a true consciencious objector of the Bible

[1Maya2]

I do not beleive that God (in this instance I am thinking Christian God) would send a true consciencious objector of the Bible to hell, I think that if there is a God then he/she would prefer me to question than to accept.

I have tried but I cannot morally accept the Bible and maybe God can't either and he/she wants us to keep challenging so that the world can be free of documents that harm people.

How do people feel about this?

Also bible doesnt support people going to hell either.

I suppose I am saying that yes it can be harmful, for example people who are gay have been dreadfully treated through time and now and discrimination has been justified by the Bible.

I find it so difficult because ideally I would like to be a live and let live kind of person. I would like people to have their own beliefs but not harm others with them and the Bible can be used against people in a way that I can't imagine a good God intended it to be.

I'm an atheist, but you want the christians in here really for this. I think a fair & just person/god wouldn't punish someone (whether it be hell or the naughty step) for doing their best.

Therefore if someone tells me that if you don't do so and so in exactly the right order you will be punished/cast out/whatever then that seems to indicatet they worship an unjust god.

Any why would you?

It depends what people do with the Bible - yes it can be used to harm, and to justify discrimination. But only if people use it for that.

As a liberal Christian, I believe that we should read the bible as the story of how a group of people have related to God over time, and take lessons from it about how we ought to behave towards each other and to God, but not assume that everything in it is God's will.

And, I'd say of course God wants us to question - otherwise why do we have brains and free will?

Why could the Bible be viewed as possibly harmful? Um, how about its ambiguity? Eg, the way that some parts are supposed to be taken as literal truth, some as allegory, some as only appropriate for the time they were written and/or for whom they were written while other bits are to be taken as appropriate for ever more... All that but with no clear agreement, or any sure way of knowing, which is which. It's a book where the ideas of "An eye for an eye" and "turn the other cheek" are both included.

It's a book that is, fundamentally, so deeply ambiguous that anyone wanting biblical justification for whatever it is they want to do can almost certainly find a passage in it that appears to support their ideas.

I've always thought that if I died and found out there was a god, that entity would rather I had been honest (in not believing) rather than a hypocrite (saying I believed when I didn't). I have tried to have faith but it just wasn't happening for me so I prefer to live a good life rather than force myself to believe something my brain refuses to accept. What I find sad is that some people find my lack of faith offensive and they can't let me just get on with my life (not on mumsnet, btw, IRL).

It is a shame the way faith can make people treat others.

I can't imagine for example a family of atheists disowning a member who went to church, but an atheist in a family of devout people is in for a rough ride.

Well, I can certainly imagine a family of atheists ridiculing a member who went to church.

No they'd just take the piss out of them, endlessly bate them, make digs about being a Bible basher or happy clappy, believing in a big man in the sky who snores thunder, for supporting creationism, homophobia, colonialism, slavery, take your pick of that person's personal bugbear about religion and who will dismiss a proper discussion of it as the religious person trying to convert them.

It's not about the religious or atheist, it's about whether people are nice people or not.

I don't believe in hell, not for anyone, I believe that's a man-made construct for keeping the masses under control in the past. The Bible can be interpreted many different ways and I believe we're supposed to search for the truth in it. As we're meant to.

Documents don't harm people, people harm people.

To paraphrase Eddie Izzard badly, yeah but the document helps

I think it's important for people to be clear that they believe in God, or Christ, or whatever other entity, and not that they believe in the Bible or any other book. Religious texts have their place, but if they become the central part of someone's religion then surely that person is missing the point? I can't answer for other religions, but Christianity is supposed to be focussed on the person having a relationship with God, made possible by Christ's incarnation etc.

So, by all means treat the Bible as important, but only so far as it helps you to have a relationship with God.

The whole notion of hell as a place of unending torment instituted by the Supreme Being is a much later Christian theological concept. Hell as such is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible.