Christian theology is evolving to adapt to its increasing rejection by Western society. In the past, one could be as scary as he wanted, teaching young children about eternal torment while threatening the adults. It was the face of Christianity as I experienced it as a Christian in the seventies. There was no mincing with words like we see today. The Left Behind series and the Chick tracts were very much fire and brimstone. Those people would tell you that you were hell-bound if you didn't accept Jesus (become Christian).
But today, much of that has softened. Some of the church remains fundamentalist, but much of it has been moving toward more loving and inclusive interpretations of that same scripture. We've seen it in this thread already - God doesn't send us to hell, we send ourselves, and hell's torture is merely separation from God and heaven. Also, we see many of the faithful simply changing the doctrine from "one way" to more than one way to achieve salvation and attain paradise apparently.
Baha'is more familiar with the faith than you disagree. You started a thread recently where many expressed that, although they don't use the word blindly. Yet, every one of them did just that regarding the Baha'i doctrine in question in that thread. They all basically said the equivalent of God said it so I believe it.
Yes, this is the Christianity I was taught.
And this is how it's done. The words can't be changed, but their meanings and emphasis can be and are as needed. New scriptures are pointed to as the theology evolves.
And more adaptive revisionism. I don't see where this supports your claim. And there is no freedom of religion in Christianity. The Baha'i might accept the Christians, but the Christians don't accept any other religion as legitimate.
And more revisionism. God no longer sends conscious souls to a torture pit for eternity. Too mean for modern sensibilities. So, we send ourselves. I generally tell people who claim that that it's good to know, because if that's the case, I'm not going. None ever says that I will have that choice.
All of this revisionism de-tooths the religion.
Yes, I've seen this from Christians as well, although you're not a Christian. My answer is that I am quite familiar and comfortable with being far from God, and could easily spend an eternal afterlife without one if that were an option. The problem for Christianity is that it offers both the carrot of heaven and the stick of hell, and it turns out that the carrot just isn't very appealing, so softening the stick or putting it down means the horse slows or stops. To survive, Christianity requires access to children, respectablitiy, credibility, and protection from challenges to it, all of which it has lost or is losing. It also apparently requires hell theology be threatening. If it gives that part or all of that up to gain adherents, it probably won't work.
And more revisionism. Again, I don't know if you speak here as a Baha'i or for Christians, but there is nothing forgiving or merciful about Judgment Day. In heaven, there are no juries and no appeals, and the punishment for a reasonable mistake - unbelief in this god - is eternal suffering. That the opposite of just, forgiving, or merciful.
I don't see any of this new kinder-and-gentler saving Christianity from ongoing loss of cultural hegemony in the West. And please note that these are all movements in the direction of humanism, the primary source of the rejection of this kind of doctrine in the West. It's humanist sensibilities at last being promoted culturally through the advent of atheist bestselling authors, atheist celebrities (Tyson, Carlin, Maher), and the Internet that are taking root and pushing the religions toward more kind and inclusive doctrine not because it wants to. It wants to survive, and that is what the younger demographic that it is trying to appeal to is demanding now.
