Modern Christian religions, in my opinion, have to walk a very fine line between saying that hell is a very real possibility, and that God loves us and doesn’t want anyone to be lost. They can say that fear is no motivation for obedience, but with the next breath offer this hell scenario. We have to, we’re told,
want to obey and believe. But if someone simply doesn’t believe because what has been presented to them does not seem plausible, how is this their fault?
Here’s an example. If salvation depended on my believing that green beans were delicious, yes, I would say, green beans are delicious. But I would not be telling the truth. I do not believe green beans are tasty at all. So when certain dogmas are taught that I simply cannot believe in, the same holds true. I don’t find certain doctrines at all plausible and have not been convinced of them, so I how can I say i believe them? Here I agree with the late Dr. Marcus Borg; that “belief” is highly overrated. One can believe all the right things, he would say, and still be a nasty neighbor, an obnoxious boss, and an irritable church member. Without transformation, belief becomes meaningless.
So to get to your post, Christianity fails in many cases in getting across the message that life in Christ is about love, about self sacrifice, and about compassion. I love Catholicism, please don’t misunderstand me here, but I can never formally become a Catholic. What the Church universal represents, in large part, is a legalism that smacks a bit too much like that I lived through with the WCG. If my salvation depends on my believing in A, B, and C, then I am hopelessly lost. But I choose to look beyond that to what I feel is the greater portion, and very much enjoy my connection with the Roman Catholic Church. It could, if I allowed it, envelope me with that cult-like embrace. But I am far too suspicious of religion in general for that to ever happen again.
I hope this response is of an adequate nature.
