Why is Faith/Belief a Moral Issue?

[robvalue]

Okay. The problem arises when the assumption is made that the bible is good, and as such can and should be defended.

I make no such assumption, and I read what it actually says and it makes me sick. This is why I'd never be a Christian, even if I thought there was any truth to it.

Interestingly, Catholic Lady gets around this problem by writing off the whole of the OT as metaphor/innacurate. Creative, I'll give her that!

I firmly believe there is no justification to be had for the atrocity that is the OT.

PS: Of course, if we take the bible for what it actually is, it makes sense. It's a peek into the past, and what society and morality may have been like back then. Obviously it's not especially reliable since it's filled with nonsense, but even the nonsense gives some idea of the thought processes of those people.

[Kingpin]

Okay. The problem arises when the assumption is made that the bible is good, and as such can and should be defended.

I make no such assumption, and I read what it actually says and it makes me sick. This is why I'd never be a Christian, even if I thought there was any truth to it.

Interestingly, Catholic Lady gets around this problem by writing off the whole of the OT as metaphor/innacurate. Creative, I'll give her that!

I firmly believe there is no justification to be had for the atrocity that is the OT.

And I fully respect your right to do so and glad you also respect our right not to.  

Biblical discussions, commentary and justifications can be had ad nauseum with different views and interpretations.  I don't mind having them and I will readily admit I probably have more questions then answers myself.   I can give opinion on it only.

[robvalue]

Of course. I'm only giving my opinions too I'd never tell anyone what to do or what to think.

It's such a refreshing change to not just get "no ur rong the bible is perffect" as an answer to everything.

Also, you don't seem to take it personally. Bravo there, that's incredibly rare.

[Rhondazvous]

Did god tell Moses to tell the people that the day would come when they would no longer have to obey the Law? If such a day were not foretold, how could Jesus be fulfilling the law when he taught his disciples to break it?

Your claim is a non-sequitur:

Moses didn't tell the people that the day would come when they would no longer have to obey the Law, therefore Jesus couldn't be fulfilling the law when he taught his disciples to break it.

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.

[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?

[abaris]

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).

Yet there is no moral law for me and, without assuming to speak for everyone else, for most, if not all, atheists. There's only the moral consensus of the particular society we're living in. Ever changing from age to age and region to region. And there's individual decency or lack thereoff.

We had that kind of discussion about a million times already. But to clarify - I'm not the least bit interested in the law Jesus supposedly spoke of. My point always was what I said above.

[orangebox21]

Yet there is no moral law for me and, without assuming to speak for everyone else, for most, if not all, atheists. There's only the moral consensus of the particular society we're living in. Ever changing from age to age and region to region. And there's individual decency or lack thereoff.

We had that kind of discussion about a million times already. But to clarify - I'm not the least bit interested in the law Jesus supposedly spoke of. My point always was what I said above.

Two problems.

First, if moral relativity is true, then no atheist can judge God on the basis of morality. The last of the bible was written about 2000 years ago, and the OT before then. According to your moral standard each command or law in the Bible could only be determined to be moral or immoral by viewing it within the context of "the moral consensus of the particular society living" at the time. It would go as follows:
[I'm not endorsing the following propositions as true, but for the sake of argument]
If slavery [regardless as to how it is defined] was an accepted practice 7000 years ago then it was by your definition moral.
If God endorsed slavery 7000 years ago, then it would have been considered moral to do so.

The only way to make a moral objection to the things of past, by the moral standard of the present, would necessarily result in abandoning the standard of moral relativity.

And this leads to the second problem. Ultimately, moral relativity doesn't make sense. By this, I'm not saying that I don't understand it, I'm saying if we assume moral relativity is true, then there is no morality, just a fiat assertion of morality ad populum.

[abaris]

First, if moral relativity is true, then no atheist can judge God on the basis of morality.

Stop right there, since you have it totally wrong. We don't judge god, since we don't believe there is a god. We judge people, who take the word of people who wrote so called holy books as the literal marching orders of a higher being. Most of us don't even judge the ones writing the bible, since they didn't know any better and had to fit in their kind of society. It's todays followers, who still take every word of the bible literally and want to transport Iron Age desert morality to the 21st century we're opposed to.

That's the point I'm making since I first came into this thread. You're going by the wrong premise.

[orangebox21]

First, if moral relativity is true, then no atheist can judge God on the basis of morality.

Stop right there, since you have it totally wrong. We don't judge god, since we don't believe there is a god. We judge people, who take the word of people who wrote so called holy books as the literal marching orders of a higher being. Most of us don't even judge the ones writing the bible, since they didn't know any better and had to fit in their kind of society.

Who's we?
The words of the holy books are God.  To judge them is to judge Him.

It's todays followers, who still take every word of the bible literally and want to transport Iron Age desert morality to the 21st century we're opposed to.

Yet if this "Iron Age desert morality" is "the moral consensus of the particular society we're living in," then you would accept it as moral, right?  
stats 2014
stats 2011
stats 2001

[abaris]

Who's we?
The words of the holy books are God.  To judge them is to judge Him.

We? Most of the members of this board. Most of the people who don't follow christianity, who don't believe in HIM. HE doesn't exist for us. You don't have to remind me that you are a believer. Just don't make the mistake to project your believes on others.

Yet if this "Iron Age desert morality" is "the moral consensus of the particular society we're living in," then you would accept it as moral, right?
stats 2014
stats 2011
stats 2001

So why should I be interested in US statistics? I'm not American and things look very different in most parts of Europe. I'm aware that the US is about the only Western country where religion still plays as large a role. I'm glad to live in a society where it doesn't.