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

Without a concept of sin there would be no concept of virtue either...two sides of a coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Interesting. I'll give this some thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1kqqMXWEFs

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i reckon christianity would be better with less kiddy fuckers
once a kid is abused they abuse other kids and have no help just jail
when the abuse if its stopped no more kiddy fuckers which means no more dept of child safety in australia woohooo party time yeeehaaa

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

a wiccan believes an act can be moral or amoral but sinfull no. i like the wiccan view on ethics because unlike a christian or a muslim you don't have any broad ethical or moral guides handed to you you have to think is what i'm going to do harm someone if it does than it is amoral.

 

Thankyou for sharing.

Please stop sharing.

 

i so badly need a cigarette i wana kill sumone i think ido
god ......

 

I think just removing the proselytizing aspect of Christianity would do wonders. Let people come to Christianity, not the other way around.

 

Declare it a mistake and treat it as such.

 

I find Christianity to already be tolerable. I have friends, family, and neighbors who are Christians and their faith is something that isn't really discussed.
What zealots need is mental health care. And I don't think their zealotry has anything to do with Christianity. If they weren't Christians, they would be like that about something else, PETA perhaps.

 

What you suggest is entirely impossible. "Christianity," like The Word of God It/Himself, is all about God's pursuit/approaching of Mankind ("Adam, where are you?"). This is most clearly seen in the Incarnation (God becoming man)... and those who've become indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God (Christians) are in a very real sense following suit...they carry on God's pursuit of mankind begun in the garden of Eden, culminating in the Incarnation and which continues throughout each generation by virtue of the Holy Spirit indwelling believers.

Therefore, "people" don't "come to Christianity", "Christianity" comes to them and that through what you label "proselytizing." It's Gods ordained way of calling Mankind back to Himself by means of His Word (Jesus Christ and His Body, the Church), Written and Incarnate.

Indeed, this God-->Man 'direction' is what sets Christianity apart from everything else out there with its Man (according to his own understanding)-->God direction...i.e. Man 'doing' any number of things in order to appease, etc. whatever god (of their own making) resides between their/his ears.

 

Right.

You have a God-given right and according to the Constitution of most countries the privilege,

to manipulate, blackmail and despise people and to request them to do immoral things -

and you have a God-given right and according to the Constitution of most countries the privilege to call all that 'love'.

 

It does as they act upon the harsh side of God as portrayed in the bible(this is where quoting the OT is especially usefull)..they dwell on the idealogy of atonement and judgement and this combined with the "dark side" of the OT allows them to use God as an excuse to vent their hatred and prejudice.

True.
They would simply follow another set of intolerant dogma and idealogy to act upon in an attempt to justify their hate.

 

You have a self centered--and therefore skewed-- perspective on/'understanding' of reality.

 

You mean like Jesus, Paul and the entire list of early church fathers?

Or maybe Charlemagne, who executed as many as 4000 people a day in the conversion of pagan tribes.

Without zealots there wouldnt be any Christianity.

 

Carcano?? I thought the question was "what would make it more tolerable to me", not the people who lived under Charlamagne's rule or the time of the early founders.
I have no problem with Christians. I am an atheist, but I'm not a zealot for my beliefs. Slamming their beliefs doesn't make mine more valid.
Bad things have been done in the name of God, but so have a lot of good things.

 

Maybe so, but the OP's question was what would make it more tolerable to me. If removing the proselytizing aspect cripples what you consider to be a fundamental part of Christianity, it's still what I'd prefer. Whether or not it'll actually happen or if it's possible is irrelevant.

 

No... cowreckshun prease: "What I'd prefer," and, "what would make it more tolerable to me" is what is irrelevant.

 

:bravo:

 

It's only irrelevant if you're not interested in discussing the OP's question. If that's the case, what're you even doing in this thread?

 

Not necessarily. I'm commenting on something you've put forth in response to the question...my reply to you would be an indirect comment/opinion given on the question itself.