Why is Faith/Belief a Moral Issue?

[orangebox21]

Then why claim there's something wrong with the way that Christians interpret/misinterpret scripture?

Because there are some christians that take some parts of the bible literally and some parts as being up for interpretation. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. Cherry picking at the individual level to make ends meet. Some claim the bible to be the word of god and shoot off verses as if there was no tomorrow. And the next verse in the same book on the same page is suddenly not to be taken literally.

That's what I'm getting at. It's most obvious with the condemnation of gay people. The verse they're always quoting is on the same page as not wearing cloths of two different fabrics, not eating shellfish, not cutting hair or beard and not making any body modifications. All is called an abomination in the eyes of god. The same people who take one verse as literal to have a talking point, are well dressed, shaved and probably do eat shrimp.

I understand your point.  Some people claim that tattoos are wrong, but then trim their beards.  So what's going on here?  

The questions I'm asking are to get to the heart of what's going on here, namely equivocation.  The "law" is a broad term.  The law can refer to the moral law, the mosaic law, the theocratic [nation of Israel] law, etc.  When Jesus "fulfilled the law," which category of laws did He fulfill.  I would argue all of them.  When he said he did not come to "abolish the law" to which category of laws is he referring?  And is it always true that Jesus' purpose is the same as a Christian's?  We have to look to the NT revelation to fully understand.  So what "law" are Christian's under?  We don't live in theocratic Israel, therefore the theocratic law doesn't apply.  There are scriptures referring to Christians not being circumcised (Romans 2, Galatians 3), worshiping on whatever day they want (Colossians 2), eating whatever food they want (Colossians 2), so we're not under the mosaic law.  It is also written that Christians are no longer under the moral law (Galatians 3, Romans 6).  So a Christian, once save, is free from all aspects of the law.  But being free from the law does not negate the law.  [And I'll add that we are commanded to bear the fruit of the Spirit, of which things there are no law (Galatians 5, Romans 8).]  

For the unbeliever the moral law is still in effect.  And what is the effect of the law?  It brings us to a knowledge of sin (Galatians 3).

With respect to homosexuality.  Romans 1 shows that God's wrath is upon certain people.  And who are these people?  People who engage in unrighteousness and ungodliness.  And what does God do with such people?  It says that he gives them over to a depraved mind.  And that they exchange the worship of the creator for the creation, and that they engage in homosexuality.  The context here is that these people are under the wrath of God for wrongdoing.

I do not write these words lightly and I must point out. That we Christians too, "were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 2:1-4)  The only difference is the blood of Christ shed for me, and if you want, shed for you.

Is it possible that you're not even aware that you just contradicted yourself?

You come in here quoting scriptures as if the Bible has any authority here.  That's bad enough but you use scriptures and arguments that leave you painted into a corner and then crawl back through the paint like no one else will notice it if you pretend it's not there.

Iggy, can this joker borrow your name? It fits him better.

What's your argument?