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 💔

The fact you think not believing in an invisible being is the greatest sin shows a lot about the skewed morality involved here. Not believing in God, or not your particular favoured version of God, is worse than mass murder, tape, torture, child abuse etc, is it? According to you all of those things are forgiveable but someone being of a different faith or agnostic or an athiest or “blaspheming” is the worst imaginable sin that’s allegedly unforgiveable.

That’s an incredibly extreme and, in my view, quite appalling world view.

Exactly.

Many people who live these values far more than many Christians have no religion at all. If anything, in the people I’ve encountered in life personally there has been a negative correlation between such values and their fervency of religiosity.

I think we may be talking past each other a little, so I’ll try to clarify the specific points you raised.

I’m not claiming the Bible contains a single, modern-style sentence that says, “Here is the technical definition of sin.” The Bible consistently explains sin in the same way it explains many of its key concepts — through story, teaching, contrast and consequence. It does this for love, justice, wisdom and faith as well. That isn’t evasive; it’s simply how ancient texts work.

For example, Scripture repeatedly shows sin as relational rupture rather than just rule-breaking: Genesis 3 portrays sin as a breakdown of trust and relationship with God. Isaiah 59:2 explicitly says, “your iniquities have separated you from your God.” Psalm 51 describes sin as something that corrupts the heart and requires restoration. romans 1-3 presents sin as humanity turning away from God, resulting in disorder and brokenness.

That’s why Christians often use “sin” as shorthand for what damages or fractures relationship with God — just as betrayal damages a marriage or selfishness damages a friendship. You don’t need a dictionary definition to recognise when a relationship is broken.

On Jesus and the law: Christians don’t believe Jesus “cancelled” the Mosaic law or declared it meaningless. He says he came to fulfil it (Matthew 5:17). Fulfilment means bringing it to its intended goal and revealing its deeper purpose. That’s why Jesus repeatedly relocates sin from external observance to the heart: Matthew 5 anger as the root of murder, lust as the root of adultery. Mark 7:15–23 is very explicit on this and says what defiles a person comes from the heart, not from food. Matthew 23 sets out a condemnation of meticulous law-keeping without mercy, justice or love.

Jesus doesn’t give a single soundbite saying “pork is now permitted.” Instead, he reframes defilement entirely. The early church later recognises the implications of this explicitly in Acts 10 and Acts 15.

On Mosaic law more broadly (including difficult issues like slavery), Christians don’t believe it functioned as a timeless moral code for all cultures. Even within the Bible it’s treated as covenant-specific and provisional (Galatians 3–4; Hebrews). Jesus’ ethic of neighbour-love and human dignity undermines practices like slavery rather than endorsing it.

Pulling isolated verses apart in debate can make it hard to understand the faith. If you are searching, I’d suggest exploring more with someone in person. It’s a narrative faith that’s meant to be read as a whole, often in conversation with others. That’s why many people find it more helpful to explore these questions through a church reading group, Christianity Explored, or Alpha — spaces where you can go deeper, ask hard questions, and understand the intentions and claims being made.

You don’t have to agree with Christianity — but this is the framework Christians are operating within, and it’s internally coherent even if you ultimately reject its premises.

Absolutely. Many non-Christians live lives of incredible kindness, generosity, and integrity, often more consistently than some Christians. Christianity doesn’t claim belief automatically makes someone good; it simply frames the source and motivation for moral action differently. From a Christian perspective, love, mercy and justice reflect God’s character, and faith provides the context for understanding why humans struggle and need grace. That doesn’t diminish the goodness of anyone else. I hope that makes sense as to what Christians believe.

I'm a Buddhist but even I know that church the OP is talking about isn't a denomination that's welcoming Tommy Ten Names from the language she uses. Rikki Doolan (the guy responsible for converting TTN in prison) is a member of The Good News Church, which is a Pentecostal, Charismatic church started Manchester by Uebert Angel who preaches what's called "prosperity theology"

I mean… that’s Christianity. That is Christian belief. What did you expect? You want Christianity but without all the parts you disagree with… sounds like not-Christianity.

Except that per the post from @GentleSheepabove, all of these people that you recognise live lives of kindness, generosity and integrity are allegedly committing the worst possible sin that is “unforgivable” by not believing in your God, and are therefore worse than serial killers, genocidal maniacs, rapists and child abusers.

Some cognitive dissonance going on, it seems. Or selective reading of the bible by different Christians, to suit their own personal beliefs.

@ByLovingTraybake

Again, we are not talking past each other. I was a Christian. My point is that I now see that much of Christianity is not actually what folk claimed it was. The Gospels were added to in the Epistles, and the Epistles have been greatly added to as well. In many cases the additions contradict what Jesus is recorded as saying.

To quote you here : "Pulling isolated verses apart in debate can make it hard to understand the faith. If you are searching, I’d suggest exploring more with someone in person. It’s a narrative faith that’s meant to be read as a whole, often in conversation with others. That’s why many people find it more helpful to explore these questions through a church reading group, Christianity Explored, or Alpha — spaces where you can go deeper, ask hard questions, and understand the intentions and claims being made."

It's by pulling the Bible apart verse by verse that one comes to see just how bad a collection of books it is. I do understand the faith and how it works. It is you that is missing that. It is not by accident that I know the bible so well.

To quote you again : "You don’t have to agree with Christianity — but this is the framework Christians are operating within, and it’s internally coherent even if you ultimately reject its premises."

Not really, what you are describing is one, or possibly none, of the core beliefs of the approx 40k plus different denominations.

This debate is similar, I think, to a drinking alcoholic telling a sober alcoholic about what drink is, if that makes sense. And no, I am not saying anyone is an alcoholic. :-)

And there is this thing I think where Christians make excuses for the Bible, instead of just saying, " oh that's not in the Bible, I added that myself, or I decided to follow what Pastor X says. Or, " ahh well, that does not count cos Jesus died to fulfill the law ".

What does that even mean ? The law is fulfilled.

And it's those questions that are important. Not listening to what Pastor Jim says at an alpha course. Because Pastor Jim is doing his mental gymnastics to help the listener build their own mental gymnastics.

And there are denominations that don't eat pork :-)

Numerous posts on this thread have demonstrated repeatedly that it has no internal logical coherence at all! So even as something totally detached from reality - as you appear to be ok with that - it is littered with internal contradictions. The “explanations” that you and others have attempted to provide to justify one part directly contradict another, over and over again as the thread evidences repeatedly. Of course rational people are going to reject an ideology if the proponents can’t even put forward a logically consistent case for their assertions, and repeatedly ignore the questions that they find too difficult to answer.

So what’s the point in people believing in it then, if their actions are entirely unconnected to their religion and it doesn’t matter whether they’ve lived a good life or a bad one and this has nothing to do with whether they will be “forgiven” or “saved” or “raptured” or whatever?

What does this mean? Can you translate it for the rest of us?

Does it mean you were one of those who was expecting the rapture to take place at the millennium? I seem to remember some very amusing social media posts (a rarity these days, sadly) about people being sad they hadn’t yet been raptured as predicted.

As an add to the discussion, most of my debates with Christians have been with US evangelicals, and many of them, if not most, were young earth creationists. Same with structured debates I watch online. Most are YECs, modelled along the lines of Ken Ham or Kent Hovind

And the apologists never win. Even when US universities flog courses on Christian Apologetics. Sample linked here. Fancy a Masters Degree in " defending the truth claims of Christianity ?"

MA in Christian Apologetics (Non-Thesis) | Liberty University

The problem they have of course, is that after 2 K years, millions of Priests, Ministers, Scholars, not one person has come up with the "knockout blow", the indisputable evidence, the paragraph of prose that converts everyone.

Just imagine where humanity would be today if there had been no need for the reformation.

I think this is where things are getting crossed. Christianity doesn’t teach Christians to rank people’s sins, or to sit in judgement over who is “worse”. In fact, Jesus explicitly forbids that posture: “Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Christians believe judgement belongs to God, not us. Our role isn’t to weigh unbelief against atrocities, or to decide who is beyond grace. The consistent Christian claim is actually the opposite: everyone falls short, no one is morally superior, and grace isn’t earned by comparison.

If faith leads someone to feel morally superior to others, they’ve misunderstood Jesus pretty badly. I hope that helps explain a bit about our position.

Sorry, I’m not sure I understand your question.

You’re clearly coming from a place of having thought long and hard about this, and you’ve reached conclusions that differ from mine. I’m not trying to persuade you back to Christianity, nor to adjudicate between denominations. I was simply explaining how Christians like me understand our own faith. I hope that makes sense.

Not getting crossed. Because that's what YOU believe.

You have not said what denomination you are.

Do you believe the earth is 6k years old as the YEC's do ? Because they have a very different outlook than the Amish. Catholics have saints, the wee free does not.

And lets not forget Trump. He is a Christian too. Apparently he asks his pastors to pray he will get into heaven. He is bombing Nigeria, to save Christians and kill the Muslims.

So yup, no crossed lines. It appears to be you who is set on something that for all anyone knows, applies only to you.

:-)

No, I didn't even know about what the rapture was back then. I don't believe 'date setters'. No-one knows the hour of the return of Jesus (as we've seen not one has been correct and many now do it to get clicks on their YT channels!), we are explicity told to keep going about our business until then.

'Pre-Trib' means Pre-Tribulation - the Tribulation is a 7 year period prophesied by Daniel that marks the so-called End Times, the 7 years before the return of the Messiah. It's a tiime of many devastating global events and the rise of the Antichrist - outlined in the book of Revelation. So if you believe in a pre-Trib Rapture, you believe the Church will be removed prior to the beginning of this. There are several other views, some believe in a mid-Trib rapture (3.5 years in), or Post-Trib (so just prior to Christ's return). Others do not believe in a separate Rapture event and believe the Church will be here throughout the Tribulation. Others think we are currently in the Tribulation.

Millennial - this refers to a belief in the Milllennium - a 1000 year period of peace under the reign of Christ (who will be on Earth after His second coming). This begins after the Tribulation. Not all denominations believe in this, or the timing of this. There are a LOT of differences in Eschatalogical beliefs (i.e. End Times beliefs).

Can I ask why you believe this? This is not a standard belief for Christians, as far as I’m aware.

The specific views I’ve shared about the gospel aren’t idiosyncratic to me; others have shared the same on the thread and they’re held by many gospel-believing Christians — even though Christianity is obviously diverse.

On things like the exact age of the earth, I haven’t given that a huge amount of thought, and I don’t have a major issue with Christians holding different views on this particular point. My hope and certainty aren’t in a particular model, but in the God who created it.

I do think people should always look at the Bible itself, and at what Jesus is recorded as saying and doing, and make up their own minds. I’m not asking anyone to take my word for it, or a pastor’s, or a politician’s. I was simply explaining what I place my hope in. Hopefully that makes sense.

I lived the Kings carol programme . Not interested in how it might sound to modern ears. And I’m not even religious. 🙄

It is gorgeous and I’ve been watching it since I was 17 ❤️

You've misunderstood what I said and then totally twisted what I didn't say into something quite abhorrent. It's not about unbelief in God. Many have not believed in God and then later come to faith. Being an agnostic isn't unforgiveable, nor is being an athiest, nor not getting every point of theology right. There are many believers scattered across many denominations. They do not need to be 'my' denomination or one particular one. God knows the heart of each person, that's what matters. He is the judge, not me (thankfully). Blaspheming in this meaning also isn't just saying OMG or something like that, just to be clear (see Mark 3:28 below).

Jesus states it in Matthew:

Matthew 12:31-32 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

Mark 3:28-30 "“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin" for they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Luke 12:10 "And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven."

So this is recorded in 3 of the gospels. The best context for this is in Mark as Jesus says this after he was healing people, religious leaders witnessed undeniable miracles and still claimed, “He has an unclean spirit.” They labeled the Spirit’s clear work as satanic.T he unforgivable nature lies in the sinner’s hardened heart. Rejecting the Spirit’s testimony leaves no avenue through which forgiveness can reach him.

Hopefully that explains it better.

I think it was pretty clear. Given you’ve stated in the quoted posts that what someone does in life is irrelevant to and not predictive regarding whether they will be “forgiven”/ “saved”/ “raptured” then what is the point of following the (alleged) rules of the religion? Particularly as you also admit that many people follow and live the values you state you hold in esteem — such as kindness, integrity, honesty, generosity — without following your religion or any religion at all (more so than those who do prescribe to your beliefs, in many cases).

So if someone’s religion has no bearing on what will happen to them in any hypothetical afterlife, and doesn’t have any discernible positive impact on their behaviour in this life (it is highly arguable that religion’s impact on society across the globe has been highly negative overall) then: what is the point of it? (Other than as a means of social control, the purpose for which it was originally devised and not something, I hope, that even its current proponents believe to be a legitimate or beneficial aim).

Well, that’s surely why you don’t mind what’s said? You just enjoy the music. I sang in my Oxford college choir. I’m an atheist. The two things don’t compute. The music was glorious.