Homosexuality is a sin? Well, Xtians, what about these other 76 things?

[Drich]

What's the point, if the only requirement which really matters is atonement?

The Chicken or the egg.

What is the only acceptable reason to accept attonement? Because one wishes to Love God with all of their being. What does Christ say about those who love Him in John 14?

"If you love me you will keep my commandments." Which commandments? The ones He re enforced in His ministry. (The Moral Law) Does following the Moral Law add to one's righteousness in any way? No. Following the law is just a symptom of a Greater love for God. In other words following the moral law is the effect of salvation not the root cause of it. It is a fruit of a spirit filled life. When you love God you want to do what God would have you do. When you love self you want to do what you want to do.

If this is true, then there is, and never was, any point to the law in the first place. You can do all sorts of terrible things, as long as you atone properly, you'll be okay.

The Galatains wrestled with this same question with Paul in Gal 3 :19 So what was the law for? The law was given to show the wrong things people do. The law would continue until the special Descendant of Abraham came. This is the Descendant mentioned in the promise, which came directly from God. But the law was given through angels, and the angels used Moses as a mediator to give the law to the people. 20 But when God gave the promise, there was no mediator, because a mediator is not needed when there is only one side, and God is one.

The Purpose of the Law of Moses

21 Does this mean that the law works against God’s promises? Of course not. The law was never God’s way of giving new life to people. If it were, then we could be made right with God by following the law. 22 But this is not possible. The Scriptures put the whole world in prison under the control of sin, so that the only way for people to get what God promised would be through faith in[j] Jesus Christ. It is given to those who believe in him.

23 Before this faith came, the law held us as prisoners. We had no freedom until God showed us the way of faith that was coming. 24 I mean the law was the guardian in charge of us until Christ came. After he came, we could be made right with God through faith. 25 Now that the way of faith has come, we no longer need the law to be our guardian.

26-27 You were all baptized into Christ, and so you were all clothed with Christ. This shows that you are all children of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 28 Now, in Christ, it doesn’t matter if you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or free, male or female. You are all the same in Christ Jesus. 29 You belong to Christ, so you are Abraham’s descendants. You get all of God’s blessings because of the promise that God made to Abraham.

That does not make sense, especially when Jesus reminds everybody that sticking to the law is indeed taken into consideration when determining who gets into heaven.

Did you not read Mat 5 where Jesus specifically says one must seek a righteousness greater than the law base righteousness of the Pharasees?

If so then where is the passage in which you speak?

The passage either means what it says or it doesn't.

The passage Means exactly what it says as a whole.
I honestly do not know if you do not understand the whole concept or simply refuse to look at any more of the passage than what you need for your argument. The Law Jesus did not come to abolish is all still in effect this includes the do's and don'ts, but it also includes the caviots for atonement of sin. In the Law there is a way for sin to be atoned for. Christ's atonement covers all sin. This does not mean that the law is null and void. This means your sins are forgiven as long as you are loving God with all that God has given you to love and worship Him. That means salvation becomes about complete love and devotion no matter what that might look like as long as it is 100% complete effort on your part, and it ceases to be about law and loop holes, and outward showings/going through the motions of religious practices with no feeling, want or desire.

If it's contradictory, that's the fault of the Bible's authors, not mine, and I have no interest in twisting half of the Bible around so this verse is consistent with the rest.

Again not contradictory, you have taken 1 verse out of a bank of 5 expounded on the one verse's meaning and have ignored the rest of the passage for the sake of your argument. whether you do this out of ignorance or obstinance is of little concern to me, because at this point you have been exposed to the truth several times. What you do with it is up to you.
If you still do not understand what is being said then ask, don't assume.

---

Why would I ask you to have faith in what I say? I'm not religious.

So, no, there is no faith needed to believe what I've claimed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

Namely...

The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος, exodos, "going out") is the story of the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt following the death of Joseph, their departure under the leadership of Moses, the revelations at Sinai, and their wanderings in the wilderness up to the borders of Canaan. Significant portions of the story told in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy may not have been intended to be historiographic, but the overall intent was historical according to the understanding of the ancient writers: to demonstrate God's actions in history, to recall Israel's bondage and salvation, and to demonstrate the fulfillment of Israel's covenant. No archeological evidence exists which can be directly related to Exodus, and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit". The consensus among biblical scholars today that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.

And...

The consensus among biblical scholars today is that there was never any exodus of the proportions described in the Bible,[14] and that the story is best seen as theology, a story illustrating how the God of Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, and not as history.[5] Nevertheless, the discussion of the historical reality of the exodus has a long history, and continues to attract attention.

So...it's meant to be a story about how god acted to save and strengthen his chosen people...but it didn't actually happen. So, god never acted then, and the entire thing is a story. So...why, then, do any of the covenants have any weight, if the story meant to give the most weight in fact [i]never happened? Meaning the covenants in general [and allusions to sin or righteousness] are essentially based in nothingness.

And do you seriously want me to tell you why Genesis by all means of reality could not happen in either literal form or non-literal form? And why therefore the claim that god made anything is ALSO unfounded and unassertive??

I must ask you, in turn, why you give weight to something that never seems to base itself in reality, that time and again keeps coming up short in terms of evidence for its claims? If you're so unwilling to take what I say on faith [even when there are facts out there to show what I was saying was actually a matter of simple fact], then why are you so willing to take what a bunch of heebs who could barely communicate properly on faith? Do you merely live by Pascal's Wager? "Might as well believe it because someone claimed it and this is some seemingly-heavy shit, because something is better than nothing, even if that something ultimately itself turns out to be nothing?" See, you're going to end up with me having to answer even more questions as you answer...and eventually you're going to run out of answers. Or the questions are gonna start imploding your argument in on itself. Ockam's razor never fails. I can answer your questions myself in a context where I am putting myself in the shoes of a believer and seeing it through their logic [because I once stood in those very same shoes and can remember quite clearly what my logic was], and eventually you're going to end up with questions you can't answer, which is funny...because the bible is supposed to provide all the necessary answers for matters of faith and god, right? The only things that supposedly matter? But if all you end up with is questions whose answers will eventually terminate in circular logic [which is invalid logic]...is it really answering anything?

See, the real problem I have with homosexuality being claimed as a sin is the fact that sin itself seems to have no basis in anything whatsoever. It's a slur, a judgment; "I judge you to be doing wrong because I have a book that says it is." Well, you and John V and others have claimed that if you do one sin you do them all, and as I've pointed out, chances are, EVERYONE has committed a sin...and if gay christians are ALSO exempt from sin, that means the "sin" of their marriage or sexual practices is ALSO forgiven...thus, why does the slur "sin" need to be pasted to them, if EVERY RELIGIOUS PERSON IS A SINNER?

Hey, blame yourself for this post; you're the one who wanted a question. 8P

Your whole argument is based on an appeal to probability. Do you seriously think I will argue your logical fallacy with you?

For sighting the lack of archeological evidence is completely meaningless unless one can say for certain he has searched for evidence in the right place. (Not to mention what does 'evidence' of a 40 year wandering camping trip look like after 3000 years in the shifting sands of 120*F desert?)

That is like me saying I have searched 30,000 square mile section of the North pole and did not find any archeological evidence of slavery, therefore slaves could not have existed. Or I could not find any evidence of dry land on the sea floor therefore dry land is a myth. It all boils down to faith and what you want to believe. Your either going to put faith in god or faith in something that allows you to ignore God.

So again, are we simply to have faith in what you say is true? If so what is the difference in the faith your asking of me, than what God asks of me?