What would make Christianity more tolerable...to you?

Carcano

Carcano

Valued Senior Member
Regardless of whether youre a believer or not, what would you change about Christianity that would make it more tolerable to gaze upon???

I know that even some Christians are uncomfortable with some aspects of the total package. Others like Mel Gibson believe that one must accept all or none.

Personally, I would remove the entire nonsense about the sacrificial atonement of Jesus...which is entirely Paul's idea anyway.

In fact, it might be enough to simply remove Pauls writings from the new testament altogether.
 
A more explicit rejection of prejudice against homosexuals and women.

Timothy, for example, could be cut altogether. A letter, I ask you.
 
Carcano said:
Regardless of whether you're a believer or not, what would you change about Christianity that would make it more tolerable to gaze upon?
Click to expand...
1. Changing the Trinity doctrine to that of a six-faceted, dual-gendered divinity- God the Father, God the Spirit, and God the Son, along with Goddess the Mother (Mary), Goddess the Attendant (Mary of Clophas), and Goddess the Consort (M. Magdalene).

2. Affirmation of the follower's right to view doctrine of the divine as figurative rather than literal.

3. Affirmation of Ritual and Ceremonial Magic as a form of active prayer.

4. Throw out the OT. Supplant entirely with the NT, its views, and modern scientific knowledge.

5. Explicit rejection of any and all kinds of prejudice and discrimination.

There are many minor concepts, but those five are the major points of contention to me. Even so, I'd rather remain of my atheistic eclectic Wiccan philosophy & religion than convert to Christianity, if only because of the ethical code Wicca possesses, which I feel is the one which best suits me.
 
Hapsburg said:
5. Explicit rejection of any and all kinds of prejudice and discrimination.
Click to expand...
Would that include rejecting discrimination against sin?

Surely even Wiccans believe in some interpretation of sin or evil.

Excellent commentary btw!
 
Carcano said:
Would that include rejecting discrimination against sin?
Surely even Wiccans believe in some interpretation of sin or evil.
Click to expand...
Not really. There is a basic ethical code- the Wiccan Rede, which says basically, to make sure that your actions do no malicious harm, and to be responsible for your actions when they do cause harm; however, there is no concept of a force of evil, or a devil figure, in Wicca. Therefore, any wrongdoing which one commits is the liability and responsibility of the individual. If you hurt someone, you are morally liable for the harm you did, and in one way or another, you'll get what's yours.

That's what I like about Wicca and its ethical system. :D
Not that Christianity has a necessarily worse or better ethical ideal; it's just not for me.
 
Hapsburg said:
1. Changing the Trinity doctrine to that of a six-faceted, dual-gendered divinity- God the Father, God the Spirit, and God the Son, along with Goddess the Mother (Mary), Goddess the Attendant (Mary of Clophas), and Goddess the Consort (M. Magdalene).

2. Affirmation of the follower's right to view doctrine of the divine as figurative rather than literal.

3. Affirmation of Ritual and Ceremonial Magic as a form of active prayer.

4. Throw out the OT. Supplant entirely with the NT, its views, and modern scientific knowledge.

5. Explicit rejection of any and all kinds of prejudice and discrimination.

There are many minor concepts, but those five are the major points of contention to me. Even so, I'd rather remain of my atheistic eclectic Wiccan philosophy & religion than convert to Christianity, if only because of the ethical code Wicca possesses, which I feel is the one which best suits me.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Might be a bit excessive, although one can appreciate some of your points. Aside from Magdalene, what liturgical basis would there be for the other two Marys?

Surely one would think there were something about them.
 
GeoffP said:
...although one can appreciate some of your points. Aside from Magdalene, what liturgical basis would there be for the other two Marys?
Click to expand...
Systematically listed:

>Goddess the Mother- i.e, Mary, Mother of Jesus. Obvious one there, and not that difficult a jump, because Catholics (by far the majority of Christians in the world) more or less venerate her as Co-Redemptor anyway.
>Goddess the Attendant- i.e, Mary of Clophas, father of Apostle James, and prominent follower of Jesus, in other words, an attendant, and a witness to the figure's miracles and such.
>Goddess the Consort- i.e, Mary Magdalene, closest female devotee to the guy, and closest the man had to a consort, if not one.

The first point, while in-depth, is not as important as the second point I made, because I'm still a non-theist and view divinity as fully immanent and devoid of real consciousness.

Surely one would think there were something about them.
Click to expand...
Is that a movie pun I hear? :p
 
What NF said. You who are a great religious minority in this country? Sikhs! There are many of them around here, but you never hear a peep out of them. They mind their own business, and leave well enough alone. I've never had a Sikh knock on my door and attempt to bother me into believing in their religion. Christians should take note.
 
Repo Man said:
What NF said. You who are a great religious minority in this country? Sikhs! There are many of them around here, but you never hear a peep out of them. They mind their own business, and leave well enough alone. I've never had a Sikh knock on my door and attempt to bother me into believing in their religion. Christians should take note.
Click to expand...

Good call. I've even heard of some really crazy shit that goes down at Sikh temples. Do I give a shit? Nope they usually keep it at the temple.
 
Hapsburg said:
There is a basic ethical code- the Wiccan Rede, which says basically, to make sure that your actions do no malicious harm, and to be responsible for your actions when they do cause harm; however, there is no concept of a force of evil, or a devil figure, in Wicca.
Click to expand...
So there is an evil 'quality' (defined by the will to harm), but no evil 'entity'...as in the Devil.
 
There might be some coincidental similarities(as with an "positive" message), but it was not models on them. It is very mocking of Judeo-Christian Tradition. Nastily so, in fact.

One must have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star
Click to expand...

If you mean "modeled" as in - do the exact opposite...very well.
 
Repo Man said:
What NF said. You who are a great religious minority in this country? Sikhs! There are many of them around here, but you never hear a peep out of them. They mind their own business, and leave well enough alone. I've never had a Sikh knock on my door and attempt to bother me into believing in their religion. Christians should take note.
Click to expand...
I wonder though, how their religion was spread in India...if not through preaching to the unconverted.
 
nietzschefan said:
There might be some coincidental similarities(as with an "positive" message), but it was not models on them. It is very mocking of Judeo-Christian Tradition. Nastily so, in fact.
Click to expand...
Yes it is...in terms of its content, but its style is of the Gospels.

To find out what he thought of Jesus and Christianity directly one must read 'The AntiChrist'.

His sister points out in his biography that his central critique was of Paul, not Jesus especially.
 
Enmos said:
I would want to see any supernatural entity removed from Christianity.
Click to expand...
That would require drastic surgery...although I understand Thomas Jefferson favoured a version of the gospels with all miracles removed.

There was a version of the bible floating around in victorian times with all the naughty bits removed...to make it suitable reading for fine ladies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top