If you want to ask a question

It's a bit late at night for it though.

Eye-witness accounts - I thought the accounts were not written down until many years after the events, by which time the human brain tidies up all memories.

The books that make up the New Testament Bible we have today were selected several hundred years later (by humans) as the preferred version at that time, and in those particular circumstances, from many accounts, some differing wildly from others, and some were subversive - such as a book about the life and work of Mary Magdalene, who seems to have been far too active in the affairs of the church immediately after the crucifixion for the male hierarchy that later developed to approve of.

There was The Gospel of Peter for example, and www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocrypha.html a whole lot more.

The Old Testament would be better described as a whole library of books on different subjects, most of which were not religious at all, but historical, genealogical, legal, poetic and erotic. Some of the laws were barbaric, and some of the exploits of the heroes would make the recent atrocities look like vicarage teaparties.

Jings - My mother used to quote that about many mansions, meaning that there was room in heaven for people of many shades of doctrine and belief, and for those who fell into the "those who love their fellow-men" camp as well. As the family contains people of all or no denominations, including a JW, we mentioned it to the minister who was conducting her funeral. We had also mentioned her early life, which was pretty hard, and he managed to put quite the wrong meaning on the quote - that she would live in luxury in a heavenly mansion. Not at all what she would have said!

Silly questions? They sounded quite reasonable to me. Jings was asking what the mechanism was behind the Bible being God's word, as it was filtered throgh human brains and written down by human hands, in human language. And the mansions question was reasonable too, given that conspicuous consumption by Christians is frowned on.

FarNorth I thought it was a joke. That was a serious comment. In fact, I still think it's a joke. Why would anyone think otherwise?

Politics and religion, two topics guaranteed to cause controversy.

Because they are, by their very nature, controversial. It's the controversy that makes them endlessly interesting and discussable.

I agree with Ariadne and mcem. And I found the op very patronising.

I think it's hardly fair to complain about soon offering to answer questions about her faith! Anyone who professes to be a believer on GN finds they are asked to explain what or why they believe. And as she says, she has been asked these kinds of questions on a number of threads. This kind of complaint just highlights the knee-jerk antagonism of some posters on GN to anything to do with faith.

I asked questions because I wanted to know what thinking lies behind soontobe's posts on some other threads. She said people keep asking her about her christianity on other threads (I was not one of them) and she thought she would answer them on one thread. I think that is reasonable. However, if someone claims to be the fount of knowledge on all things christian then I can see that that will cause controversy.

elegran is quite right in what she says about the bible.
It is a series of history books carefully chosen to follow an agenda.

'Love one another as I have loved you' always a useful quote to have to hand Especially when discussing anything with my 'radicalised' Christian brother-in-law. I believe that the bible is open to interpretation, a verse for every occasion to be quoted ad-infinitum, you can make it be whatever you want whether for good or evil.

I understand it doesn't mean mansions as we understand the word. But does it mean we have to believe in the resurrection of the body? I can see the possibility, even the probability of the spirit continuing to live in some way, but not the body. Perhaps Jesus was just speaking in terms the two robbers on either side of him could understand.

It's a beautiful phrase anyway. I heard it again on the Sunday Service on R4 this morning, in connection with the awful shootings. "in my Father's house are many mansions. If it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you".

Words that stay with you.

It wasn't a knee jerk reaction, Lilygran - I gave some thought to my post, and my annoyance was with what I saw as an assumption that one person could try to dictate how GN should run. There is also the question of proselytisation on a public forum, which I understand, from the GN guidelines, is to be discouraged, be it political, religious or whatever.

I feel strongly about this, but would never deny the need for explanations and debate, rather than blanket assertions about knowing God's will. Indeed, you were one of the thoughtful Christians to whom I was referring - those who explain, consider others and demonstrate their faith in their intelligent and considered responses and actions. I enjoy reading these.

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

rosequartz it's definitely nothing to do with an insurance policy. It could be a "love that wilt not let me go", or it could be childhood influences. I hope it's the former.

But isn't the thwory that the NT God saw that the retributional, patriarchal system needed reforming, and that therefore Jesus was sent to suffer for all our sins, so that we didn't have to be punished. And that therefore, since we do not need to fear divine retribution, we must lead our own moral lives and make our own decisions? Which is actually, a difficult thing to do!

But I tend to agree that the bible is, as rosequartz and elegran say, is "a series of historical records carefully chosen....."

The New Testament is so beautiful. Perhaps that's the simple reason why Christianity has survived so long.

Gransnet HQ have now replied to me and say that the only rule they have for the topic is that it is not used for sermoninsing but as thats not what is happy here, we are happy for the thread to stay.

I will be back to this thread hopefully later today.

Very clever but after once trying to have a discussion with you when it was obvious you had no idea of the facts you ended up with sympathy as the injured party! I won't fall for it a second time.

arrgh, I tried to do that post right.
My first happy word should read happening

I might be back to the thread later - grandchildren day for me. Got to go and sugar some strawberries.

I am a Christian although maybe not a glowing advertisement for it, but I do not think this is an appropriate thread. I have no problem with threads discussing religion, but the idea of one member starting a "question and answer" thread on her own beliefs seems weird, if not actually arrogant. So far I would take issue with some of the vague, half formed, if not downright wrong so-called "facts" quoted, as Farnorth has picked up.

Soontobe says. i don't like to talk on behalf of other Christians or even other Methodists but this is just what she is doing and if the thread is indeed a personal apologia, thenwhile it may not entirely breach GN guidelines, it is not in the spirit of open discussion. As Ariadne says, proselytising on a public forum is against the guidelines and it would be a retrograde step if this were to develop into a personal argument.

The "pick and choose which bits to believe" approach to the bible is the only one possible as it is so contradictory, and, as others have said, man-written under circumstances that mean it cannot be taken literally. This is why I am concerned about those who quote the bible as a justification for their actions; it is a cop-out, as what they are really saying is that they justify their actions on the basis of those bits of the bible that they agree with.

There are those around in the world today who pick bits from their holy book and justify slaughter, stoning, chopping off hands etc.

As others have said there are thoughtful concerned christians on this site with whom one can have a debate and from whom one can learn. I do not find soontobe's slavishly and literal bible-based approach palatable.

Jings I wonder if "mansions" could perhaps have been better translated as "houses" in the same sense that we had school "houses" and dynasties are often called "houses". Like the feuding familes in Romeo and Juliet belonged either to the house of Capulet or the house of Montague. Like Joseph and Mary were both of the house of David.

Some of these comments are coming close to dictating what can or cannot be posted. Surely it's easy enough to ignore a post if you don't like what the OP has said, or is your "right to say what you think" more important?