You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was portrayed as crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing – if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?
.
Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announce the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.” So that those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
.
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of Law.” Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, “The man who does these things will live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written “Cursed is every man who is hung on a tree.” He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through faith in Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. [Galatians 3:1-14]

I believe this says that we are saved/redeemed/given God’s Spirit by faith in Jesus, rather than being good, observing the law, or by any merit on our behalf. The reasons I believe this, and the points I would discuss with someone who believes differently, are:
.
1. Paul repeats the significance of trusting God as compared to observing the law 10 times.
.
2. Latter parts of the same letter agree with this understanding:

But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. [Galatians 3:22]

3. The parts of the Old Testament which Paul references support this view of the faith vs the law, for instance, Genesis chapter 15 talks about Abraham believing God, and because of this he is credited righteousness (just as we are given righteousness through believing God by believing Jesus)

4. Wider writings in the Bible repeat the point, (this e.g. from one of Jesus’ biographies):

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. [John 3:16]

5. The big picture of the Bible is that God has worked to save his people for the praise of his name. How does this understanding stack up against that? Well, by sending his Son, Jesus, to die in our place, God has both saved us from our deserved punishment, and done it in a way that gives all the glory to Jesus, rather than to us. It fits.
.
Other points we could consider: are there terms which stick out? Any that may have slightly different meanings that the ones we use today?
.
If someone has a different interpretation to the Bible than I do, I like to sit down with them and check this stuff out together. Humility is really important here, because it could be that I’m wrong, or they are, or both of us are. But again, sitting down and nutting through a passage word-by-word with someone is huge in terms of coming to a similar understanding. I think a lot of mis-interpretations come about because specific parts of the text are over-emphasised, parts are skimmed over, or not enough thought goes into what a certain understanding would mean to all other facets of who we know God to be.

Sorry for the wall of text!

I think it’s important to say here that I don’t claim to understand every piece of the bible in entirety and condemn anyone who disagrees with me!

So I suppose it’s not a big leap to assume you believe you have interpreted some of the Bible correctly. I’m wondering how you decide this, and if someone disagrees with you, how you decide you are correct? Thanks.

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” [2 Timothy 3:16]

.

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origins in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. [2 Peter 1:20,21]

… the same Spirit Jesus promised to send to his disciples, as John wrote in his bibliography of Jesus:

I [Jesus] have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you. [John 16:12-15]

Similarly, in one of Paul’s letters to the Christians in Corinth:

“The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no on knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.” [1 Corinthians 2:10-12]

So, the same Spirit who wrote the Bible, God sends us to understand the Bible. However, the Bible says that we should expect many different interpretations, and there will be people who twist the words to serve their own purposes:

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping. [2 Peter 2:1-3]

Humbly reading scripture will reveal that a lot of it is plain – it can be understood. If it is read in an attempt to understand the meaning which God put into it, then one won’t jump to conclusion, but will see what the Bible claims for itself. If this is the approach, then I believe a lot of personal interpretations will overlap heavily, on the meaning intended by God.

My concern was that it might be to try and tarnish atheism by association, which I tried to (perhaps poorly) explain above.

No, I think your explanation was clear. Thanks for raising that concern and for the discussion!

I used to wonder about the vast array of interpretations – how could I know which was right? Catholics? Protestants? Maybe the Mormons or the Muslims have the correct interpretation of the bible? But one thing which helped me immensely, was just sitting down, opening the bible up, and reading what it has to say for itself.

So it comes down to a personal interpretation?

In fact, you can find the very same leap of logic in a number of atheist books and films.

I don’t doubt this, and this wasn’t my concern (though thanks for providing references). My point was: atheism has nothing to do with “claims of abuse perpetuated in the name of religion” or “generalisations”, and I failed to see why the atheist tag was added to a discussion on those things. My concern was that it might be to try and tarnish atheism by association, which I tried to (perhaps poorly) explain above.

I hope I’m not offending you by pointing out this issue

I’m not offended at all. Please say what you think.
.

Here, the problem seems a little more general/complex than a basic poisening of the well though: introduce the term atheism, attempt to discredit some comments or arguments made by an atheist that aren’t actually dependant on or related to atheism, and hope this negatively influences readers’ perceptions of atheism.

Hopefully this discussion will help stop my reflections on atheism from “poisoning the well”. That was in fact one of my aims in this introductory post – see its last couple of paragraphs. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that all atheists employ a general Argument from Religious Violence/Abuse to oppose all religions.
.
That said, Grayling isn’t alone. In fact, you can find the very same leap of logic in a number of atheist books and films. So it seems to me it is at least broadly “related to atheism” and that it does warrant a response. Here are another couple of examples.
.
Michel Onfray, The Atheist Manifesto:

For monotheism is fatally fixated on death. It loves death, cherishes death; it exults in death, is fascinated by death. It gives death, doles it out in massive doses; it threatens death and moves from threat to action: from the bloody sword of the Israelites killing off the Canaanites to the use of airliners as flying bombs in New York, stopping off on the way to release an atomic cargo over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Everything is done in the name of God, blessed by him, but blessed most of all by those claiming to act in his name.

.
Bill Maher, Religulous:

If you belonged to a political party or a social club that was tied to as much bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, violence and sheer ignorance as religion is, you’d resign in protest. To do otherwise is to be an enabler, a Mafia wife, with the true devils of extremism that draw their legitimacy from the billions of their fellow travelers.

.
What do you think? Have you come across similar all-encompassing arguments from religious violence before? Do you think they are fair, measured criticism? It would be great to hear some atheists and sceptics speaking up to oppose such fallacious arguments too.
.

We may not agree on what each of us consider abuse, but hopefully we can agree on this one: faith healing. Some of those kids suffer so horribly.

If I have understood you rightly, I definitely agree with you. While God can heal people, teaching that God promises physical healing to anyone as long as they have enough faith is harmful. It misrepresents God, it gives people false hope, and it undermines Christian assurance. It is also unbiblical. I don’t know how prevalent this false teaching is in the Bible belt, but you are probably right that there is at least some of it around.
.
Christian pastors, if you are teaching this false doctrine, please re-examine the scriptures and stop. James 1:2-4; 1 Peter 1:3-9; 1 Timothy 5:23; 2 Timothy 4:20 and 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 would be good places to start.

Any “christianity” which denies or moves away from what is held in the bible is false, and so I would disagree with you here and say “no, there is only one Christianity – that which was revealed by God in the bible”.

But you can always simply say Person X’s flavour of Christianity was wrong, they should have adhered to Person Y’s flavour (equivalently, “I’m a Christian and I would not have done that”).

Equivalently, [a]ny “christianity” which denies or moves away from what is held in the bible is false. You see that anyone can say this to anyone else with respect to interpretation right?

There is true meaning in the bible, and I believe there is onus on us to do the work!

What work? Do you mean find the correct interpretation? Can you please name someone who has, or has come close to, finding this correct interpretation in, say, the last 1000 years?

people commit atrocities in the name of religion, science, themselves, profit… but that is besides the credibility/worth of these things.

I disagree with that. How a concept is used, what it inspires, etc, contributes greatly to that concepts worth. If people are acting poorly on behalf of Christianity, then Christianity does not get off with its reputation intact.

There is no definitive version of Christianity, right?

God revealed himself to us through his Son Jesus, and has given us his Word to know, the bible. Any “christianity” which denies or moves away from what is held in the bible is false, and so I would disagree with you here and say “no, there is only one Christianity – that which was revealed by God in the bible”.
.
However there are two points about the bible which ought to be made:
1. The bible is definite on some points (Jesus’ life, death resurrection, our sin, God’s character etc.) but vague on others (e.g. it doesn’t prescribe how church services must run). So here, one may say “There – the bible can be interpreted in many different ways, who is to say which is wrong?” And this brings point:
2. The bible is a means of communicating God’s ideas/words/message/meaning to us. It isn’t a book which we can read and say “for me, this means…” I think many Christians (including myself) can get caught on this, and become lazy. There is true meaning in the bible, and I believe there is onus on us to do the work!
.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by the final paragraph, but what I was trying to say is that it doesn’t matter what purpose is given by people for their actions – people commit atrocities in the name of religion, science, themselves, profit… but that is besides the credibility/worth of these things.

We can .. genuinely ask “Does any abuse perpetrated by people who call themselves Christians call in to question Christianity, or just those poeple who call themselves Christians?”

But you can always simply say Person X’s flavour of Christianity was wrong, they should have adhered to Person Y’s flavour (equivalently, “I’m a Christian and I would not have done that”). The problem with that is: they can say the same thing. There is no definitive version of Christianity, right? So when someone claims to be acting in the name of Christianity …

None of this changes that fact that “abuses are perpetuated in the name of religion”. Agreeing with the action is irrelevant isn’t it?