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

answers said:
Jesus said I come first for the Jew then for the gentile.
Click to expand...
When giving instructions to his disciples he would tell them specifically..."Go NOT among the gentiles, but to the lost sheep of Israel"

He says nothing about the gentiles except that they are to be ignored. He took mercy on one gentile women yes...only after she referred to her own culture as being that of dogs at the table.

This is light years away from an endorsement.

Look into the ritual sacrifice in the old testament and the prophecies about Jesus being the ultimate sacrifice, you soon will see thousands of years before Paul that this teaching was around.
Click to expand...
There are many prophecies about a messiah in the old testament...but its only Christians who have decided they all refer to Jesus, and that the word 'sacrifice' refers to Paul's interpretation.

The folks who wrote those prophecies said nothing specific of the sort.
 
Last edited:
Carcano said:
There many prophecies about a messiah in the old testament...but its only Christians who have decided they all refer to Jesus, and that the word 'sacrifice' refers to Paul's interpretation.

The folks who wrote those prophecies said nothing specific of the sort.
Click to expand...

Exactly!
Which is why the great majority of Jews don't believe Jesus fufilled the requirements of the messiah.
From reading over their reasons for saying so..I would agree.


http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm
 
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/jewsandjesus.htm

I haven't even looked into those arguments but off the top of my head I could see at least half of them were wrong. Especially the whole trinity thing. But you have to remember that in the Torah God reffered to himself as a plural. A slight gramatical change from the norm which is pretty interesting when you apply it to the whole concept of the trinity. God is complicated, he can be one in three and three in one and we don't need to be able to grasp that concept. I guess its a bit like time, time is one thing, but it is also 1 past, 2 present and 3 future. God is more complicated then we can grasp so I'll just leave it at that. There is something like 200 prophesies Jesus fullfilled. That site takes on 4 of those. Even if we just admit that those 4 prophesies don't prove anything (they definetely don't disprove anything) there are still over a hundred prophesies which he fullfilled. And half the New Testament teaches that the gospel is to go to the gentile. Jesus apeared in a vision and told the deciples to go to the gentiles. Jesus says on a number of occasions, first the jew then the gentile. You are going to disagree with me no matter what so I really can't be bothered getting all the bible references for you. And also according to that site Jesus wasn't decended from David, but if you look into Mary's geneology you will find that she too was decended from David and Jesus was decended from Mary, and it doesn't have to go through the father, it's pretty sexist to suggest that a womans dna and geneology means nothing. And the bible never puts that requirement on that prophecy, so its simply something the author of that article made up to prove their flawed point. Jesus doesn't contradict the Law, He fulfills it. There is freedom in Christ that no legalist will find and no unconverted Jew will understand. The Law doesn't save, the law condemns. Jesus taught that salvation wasn't in the Law, but in His payment for their transgression of the law, that was His point. Anyway I need sleep CyA's.
 
Carcano said:
Regardless of whether youre a believer or not, what would you change about Christianity that would make it more tolerable to gaze upon???
Click to expand...

Christians admitting that it's all myth and superstition.
 
If Christians would step up and accept that their religeon tends to promote bigotry and do something to change it.

Then, and only then, can they and the rest of us, move forward.
 
Carcano said:
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.
Click to expand...

First of all, total and complete abolition of the Catholic church. It's not a church anyway - it's a business, nothing more.
 
And, this is food for thought. Would you rather there be one religion and all these people were the same? Be careful what you wish for because well, just think for a minute. Because these answers are there just waiting for you to pluck them out of the air, they're there.
 
takethewarhome said:
Uh.. it's no more a business than any other denomination..
Click to expand...
That may have been true prior to the Lateran treaty of 1929...although I doubt it.

Since 1929 the Vatican has been financed by the investment genius of the Vatican Bank, which is not only one of the most secretive organizations in the world, but has often also called upon the same consultants linked to italian organized crime.

From the wiki article:

"The Vatican Bank is a common name given to the Institute for Religious Works, the central bank for the Roman Catholic Church located in Vatican City. It is run by a professional bank CEO who reports directly to a committee of cardinals, and ultimately to the Pope, and is the only papal financial institution not overseen by the Prefecture for the Economic Affairs of the Holy See.

The current President is Angelo Caloia. The Vatican Bank was involved in a major political and financial scandal in the 1980s, concerning the 1982 $3.5 billion collapse of Banco Ambrosiano, of which it was a major share-holder. The head of the Vatican Bank from 1971 to 1989, Paul Marcinkus, was indicted in 1982 in Italy as an accessory of the bankruptcy."
 
You can't generalize all denominations. Generalize women and you are called a sexist, generalize races and you are called a racist, but generalize Christians and you are called normal. Only true arrogance and ignorance enables a person to pass judgement so widely.
 
answers said:
You can't generalize all denominations. Generalize women and you are called a sexist, generalize races and you are called a racist, but generalize Christians and you are called normal. Only true arrogance and ignorance enables a person to pass judgement so widely.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Well are there any churches out there that don't collect money at all? Even the smallest of churches, like Orleander said, still have to pay for utilities and the pastor's salary. I don't care what kind of "business" it is, it has to be funded to keep operating.

If "money is the root of all evil," why do religious organizations collect money?
 
So that they can use that money to continue their establishments.. Also, some churches do brilliant missionary work with collected money also. How can that be bad?
 
Honestly, I think that fellow Christians should actually read the Bible, and other books. I mean, most of the Christians I see on this website dont even have a clue of what they are talking about. Also, we can tend to get cocky about what we believe, and we are not willing to put forth proof for our religion. (I am)
~
~Bed time~
~
 
"M*W: Well are there any churches out there that don't collect money at all?"

Yes in australia there are some very small chruches. I remember hearing about one where it only had 7 people each sunday and 5 of those were the pastors family. Do you really think a chruch like that would exist if it was set up for business purposes?

"If "money is the root of all evil," why do religious organizations collect money?"

A popular miss-quote that someone else has already corrected. Churches collect money? Is that it? Because all of the churches I have been to give out a hell of a lot of money too. My current church is responsible for funding a village in Africa so they can farm and be educated, giving hope to hundreds of people. And that's just one thing they spend their money on. What do you spend your money on? Is it such a bad thing for churches to collect money and give it to the poor? Of course some churches don't do this, I suggest not giving them your money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top