If you want to ask a question

I can't believe God was behind some of the stuff in the Old Testament

A lot of the people mentioned in the Old Testament, repeatedly broke Gods rules. And were unrepentent. They were give several chances to repent. And even had the benefit of many prophets. But they chose not to listen.

Soon you've made a sincere effort to fight your corner but it's clear that there have been many comments and questions which have left you flummoxed - and that's hardly surprising. It was pretty brave of a relative newcomer to jump in at the deep end without really being familiar with the cut and thrust encountered on a controversial thread like this one. All credit to you for that.
I wish you well but feel that, for me, there is no point in participating further.
NB I am not stomping off 'in the huff'!!!

What did Jesus mean when he said "In my Father's house are many mansions. I go to prepare a place for you."

I have always taken this as it stands. It has never occured to me to take it otherwise.
I too like it a lot. Very comforting.
Some christians do say, as I do, that we hope we dont have to clean any!
[I do hope it is ok to inject some humour here!]

All fine mcem

Ah there's the central question... Redemption through the suffering of a murdered man. How is that supposed to work, exactly? I suppose it is an extension of the Jewish notion of the scapegoat - my own reaction to it is that it is an appalling idea, fit only to be condemned with that other disgusting notion of 'original sin', by which the newest born baby is stigmatised...

As regards my cleaning the mansions joke, it assumes I get to Heaven in the first place.
Jesus will judge me along with everyone else at the End. So I will have to wait and see.

Not really any discussion to be had here, is there?

Jesus was sent by His Heavenly Father. My guess, for what it is worth, is that he wouldnt have wanted to come.
He bore everyones' sins. It must have been horrific.

I have a theory about original sin. But I may be way off.
In the bible, it says that God knows us before we are born. So may be a few of us are condemned before we are born? I agree, a horrific thought. It may tie in with the parable of the weeds, which says that some, and I imagine it is only a tiny number, are born of the devil and not of God.

I am not sure that this forum wants to hear everything that is in the bible, so it may be time for me to stop posting.

How well do you know the bible, soontobe? How much have you studied it?

Yes feetlebaum - that central tenet of redemption through sacrifice is completely meaningless to me. "Died for our sins" is one of the phrases that really and truly has no meaning whatsoever to me - it sounds like gobbledygook. Sacrifice is an appalling idea as you say and is relevant to the thinking of the times, which we have risen above now thank goodness.

I would be the first to say that there are sections of the bible that express universal truths and stimulate debate and contemplation about right and wrong, and that is where its value lies; but to regard it as the words of a supreme being when it is known (and acknowledged by most christians) to be the writings of men from many centuries ago is unjustifiable and incomprehensible.

That's a bit of a cop-out!

You asked for questions.

No, I'm sure most members don't want to hear everything in the Bible as we can read it for ourselves but you did put yourself up for scrutiny!

"Condemned before we are born"!!!???

I am not sure that there are many christians who would endorse that idea which would have to come from a perverse and sadistic deity, which I am quite sure is not how they perceive god.

The doctrine of predestination. Didn't the early Lutherans believe in it?

I have to come back here; soontobe you say that you do have not heard of my understanding of the shift from the Old to the New Testaments, and yet this is what I was taught at church, in confirmation classes and Bible study, as a child in a Christian family - not my ideas at all. What I know about Christianity is what the Church taught me. (Church of England, by the way.)

I am honestly not attacking, just explaining what I learned. I don't necessarily believe it now, but it is an articulate discourse.

"Have not heard" (typing too fast!)

The nice thing about predestination is that you can eat, drink, debauch and be merry - sounds like a plan!

soon I have no idea what your reference to PMs is about. I do know I have never PMd you so I think we should probably drop the matter all together now.

Riverwalk - I am happy to continue answering questions. I didnt want people to think I was sermonising.
I have never done a sermon, not even sure I am able to do one.

Agus. Fine.

Mishap - I can see what you are saying!

Galen - I dont know. But the Lutherian church is the most like the Methodist I have heard, so that may well be right.

Ariadne - I realise that you are not attacking.
I did not realise that the Church of England teach about non punishment. Do you mean non punishment after repentance?

durhamjen - difficult question really.
I read the bible most days, sometimes say a page, sometimes just a few verses. I have been doing that for about 30 years.
I have not read it through from begining to end. Tried that about 3 times in my life, and as like a lot of people, got really bogged down about 5 chapters in with all the Old Testament rules.

Soontobe I think it was brave of you to initiate this thread and I do not doubt your sincerity, as bearing witness is not easy. However it was perhaps rash to offer answers on Christianity " in general" when it is clear that there are members who have perhaps a deeper and wider grasp of theology, of the Bible and of matters pertaining to religion and these have fazed you. It has stimulated discussion however which is always a good thing!

Thank you.

I studied theology many moons ago but find it impossible to be dogmatic about anything except the very basic tenets of Christianity. The thing that stays with me though is coming to see the Bible and the events it records as heilsgeschichte (apologies if spelt incorrectly ): the history of salvation and the gradual revelation of God to his people beginning with Abraham and the Jews and gradually including the Gentiles. Just as you would explain great truths gradually and slowly to young children because they could not understand everything all at once and sometimes fail to understand, so with God's people. The exciting thing about this is that revelation did not end with the closing of the canon of the NT and God (my opinion ) still reveals himself today to those who listen .Goal posts can be moved and biblical concepts can be challenged (the Biblical writers were not puppets ).

This is not a comfortable position to be in and it is much easier to hold the fundamentalist viewpoint but to me the liberal viewpoint is much more acceptable though it can lead to what has been called "the exchange of mutual mystification"

On the personal level I regard myself as a non-church -going Christian (if there is such a thing!) as I have issues with the Church as an institution and I believe that the best form of evangelism is good pastoral care (not sure where that fits in !)

These views seem right to me but I am aware that others feel entirely differently and that is OK so long as there is tolerance on all sides.

On the "many mansions" topic I believe it is a metaphorical way of saying there are many more opportunities beyond the grave to be united with God. After all, many do not have that opportunity on earth due to a variety of reasons .It is a second chance. I am aware that many people might find this viewpoint patronising. If so ,my apologies.

Many religions seem to see pain, suffering and sacrifice as a necessary part of testing and strengthening their beliefs, towards ultimate redemption. Followers of some religions, for instance, inflict severe pain on themselves and impose rules that create emotional and physical conflict within the individual (e.g. celibacy). Most religions have practices that I feel originate from a bygone age when human beings' knowledge of natural phenomena was in its infancy and offerings were made in an effort to appease the gods and ward off natural catastrophic events.

I appreciate how and why these rites and practices might have evolved over time and become mixed up with real people and events to form a religion. But I find it difficult to understand how, in this day and age, people continue to perform these rites - for example, float food out onto the sea as an offering to the gods, cover their hair with wigs or scarves, prohibit certain foods or declare certain behaviours as emanating from "the devil".

Of course, science certainly doesn't have all the answers and there are still a million things we don't understand - probably the most challenging being why are we here? Despite this, I find it difficult to understand
why some people are able to fill that that vacuum of unknowingness with a religious belief.

However, I respect the right of people to have these beliefs - provided they don't present them as matters of fact rather than matters of faith, don't assume that their faith makes them intellectually or morally superior and don't seek to impose their particular religion on anyone else.

It's generous of you, Eloethan not to mind us wittering on about beliefs 'provided (we) don't present them as matter of fact'. I think this is where the tolerant secularist and the believer have to part company. As far as we're concerned, matters of faith are matters of fact. Do you want us to say, 'this is what the religion teaches, but of course, it isn't true' ?

LILY , A SMILE to you.