If dogma isn’t documented opinion for people to agree upon, then what is it?
He is giving his opinion of what he read. But as Russell stated;
It is always opinion, even when directly read word for word.
Fairly little ? Really ?
First, if one doesn’t follow the bible or think it is the word/will of yahweh , then I don’t see how one can call himself christian.
So let’s take a look at some of things christians should/must do /get behind according to the bible :
“Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18)
“Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me.” Exodus 13:2
“The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera's spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
“If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
[b]
So, let’s see, in order for someone to call themselves a christian, one would have to get behind human sacrifice, blind obedience to authority, slavery, rape, see woman as property and murder atheists, “witches”, “fortune tellers” and gays.[/b]
You DO know the difference between a Judist and a Christian, right?
You are quoting OT, Jewish Torah texts.
The NT changed the rules a bit for Christians distinguishing from Judists.
In fairness to volchok (gasp!) lots and lots of Christians think Christianity is all about ideology too. There are plenty of Christians who like volchok are blind hateful dogma chanting machines on autopilot. That is part of the reality of Christianity, and it’s fair to comment upon it.
Personally I think Christianity is about something that’s both simple and revolutionary.
Love.
A single word.
A single word that contains enough work to keep any of us busy for the rest of our lives.
Imho, all the endless talking of the talk, the ideology chanting and battling, is what folks do to put off the walking of the walk, which is rather more challenging. And to be fair to the folks too, there is an incredible amount of really poor leadership available to confuse them.
As example, as I understand it Catholic Charities in the US is the second leading provider of social services, after the federal government. This is part of the Catholic Church that even atheists respect.
And so what do Church leaders talk about? Gay marriage. Contraception. Battles between Popes and nuns.
Stupid, stupid, stupid…
And you know what’s cool? What you personally think about Christianity totally represents Christianity. Yeah, totes.
That is the reality of every organization today that still is an organization.
It has nothing to do with Christianity.
Once they learned how to produce drones, everyone gotta have some.
Um…
I agree that Christianity is not the exclusive example of ideological warfare, and that the source of that conflict arises from thought itself.
But it’s hardly accurate to say that ideological warfare has nothing to do with Christianity. It shouldn’t have much to do with Christianity, but I’m afraid the reality much of the time is that it does.
I just this minute finished reading a blog post by the leading Catholic Cardinal in the United States, and I must report, it’s all about ideological conflict. Put more gracefully than some, but still, ideology wars.
I said nothing of Christianity not being a part of the social warring going on. I said that being a drone doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity or whatever side it happens to be droning on about. It is like being a white pawn. Being a pawn has nothing to do with being white.
The only players with no pawns are the players that ran out before the game was over.
Then who James do you share your religion with? Do you feel other followers of the Christian God share your personal and unconventional interpretations of His texts?
Speaking on behalf of my two best friends who are both Christians, I can safely say they’d be offended by some of your more controversial views.
A good post thanks, I guess I’m asking posters to use their own understanding of the word ‘bad’.
As for it being religion-specific I know what you mean so let us just say Roman Catholic for sake of discussion.
James - mine in blue…
Only the more educated among them (pretty small percentage).
Yeah and blacks are offended when called “negro” and want you to call them black, even though “negro” merely means “black”. I have met many that never knew that. I imagine if the cells in your body could think at all, they would be offended to be called human. Maybe your cat is offended by being called “feline”.
You might want to remind them that offense can’t be given if it isn’t taken. Tell them to look it up.
Where in the world do you live if you’ve met many people who didn’t know that? Do you mean you’ve met many blacks who didn’t know that?
Secondly, ‘negro’ and ‘negroes’ are offensive terms James. They are politically incorrect for a reason and I would be offended by that were I black myself. ‘Black’ is not considered offensive mostly because Caucasians have long been fine with being labelled ‘white’.
But James, ‘negro’ is still an offensive word used today mostly only by racists. I think it’s important you know that.
Finally, in your last sentence James, did you mean to say ‘can’t be taken if it isn’t given’ but make a mistake?
Please clarify this, thanks 
Both high places and low.
And I think that you need a reality check, perhaps a little vacation out of the Matrix.
Hell they even call themselves “nigga” more than any white ever did.
That is what I said and that is what I meant.
I guess it takes more thinking than I expected.
Perhaps you recognize it more as, “turn the other cheek and offer it as well”.
That really is a poor argument. I can be called things by friends - and hear them as affectionate - that would have a whole different meaning if said by a stranger to me. There are other reasons groups that have been oppressed reuse insulating names for them in their own speech - not without in-group controversy - but those arguments get more complicated.
The point is that it is a choice to be offended. There is nothing inherently offensive about a word that people use to refer to themselves.
Being easily and often offended is a type of sociopolitical tool and weapon to use in order to incite the people and manipulate the masses, most often used to marginalize one group or another and create excuses for unbalanced laws.
Christianity and Buddhism doesn’t allow that weapon to be used because it is a “fire of hell”, anger, and hatred type of weapon. Judaism, Mohammedanism, and Secularism use it quite frequently.
It is a question of their ethics.
your skin color is shining brightly through this post
Veiled insults are still insults, especially when you can only be bothered to half-veil them.
If your main criticism of Christianity is based on people following the Levitical law of the Hebrews, you don’t have a very strong criticism, or a very large target. Especially since the primary text for every major branch of Christianity is the New Testament, which (if I recall correctly, it’s been a while) explicitly declares the old covenant with God to be obsolete.
There’s enough relevant, significant stuff to criticise without resorting to Lazy Internet Atheist cut-and-pastes that don’t bear on modern Christianity at all. It’s a waste of time and distracts from the points that are worth paying attention to. On the other hand, it’s all a bit off-topic for this OP, and for this board.
I had been thinking about James prior to making this thread. I was genuinely curious what he had to say on the subject, but was more influenced by his attitude to be honest.
James is a Christian, and he may well consider himself a ‘good Christian’ and/or a ‘good person’. Tis not for me to say, but I like to think that he has posted enough here to make it pretty clear to any philosophers reading this (if not, check out some of his other posts.
Now, am I being too unfair here?
[new follow-up question]
Can somebody be a racist and yet also be a good Christian?
I like to think my mother is a ‘good person’ and yet she is fairly racist, but she is not religious and as such makes no attempt to think of herself as a ‘good Christian’ or anything like that.
Surely there must have been ‘good Christians’ throughout the slave trade years? Would they have all refused to be slave-owners or partaken of the forced labour?
A… Intentionally confusing me is one way to avoid the issue yes, but if you come up with more to offer than usage of racist slurs then I think we’d all appreciate it if you answered what is put to you.
B… Interesting that you’d rather disagree. So tell me then what does that mean?
“Offense can’t be given if it isn’t taken”
How exactly does this make sense here at all? The point here is that offense WAS taken, and so the following would have made sense…
“Offense can’t be taken if it isn’t given” - that would have been a valid defence to my claim.
James, please try to avoid using racially offensive words. Regardless of whather you feel certain words should not be offensive, while they remain offensive we all must play fair and consider the feelings of others.
I’m sure a ‘good Christian’ would appreciate this.
Personally i suspect you have a social learning dififculty of some kind. Probably because I don’t want to believe you are so willing to offend others and their beliefs.
But your uninhibited usage of certain words and key phrases which to most would be percieved as racism, does suggest there is a failure to understand the gravity of intentionally using offensive language.
If you keep words like that in your Lexicon then they will slip out at one point or another and I’d be careful where you are when that day comes.
You have to define ‘good’ very rigorously to ask the kind of questions which you are asking. I am also confused by what you mean by ‘good Christian’.
‘Good’ means well suited for a purpose. What is the purpose of a Christian?
The statement that James wrote makes perfect sense.
If you do not take offense, then you cannot be harmed by a word. Taking offense is allowing the giver to yank your chain…enslaving yourself.
A Christian may reason that he/she will treat a slave better than someone else and therefore choose to own slaves.
The post you quoted of mine in which i addressed phyllo provides the answers to the questions you’ve just asked, leaving me somewhat confused at having to quote myself so as not to have to rewrite the same thing twice.
Already addressed that mate -
Two lines above the bit you quoted, I answered that question. …
Whether it’s in good taste or not, James’s comment is a common saying and it makes perfect sense. Just saying.