the poor, refusal of coercion, and rejection of violence and power-grabbing. That matters, because Acts is describing what the Spirit-formed community looks like in continuity with that Jesus, not in contradiction to him.

On Ananias and Sapphira: nothing in the text suggests compulsion. Peter explicitly says, “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?” (Acts 5:4). That’s difficult to square with extortion or a “give us everything or else” dynamic. Luke’s focus is on deceit — presenting a lie as devotion in a community built on truth — not on enforced giving. That doesn’t make it emotionally easy, but it does mean the text isn’t describing coercion.

On Joshua and “spoils for God”: I don’t read this as God wanting “shiny stuff.” In its ancient context, devoting goods to God was a way of saying this victory isn’t ours. It’s symbolic theology rather than divine greed — whether or not one finds that convincing.

On Mark 6, I don’t see Jesus threatening people into hospitality. “Shaking the dust off” is a symbolic act of separation, not coercion. There’s no force, no punishment enacted by the disciples, and no attempt to compel belief or support. Jesus consistently allows people to walk away — even when it costs him followers — which is one reason I struggle to read Acts as endorsing intimidation or control.

I also want to say this genuinely: I recognise the freedom you’re describing, and I’m glad you’ve found something that feels honest and liberating to you. For me, following Jesus has led to a true freedom — a deep peace in knowing that I’m not responsible for anyone else’s salvation, that truth doesn’t need defending by pressure, and that love doesn’t need coercion to be real. That’s something I find beautiful and joyful, not burdensome. I’m not trying to persuade you — just to explain why, for me, these texts still sit within a story of grace rather than control.

@ByLovingTraybake

If I can address this part you said :" On mercy, sacrifice, and Jesus’ death
You ask a fair question: how is it mercy if Jesus rises again?
The Christian claim isn’t that death only “counts” if it’s permanent. It’s that Jesus truly enters death — abandonment, suffering, execution — and does so voluntarily. Resurrection doesn’t erase crucifixion any more than survival erases torture. The point is not duration, but self-giving.
And crucially, Christianity claims God doesn’t demand a sacrifice from someone else — God bears the cost himself. That’s the moral distinction being claimed, whether one accepts it or not."

That makes no sense really. So this god that created the universe in 6 days, has to do some odd sort of odd suicide to change something he invented himself.

I bolded abandonment above. So Jesus felt abandoned ? Although he is God ? Abandoned by who ?

Yeah, Mark again.

Mark 15:33-34 " And the sixth hour having come, darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour, and at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a great voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lamma sabachthani?" Which is, being interpreted, "My God, My God, why did You forsake Me?"" (LSV)

Its right there in black and white. Where is the rescue party ?

This is compounded by Mark finishing at 16:8 " ...for they were afraid".

It is beyond dispute that Mark 16:9 - 20 were added later. The earliest fragments of Mark does not have those lines.

Death of Jesus according to Matthew : "and about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a great voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" That is, "My God, My God, why did You forsake Me?"" (LSV)

Same as Mark, but this time the temple destruction is added. So that means this was written after about 70CE, When the Romans destroyed the temple. And Matthew has zombies too. So there are a lot of resurrections going on.

And of course the classic John Wayne line is in Matt : " Truly this was God's Son." or "the son of God"

Luke totally changes though. Luke 23:46 "and having cried with a loud voice, Jesus said, "Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit"; now having said this, He breathed His last." (LSV)

So now we have gone from the " why have you forsaken me", to " "here I come dad". Now he is being heroic.

The Temple is still torn apart in Luke, so post 70 CE, but no zombies.

John is just a world apart. John 19:30 "when, therefore, Jesus received the vinegar, He said, "It has been accomplished." And having bowed the head, gave up the spirit."

So what one is it ? The " why have you forsaken me", the " here I come dad", or the Gnostic nod, " done my job here" , version?

And at the end of the day, it makes no difference, because he apparently came back. But in Mark that is really just hinted at. And Mark is the earliest, no splitting of the temple.

And as if all those different versions were not difficult enough to explain, we get Acts 5 :30 "and the God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you slew, having hanged on a tree;" (LSV)

We can see the story being exaggerated as time goes on. But someone never updated the hanging from a stick bit in acts.

So before we even get to the passion, we can't even get a consistent record of events at his death.

@ByLovingTraybake

I will copy and paste what you wrote, and do my replies in bold if ok.

On Ananias and Sapphira: nothing in the text suggests compulsion. Peter explicitly says, “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?” (Acts 5:4). That’s difficult to square with extortion or a “give us everything or else” dynamic. Luke’s focus is on deceit — presenting a lie as devotion in a community built on truth — not on enforced giving. That doesn’t make it emotionally easy, but it does mean the text isn’t describing coercion.

The "you lied so you will be struck down dead" is not coercion on the other people wanting to join the commune ?

On Joshua and “spoils for God”: I don’t read this as God wanting “shiny stuff.” In its ancient context, devoting goods to God was a way of saying this victory isn’t ours. It’s symbolic theology rather than divine greed — whether or not one finds that convincing.

Adding the "in ancient context is mental gymnastics". There are battles elsewhere in Joshua that God did not win. Something to do with iron chariots. In this verse tho it definitely was god wanting the shiny stuff. And of course there is the issue of what god did allow the warriors to keep while he got the gold: young virgins that they could keep as slaves.

And this is a problem for the Bible. Explain away one verse, but the next is not so easy.

On Mark 6, I don’t see Jesus threatening people into hospitality. “Shaking the dust off” is a symbolic act of separation, not coercion. There’s no force, no punishment enacted by the disciples, and no attempt to compel belief or support. Jesus consistently allows people to walk away — even when it costs him followers — which is one reason I struggle to read Acts as endorsing intimidation or control.

There certainly is coercion and control. Reference Sodom and Gomorrah. If they don't put you up their fate will be worse.

You raise some fantastic points! I really appreciate you taking the texts seriously and taking time to chat through your thoughts. Hopefully I can set out my own thoughts to explain why, from within Christianity’s own logic, the things raised aren’t incoherent in the way it looks from the outside.

On forgiveness and cost: Christianity isn’t saying God needed an arbitrary ritual to “change his mind.” The claim is that forgiveness always has a cost. If I forgive someone who has wronged me, I absorb the loss rather than passing it back. On the Christian view, God doesn’t outsource that cost to someone else — God bears it himself. That’s what Christians mean when they say God “gave his Son.” It’s not divine child abuse or suicide; it’s God entering human violence and injustice and letting it do its worst, rather than responding in kind.

Christians also understand death not simply as biological cessation, but as separation from God. On the cross, Jesus truly enters that separation as it is experienced from within — abandonment, silence, darkness. That’s why the cry from Psalm 22 matters. Feeling abandoned and being abandoned are not the same thing, but Christianity insists the experience itself is real. Resurrection doesn’t erase that any more than survival erases suffering; it’s rescue through death, not avoidance of it.

On the diversity in the Gospels: The differences in how Jesus’ final words and the resurrection are recorded aren’t mistakes or attempts at deception — they reflect the particular theological emphasis of each author. Mark highlights shock and uncertainty, Matthew adds historical context and reflection, Luke emphasises surrender and trust, and John emphasises completion of the mission. Christians see these as complementary perspectives on the same reality, not competing versions.

On Mark’s ending: I agree with you that 16:9–20 is a later addition — and I don’t think that’s a secret or a scandal. Our translations are very open about this and explain why it’s included. But it’s also important to say that Mark is not resurrection-free without it. Well before 16:8, Jesus explicitly predicts his resurrection multiple times (e.g., Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34), and at the tomb itself, the young man announces it plainly: “He has been raised; he is not here.” The women’s fear and silence don’t negate resurrection — they underline how destabilising the claim is. Mark ends not with triumphal closure, but with shock and awe.

On Acts 5 and “hanging on a tree”: I actually went back to the Ancient Greek here. Xylon is a flexible word — it can mean tree, wood, timber, or a wooden structure. In Second Temple Jewish usage it’s a standard way of referring to crucifixion, deliberately echoing Deuteronomy. Translating it as “cross” is entirely reasonable; Luke isn’t confused about the method of execution. In other contexts the same word can refer to a wooden weapon or club, but here the meaning is clear from context. This also addresses the concern about “odd suicide”: the texts are explicit that Jesus is executed by the state. The voluntary element is not self-destruction but non-retaliation — refusing to escape, coerce, or destroy his enemies. There are also non-Christian historical sources, like Josephus, who report Jesus’ execution — independent attestations that he was put to death by Roman authorities.

I respect that this may not be convincing to you. I hope it is helpful to others who may be searching or interested in the same questions you raise.

Logically through given that babies go to heaven (samuel 12-23) and the vast majority of homo sapiens have not even been aware of the concept of god, or worshipped other gods, let alone qualified for heaven once no longer babies. Heaven will be full of babies with the odd adult. You'll stand no change of meeting famous scientists. Maybe the best way to understand what heaven would be like would be to visit the baby room at a local nursery. An eternity of of crying and napping changing.

@ByLovingTraybake

I am just making logical points, based on what on is written in the 780k or so words that are in an English language bible.

I don't know if you use a bible study app, if not I highly recommend E-Sword. It's free for windows, has a stack of free bibles to download, including interlinear, dictionaries etc. It also has split screen modes, notes, and a really handy parallel mode to compare different translation. There is a phone version too , but a fee for that. And of course, one can cut and paste direct to here. It's a great tool for debating the Bible, for believer or atheist :-)

Psalm 22. I honestly do not see anything important or profound in that sorry. There is this -

Psa 22:23 "You who fear YHWH, praise Him, || All the seed of Jacob, honor Him, || And be afraid of Him, all you seed of Israel."

There is that fear thing again. But yeah, the Psalm is basically a prayer, save me from the sword/dogs/ evildoers etc.

Evil is interesting though. No gods, no evil, right ? And the Bible never actually defines what it is. Indeed, the concept of Satan does not come till the NT, because it's not actually needed for a vengeful god, but for an all loving god it is a definite must have.

When you say, quote " The differences in how Jesus’ final words and the resurrection are recorded aren’t mistakes or attempts at deception — they reflect the particular theological emphasis of each author."

So what version is it that is true ? Or did he say " My God, My God, why did You forsake Me? Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit, it has been accomplished".

That would actually make more sense. Panic, followed by " ah, here he is, then "all done".

But that's not what was written, and what was written was done decades apart. Instead what we actually get is forsaken, then courage, then gnostic. It evolved.

Marks ending. It is not actually explicit that he rose, according to the original ending. Note this line:" He rose--He is not here; behold the place where they laid Him!". He is not here. So the young man in white is not him. His body not being there does not mean he rose. He says they will see him in Galilee.

Then it stops. The book ends.

The rest was added later, Including the tongues and snake bits. And the US pastors do well out of them :-)

Why did the book stop there ? I would have thought it would be rather important to mention that he was actually seen. But no, that was added later. The most important part of the whole thing, and they missed it.

Xulon. G3586 - timber, fuel, wood, tree

Stauros G4716 stake, post, pole, by implication cross.

I have no idea why the same author would use different words. Especially given how important the crucifixion is apparently.

@ByLovingTraybake

I forgot to mention Jesus predicting his death.

It's not difficult is it ? If I said I bet you a million quid I will get arrested for shop lifting on the 9th of Jan, would you make that bet ?

I get the instinct behind this, but I think it rests on a few assumptions the Bible itself doesn’t actually make.

First, Scripture never says heaven will be mostly babies. David’s confidence in 2 Samuel 12:23 is about the mercy of God toward children, not a demographic forecast of eternity. Elsewhere, heaven is pictured not as a nursery but as a vast, redeemed community: “a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language” (Revelation 7:9). That includes adults—very many adults—who have lived full lives and been transformed by grace.

Second, the Bible is clear that people are judged according to the light they have received, not according to whether they had a theology degree or access to a printed Bible. Romans 1 and 2 suggest God’s justice takes seriously human knowledge, conscience, and response—not a crude pass/fail test on explicit belief. So it’s far from obvious that “the vast majority of homo sapiens” are simply excluded, as though God were less just or less merciful than we would expect even a good human judge to be.

Third, heaven isn’t a continuation of fallen life with its frustrations intact. Crying nappies and exhaustion are very much post-Genesis-3 realities 😉. Scripture’s promise is the opposite: “There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Revelation 21:4). If there are babies in heaven, they won’t remain needy, undeveloped, or distressed forever—resurrection life is about fullness and restoration (1 Corinthians 15), not eternal infancy.

And finally—on a lighter note—I agree: if there are more babies than we expect, that hardly rules out famous scientists! God seems rather fond of surprising us, and I suspect heaven will be full of people we didn’t expect to meet and missing many we assumed would be there. That, too, fits the gospel.

In short: heaven isn’t a cosmic baby room. It’s the renewal of humanity under a just, merciful God—without nappies, without tears, and with far better conversations than we’re imagining now.

Apologies, I’m not sure I understand this and would be grateful for your explanation, thanks!

I hear that you’re making logical points based on the text as you read it, and I respect the care you’re taking with that. I think at this point we’re probably talking past one another a bit, because we’re approaching these writings with very different assumptions about what they are and how they function.

On Psalm 22: Christians don’t read it as “profound” because it introduces new doctrine, but because Jesus’ use of it places his suffering within Israel’s long tradition of lament — prayers that begin in abandonment and end in trust. That doesn’t mean you have to find it compelling, but that’s why it matters in Christian interpretation.

On the Gospel differences: Christians aren’t claiming Jesus spoke all those final sayings as one combined sentence. The Gospels are not transcripts; they are theological testimonies shaped for different audiences. The claim isn’t that one must choose which is “true” and discard the others, but that each witnesses to the same death from a different angle. That kind of variation is normal in ancient biography and doesn’t signal invention in itself.

On Mark 16:6 — “He has been raised”: within Jewish and early Christian usage, that phrase is an explicit resurrection claim. Mark doesn’t narrate appearances, but absence plus announcement plus prior prediction is exactly how his Gospel works. The later ending doesn’t create resurrection faith; it reflects it.

On xylon and stauros: Luke uses xylon deliberately to echo Deuteronomy and interpret the crucifixion theologically, not because he’s confused about the method. Using different words for the same event is normal in Greek; it doesn’t imply a different kind of execution.

I don’t think we’re going to agree — and that’s okay. I’m not trying to win an argument or convince you. I’ve appreciated the chance to explain how Christians read these texts from the inside, and I’m happy to leave it there.

You’ll never a logical or straight answer for this. It’s a lot of gaslighting and manipulation and twisting of passages to make it appear as if it’s the true word of the same God. Never mind most of the Old Testament is different annd more angry annd brutal then the NT. and supposedly God makes no mistakes and is not a jealous or angry God, nor does he create both good or evil. This is also a Bible verse.

It’s got a few nice and lovely bits , mainlly from Jesus, but they don’t actually don’t listen to his words on love and everything being being within us. They will also wait forever for a man who might look like him from a few photos of a very western looking Jesus to pop down on a cloud to save them all.

I hear the frustration behind this, and I agree that people can misuse the Bible or ignore Jesus’ call to love — that’s a real problem. But I don’t think that means the Bible itself is gaslighting or incoherent.

in fact, the Bible does say God is jealous (e.g. Exodus 34:14). Christians don’t read that as petty insecurity, but as covenant love — the kind of jealousy that refuses to treat exploitation, injustice, or unfaithfulness as morally neutral. It’s not rage for its own sake; it’s moral seriousness about harm.

The Old Testament is undeniably darker and more brutal at points — but that’s because it refuses to sanitise human sin or history. It shows what the world looks like when violence, idolatry and power go unchecked. The New Testament doesn’t deny that reality; it claims God enters it in Jesus. Christians see Jesus not as a contradiction of the Old Testament, but as its climax — where judgment and mercy meet.

As for good and evil: Christians don’t believe God creates evil as a thing in itself, but that nothing — not even human rebellion or suffering — is outside his sovereignty or ability to redeem. Evil is taken seriously, not explained away.

Our hope isn’t in cherry-picking “nice verses” or pretending love is all that’s needed if we just look within. Christianity starts with the uncomfortable claim that something is deeply wrong with us — and that we can’t fix it ourselves. The hope is that God addresses sin not by denial or moral platitudes, but by self-giving love in Christ.

And finally, most Christians aren’t waiting for a Western-looking man to float down on a cloud. The language about Christ’s return is theological before it’s literal — about justice, restoration, and evil not having the last word.

I don’t expect this to persuade you, but I hope it explains why thoughtful Christians aren’t manipulated or naïve — just convinced that love, truth and justice meet most fully in Jesus.

I hope we can all be kind to one another in disagreement.

Fair enough you are leaving it here, because lets be honest, you do not have anywhere to go but into the realms of mysticism and woo.

I don't mean that against you of course, but that fact is that the debate can only go one way, and it always goes the same way.

This word does not mean what you think it says, this passage is symbolic, but this passage is totally true and concise. Ach, that's not what THIS bit means. This is for historical reference only, this is profound, that's of no consequence.

And we are really just skipping around the edges. We have not even gotten into the 2 genesis versions, the sons of gods in Genesis 6:1-4, the books of Enoch that were left out, the 2 Noah stories, Abraham pimping his wife out, the Volcano god in exodus that Moses puts in a box and carries about. Not even the 2 different sets of 10 commandments.

This is why I think that reading the Bible without believing in it, is really the only way it can be read. Otherwise it's just non stop mental gymnastics to make it mean what you want it to mean.

And people fight wars over this. Non stop wars, for thousands of years.

This is how I feel about reform. The people who support them are cult like. If only they'd drink the kool aid.