What would make Christianity more tolerable...to you?
- Thread starter Carcano
- Start date
Basically I said not necessarily...that you received the reply you did might give you pause to consider...
This IS a good point, he did give Jesus a thumbs up, basically. Paul and his Jewish ballast a big thumbs down.
It could stop being so anti-life. It would be more tolerable to me if it did not require people to abstain from sex until marriage, and did not turn normal human urges into an obscenity.
It coudl also reject inequality in all its forms, including misogyny and homophobia.
It coudl also reject inequality in all its forms, including misogyny and homophobia.
Not true. It is quite possible to imagine virtuous behavior without beliving in sin. That which exceeds the norm is virtuous.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
I dont believe Jesus himself expressed any particular prejudice against women or homosexuals. His ministry was supported by several women, who tagged along without saying much. He was however against both divorce and adultery.
The ancient Hebrews were keen on polygamy, but I dont know what Jesus thought of such things. He appears to have favoured celibacy himself.
To remove all inequality would be to remove heaven and hell, good and evil, and thereby the foundation of religion itself.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
There is no above without below...no up without down.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Yes, but some posts are recommending minor tweaks to the religion - which has been going on continuously since the get go, and some are recommending changes which would destroy its foundations altogether.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Arent you really referring to Catholicism...where the priests arent allowed to lie with women?
One doesnt hear about such things in Protestantism to the same extent.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Whats the opposite of 'tosh'?
I have it - one not so big, but extremely powerful change:
That Christians would stop trying to explain and justify their doctrines. That they would simply treat them as dogmas - what they are meant to be anyway.
It is their attempts to explain and justify their doctrines that are so troubling and misleading.
That Christians would stop trying to explain and justify their doctrines. That they would simply treat them as dogmas - what they are meant to be anyway.
It is their attempts to explain and justify their doctrines that are so troubling and misleading.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
What do you see as the difference between a doctrine and a dogma.
Have you seen the bumper sticker...'My karma ran over my dogma!'
I used "doctrine" there generally - as 'that which is being taught', a 'body of teachings'.
By "dogma" I mean something which is to be taken "as is", not to be disputed with, justified or explained; axioms that are to be accepted in an apriori manner.
So for example, if Christians would stick to "God exists" as a dogma, and not reach for more or less indirect archaeological and other scientific proofs (like that there was a historical person called Jesus who was crucified; that a catastrophic flood occured etc.) to show that the statement "God exists" is in fact true, everything would be so much easier.
But when they call upon those supporting proofs, the statement "God exists" (and with it the relevance of Christian faith) will stand only as long as those proofs. And we all know how disputable archaeological proofs are.
Supporting their claims this way makes it very difficult to take Christianity seriously or to use it as a guideline in one's life.
Yes, I have.
I didn't realize we were talking about up and down, although both up and down are positions relative to a baseline position.
Carcano
Valued Senior Member
Or, above and below the baseline you referred to as the 'norm'.
Besides the basic premise, I think the Catholic Church showed promise when they acknowledged evolution. They are always a little behind the times, but the fact that they can update their interpretation to fit revealed scientific truth is a positive development.