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 💔

There is no frustration I find something more beautiful in the metaphorical. Something more beautiful outside of a book, a book that over the centuries has been re written for the times, a book that has led to wars, civil wars, destruction and more religion which is exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught.

the Bible has been used to justify wars, rituals, deaths and division that’s almost unimaginable but because many are programmed from the womb and sometimes right to the tomb to believe it’s the exact word of God. A God who had everything planned but created sinners because a talking snake made Eve eat an apple.

it’s a metaphor anyway, never meant to be taken literally. To this day we now have a bunch of thugs using hatred and division trying to bring Christianity into it. It never ends, it’s been used justify slavery in past by quoting passages and beating a servant but as long as he doesn’t die, it’s been used to justify wars and land grabs. I am Yahweh the God of war. I create evil andI create peace. I’ve gone deep into this to the point of studying gnostic texts next to it and this Bible has been re written and used along the centuries for control and to justify things that otherwise we would not accept.

i would take the good bits but not try and use it to say its compatible with the NT testament and its all a plan of God. That’s the control part.

I'm pretty sure that poster is using AI. The use of Em dashes... and constant referencing to the bible but not grounding in any actual reality.

I did wonder a little TBH, but then again, there are loads of people with incredible bible knowledge. Especially Jehovah Witnesses.

I quote the Bible a lot, but I use a Bible program for that, and the web. No AI, it's banned where I am. That and I still use windows 7 :-)

I have done a lot of online Bible debate in the past, mainly with evangelical Young Earth Creationists. And they take every word of the Bible as total fact.

Debating YECs is pretty much the same as debating flat earthers. And funny enough, there is often as overlap.

I enjoyed the debate anyway. But really, there is no way a Christian can win. Because, as you say, there is no reality.

I'm not using bible references I'm using logic. There have been just under 120bn people. Of these about 6bn have lived in times/locations Christianity was invented. Prior to very recent times about 33% of humans died as under 1s.

This gives 40bn under 1s to go to heaven and lets say 50% of 6bn qualify. Therefore the ratio of adults to babies is 1:11. That's a lot of babies!

I’d never claim my Bible knowledge is complete — it’s something I’m always learning and refining. At this stage of life I spend a lot of time reading while breastfeeding, and I’m grateful for that quiet space. My own instinct, though, is to go back to the ancient languages and historical context where possible rather than relying only on modern English translations. But I do find the English translations so very useful! Especially NIV and ESV.

I don’t find the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWT convincing as a rendering of the Greek, particularly in places where theological conclusions seem to drive translation choices rather than the other way round.

I agree the Bible is complex, sometimes troubling, and internally textured. Christians don’t deny that. We think it’s honest about human sinfulness — about power, fear, violence, self-deception — rather than smoothing it away. Abraham’s failures, Israel’s brutality, religious hypocrisy: these aren’t moral endorsements but exposure.

Where I disagree is that belief requires abandoning reality or retreating into mysticism. Christianity begins with a sober assessment of the world as it actually is: humans are capable of extraordinary good and extraordinary evil, and we don’t reliably fix ourselves. Wars aren’t caused by careful readings of Scripture, but by sinful humans who will always find something — religious or secular — to justify themselves.

My hope isn’t in having a neat answer to every textual difficulty. It’s that Christianity names sin honestly and claims God responds not with denial or sentimentality, but with costly grace in Jesus. I don’t expect agreement — but I do think it’s possible to hold that conviction thoughtfully, humbly, and with eyes open to the messiness of both the text and history.

One thing I do hope is it is going to continue to be possible to have a faith and be allowed to express the reason for my faith without being treated with hostility. Sometimes, the world doesn’t feel very kind to people who have a faith, even where they try to engage with others as best as they can.

But is it not just possible to see the historical Jesus as a radical, but entirely human, itinerant preacher with an important message about justice, charity and neighbourliness to all, without any divine carrot and stick? To be good just because, not in the hope of a divine reward or from the fear of eternal damnation, knowing that there’s no parent-figure in the sky keeping score?

I see what you mean, and yes, you can certainly admire Jesus’ teachings on justice, charity, and loving your neighbour without believing in his divinity. Christians, however, don’t see him just as a radical human teacher—that’s simply not what we believe. As C.S. Lewis said, when it comes to Jesus, he must be either Lunatic, Liar, or Lord. For me, the evidence points to him being Lord, but I was explaining this basis for a Christian’s belief. I hope that makes sense.

Someone said in a post above that there’s “no way a Christian can win.” I don’t think this is about winning at all — unless the prize is Jesus, and that isn’t something you win in a comment thread or a Mumsnet debate; it would be a strange area to try to win a prize too! Faith isn’t a trophy for rhetorical skill; it’s a relationship, not an arena, and it grows through humility, truthfulness, and grace, not point-scoring.

I said that. In a debate, a Christian can't win. Against atheists anyway.

When you say the prize is Jesus, what do you mean ? A warm fuzzy feeling inside, heaven as an afterlife, or are do you believe in the Rapture ?

Or do you believe as I did when I was a believer, that a Christian could never actually get into heaven ?

Thanks for asking. When I said the “prize is Jesus,” I meant that my hope as a Christian is in him — in what he’s done to deal with human sin, in the forgiveness and restoration he offers, and in the promise of eternal life with God. I do believe in heaven, not as a reward for being perfect, but as the ultimate hope for those who trust in him. I also believe in the second coming of Christ, when God will bring justice, renewal, and final restoration to the world.

Christianity for me isn’t about winning debates, scoring moral points, or earning entry into heaven. It’s about recognising that we are deeply flawed and that God meets us in our brokenness. The hope we hold isn’t in ourselves, but in what God has done in Christ and continues to do in lives willing to trust him. I hope to share what I and other Christians believe to those who want to understand a different view of life.

Ok. You did not say if you believed in the rapture.

As a thought experiment, imagine you are at the Pearly gates. And there is a long line.

Behind you is an infamous killer, begging for forgiveness, and repenting on steroids.

What would you do ?

I think Lewis is wrong about quite a number of things, including that. We only have Jesus’s teaching mediated via written accounts, the very earliest of which was still considerably after his death, and which were compiled by followers who still identified as Jewish and were intent on shoehorning him into being the fulfilment of a long line of OT prophecies. If you recognise that for the retrofitting it is, it’s perfectly possible to view Jesus as an enlightened human teacher who viewed love and justice for all as more important than whatever rule the Pharisees and Sadducees were currently arguing about.

I don’t think he needs to be Lunatic, Liar or Lord at all. I think he can just be a guy with some good ideas about fairness and generosity that are worth practicing regardless of whether or not you believe in a deity or an over-arching religious framework.

Perhaps you can distil the bible into Jesus's two commandments:

1. Love God. (I believe that you can say Love Good, and the commandment works just as well - though I think many may find this contentious.)

1. Love your neighbour.

How you do these two things is entirely about your personal relationship with 'Good.'
We won't all do it the same because we are all unique in our gifts and our grace and knowledge in understanding.
This is part of the beauty of these commandments in that there is infinite room for amazing surprises if we take time to know ourselves and try to know others and try to use our unique gifts for good in a way that only each individual one of us can.

Would you be disappointed if Trump was indeed placed on earth to rule by God in the second coming as he seems to believe?

I don’t believe in a separate rapture. I believe in the historic Christian teaching that Jesus will return to all one day.

As for your thought experiment — Christianity isn’t about me deciding who gets in. Salvation isn’t a queue system or a moral comparison exercise. The core Christian claim is that no one deserves heaven, and that forgiveness is God’s to give, not mine.

I don't believe in a pre Tribulation rapture either but do believe that Jesus will return one day, which I think is pretty standard in Christianity.

Thanks for your question. But, personally no — because that isn’t what the Bible sets out about Jesus’ return. The belief is that Jesus himself returns, not that a contemporary political leader is divinely appointed.

In fact, Christians are explicitly warned against following human figures who claim special divine backing. So claims like that — whether made by Trump or anyone else — are outside mainstream Christian belief. I hope that makes sense as to what I believe on this.

Thank you for sharing your view of Jesus; I hope it makes sense that my posts were intended to share what Christians believe about Jesus, which is different to the view that he was simply a teacher.

So the vicar is talking about original sin, hence the passage? You might not like it, but it is related to the whole thing of Jesus being the son of God.

He’s not CofE, so a ‘fundamentalist’ preacher is likely to be very much into repentance / salvation / faith etc. and not just appeasing non-believers with happy-clappy sermons. His aim will be to spread his truth.

I say this as a non-religious person who hasn’t been to church in ages.

I don’t understand the heartbreak. If you didn’t like the sermon, don’t return.

Well said

Literally this!

but in that sense we are only flawed because god made us that way. hardly humanitys fault if god made some of use imperfect, why should we feel guilty for gods error

Ummm… and in that case Christians could stop moralising at everyone celebrating the traditional aspects of the midwinter festival which predates Christianity by far such as present giving, lights, feasting etc and trying to pretend that the “real” celebration is mean to be about the birth of Jesus when actually that didn’t even take place at this time of year and they have tried to superimpose their religious ceremonies over the top of our very ancient traditions that have nothing to do with Christianity (and, at various points in history, tried to ban them for being too “jolly”, “indulgent” or “frivolous”, which is the entire point of the celebration).

You’d think so, wouldn’t you? You almost every year we end up with posters like the one I was responding to trying to pretend that the festival being celebrated at this time of year is about Christianity. It’s not. It existed long beforehand.

The Christians then tried to superimpose their celebration over the top - even though as you say everyone by now should be aware that the birth of Jesus was in the spring per historical records, not in winter - and dictate what people were/ were not allowed to do to celebrate. This has now largely failed, thankfully, and the non-religious celebrations, music, family gatherings, present giving, decorating of trees, lights, fires and feasting per the original non-Christian traditions remain. However, there are always some of these tiresome posters who seem to fancy themselves as 17th Century Puritans emerging from the woodwork every year who need this pointing out again.

I agree, i wonder if the poster/ai will respond to this claim