Why is Faith/Belief a Moral Issue?

[Rhondazvous]

Remember, Drippy thinks we're all slaves, including himself. You have to be something of a masochist to want to be a slave. If he loves us the way he loves himself, that doesn't bod well for us.

Oh, I know all about Drich, but sometimes my curiosity gets the best of me and I try to peel back a few layers of the jumbled mess of enigmatic irrationality he calls a mind to try to look inside.

I really should know better by now.

You want to look inside Drippy's mind? Be sure you're wearing protective head-gear, the battery is charged on your cell so you can call 911 at the press of a button and your life insurance policy is not in arrears.

If I were still a Christian, I would come down on him/her/it with both feet. Drippy is proof that the mindset that prevailed during the inquisition and the Salam witch hunts is alive and well in the new millennium. Imagine if the Christian Right took power in the United States. People wouldn't go to jail for murder, rape and theft. These would be excused if they say god told them to do it.

[orangebox21]

 
By what standard?

Intellectual integrity as you have put it is limited in scope.  There are things we can know, things we might know, things we can know in the future, and things we will never know.  This premise isn't limited to the realm of religious faith.
It depends upon your definition of good.  Jesus said God alone is good.  If that is true then neither a believer nor an unbeliever is good.  The difference being that believers [having God living within them] can be good, yet it is not them which are good but Christ living within them.  If your defining good as 'gives money to charity' then yes some unbelievers are good while some believers are not.  Yet if a person gives money to charity but does so in order to get a tax break and praise from men [in other words out of a selfish motivation] can that be considered morally good?  What is your definition and standard for what is morally good?

With all the terrible things that god does and commands his so-called chosen people to do how can you put him up as the standard of goodness that humans supposedly cannot reach. This would be laughable, accept I know you truly believe this. So it is just sad.

Again, "terrible" by what standard?

I didn't [yet] propose that God is the standard of goodness.  I'm asking you to define your terms and provide a standard by which to measure.  In using words like "good," "bad," and "terrible" to argue your position, you're assuming standards of good, bad, moral, immoral, etc.  I'm asking you to define your standard and to give an account for it.

[abaris]

So, the old testament doesn't count and shouldn't be applied to christians... except for those passages that are convenient for Drich's own bigotry.

Yes, I know. Doesn't keep me from calling him out on his cherry picking.

[Jenny A]

Same goes for same sex relationships. Only men are mentioned. For the simple reason that women were property.

Here's the thing: Drich is down on homosexuality... which is only mentioned in the old testament. If one were to point out some terrible thing in the old testament, Drich has a long standing habit of dismissing the entire text as ancient Jewish law, and not something that christians need to obey or care about. Homosexuality is not mentioned by Jesus at all.

So, the old testament doesn't count and shouldn't be applied to christians... except for those passages that are convenient for Drich's own bigotry. You're not dealing with someone who actually cares what his holy book says; you're dealing with someone who cares only about his own illusory superiority and how he can lord it over others by clobbering them with whatever passage of his holy book  "counts" today.

Jesus might not say anything in the Gospels about homosexuality, but Paul does:  1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:26-27.   Not to mention 1 Timothy 1:9-10 which most scholars think Paul didn't write though Dritch probably thinks he did.   The Romans text is the only mention of female homosexuality I know of:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Romans 18-27

In fact Paul appears to be a homophob to the point that I've wondered if he wasn't a closeted gay.

But your main point is quite valid. Christians, especially Dritch, do say the OT doesn't count when they don't like what it says, and that it does count when they do like what it says.

[orangebox21]

By definition, all sex outside the construct of marriage is considered fornication, and fornication is sin.

And what is marriage?

4 And he (Jesus) answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?  6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Matthew 19:4-6).

Therefore given that sex outside of marriage is sin, and marriage is defined by Jesus as one man and one woman, we can conclude that homosexuality is sin. 

Further it is written, "9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Notice the list doesn't single out homosexual behavior.  There are a variety of sinful behavior that disqualifies a person from the kingdom of God.  The reason homosexuality is often vocally targeted by Christians is because society is seeking to [and now has] legalize it.  If society wanted to legalize theft or extortion and I spoke against it, would you consider me a bigot towards thieves and extortionists?

[Pyrrho]

...

Further it is written, "9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Notice the list doesn't single out homosexual behavior.  There are a variety of sinful behavior that disqualifies a person from the kingdom of God.  The reason homosexuality is often vocally targeted by Christians is because society is seeking to [and now has] legalize it.  If society wanted to legalize theft or extortion and I spoke against it, would you consider me a bigot towards thieves and extortionists?

Fornication is legal, as is idolatry, adultery, being effeminate, "abusers of themselves with mankind," coveting, drunkenness, and reviling.  So you have not explained at all why homosexuality is what is so talked about.

The only things on the list that should be illegal are theft and extortion.

[Drich]

Exactly how you could make such a definitive statement regarding my understanding of love, I have no idea.  

If you do not or can not identify the aspects (in this case long suffering) I can definativly say you do not understand what love is. or your definition of love is corrupt. If you do not have a full understanding of the word love, or can not identify all of it's aspects then you are not in a position to judge it or whether or not what I do here is from a place of love.

Regardless, you're straying away from my initial point that you claim atonement is only offered if you love your neighbor as you love yourself, but you still prance around here like a raging asshole so quick to ridicule and demean anyone that doesn't see it your way with obnoxious ROFL smileys and smug insults.

You are right. But what makes you think this sort of harsh exchange is something I would look to avoid in my own life?

Everything I have done/earned in my professional life is due to me apprenticing. When one decides to learn from the school of Hard knocks, one expects to be 'knocked... Hard.' I have absolutely no issue being 'checked' if I'm wrong. Just look at everything that has been said and how it has been said to me over the years here. Have I ever once in the thousands of posts I've made complained about being corrected on content, or how harshly I was corrected concerning content??

The only time I have ever taken issue with anything said or done here was when a mod told me to use the 'flag a post' button to provide examples of a given innocedent And I did several times and was bann for misuse. That example aside I don't complain about what is said or how unlovingly it was said provoked or not. Look at my first thread here I have like 5 pages of hate mail and you all knew nothing of me. Love is enduring that kind of 'stuff' year in and year out despite what I 'feel' about it, doing the research and follow up on absolutely everything I can possibly answer without complaint.

If you will also note my 'harshness' greatly depends on how harshly I am treated. (Unless I think you are a poe or troll) I do not say take the same tone with a luckie or nope as I do you or maybe a Minnie. Why? Because Luckie or a Nope do not seem to have to prove themselves. Their status here is not contingent on having to be right, therefore they are not abusive or combative, meaning I don't have to be to make a point.

That's not to say I don't have to be abusive or combative to make a point, but again I do feel it nessary to provide you with the same level of 'abuse or combat' you seem comfortable working in. That said In my efforts I am constantly looking for opportunity to dial it back a notch, but if I can not get a similar response I turn to what Paul said: "When in Rome do as the Romans do." Not for the same reason of course, Meaning I don't look to just hurl pointless insults. I really do put a lot of time researching posts, and answering questions. So when I see someone trying to make a sweeping dismissal without any grounds other than typical Christian/Atheist rettoric I do see that as foolish, so if we are learning the school of Hard knocks way I call that person out for being foolish. Or better yet I illustrate how this person is being foolish.

 Loving someone is about having patience with them if they don't see things the way they are and guiding them in a kind manner to the truth so they will be more apt to accept it, not sticking your finger in their nose and laughing at them for not seeing the truth like you do.

For some that is absolutely true, but not for all. To say everyone would respond to that type of effort is foolishness. Like I said I myself would not respect/do not respect people who try and 'win' people over to facts or truth. For me truth is truth, and facts are facts, one is either in the truth or he is not. If he is in error then facts/evidence need be provided. If one will not yield to evidence then their logical processes need scrutinized. Things are very black an white with me. Either something is or is not right. the problem with most of you is atheism allows you to befuddle yourselves with many different shades of grey.
That said
Perhaps I should re-evaluate who it is I need to back off on and who I need to stay the course.

It just boggles my mind just how much of a living, breathing contradiction you are, but you seem to have no problem with it.  Perhaps you're not even aware of it.  I don't know...

Again, the 'contradiction' goes away when on does not assume I want to be treated like you want to be treated.

One more time We are to Love God with all of our being. Next we are to love one another as we love our selves.

The rule is not to love d-bags as they want to be loved or the way they love themselves, but to love a d-bag the same way I want to be loved when I am being a d-bag, and it is destroying my place in all of eternity future.

Again for me that is to say what needs to be said and do what ever needs to be done no matter what it takes no matter how long it take to win me back for d-bagdom.

Great example is how Christ interacted and dealt with obstinate pharrisees. He did not pull any punches, He called them fool Hypocrites, blind guides, snakes, wolves. While these word mean little now for a 'commoner' to address a member of the highest court/Offical in a theocrisy as anything but holy was the greatest of greatest insults. This is the real reason the plotted against him and had Him killed. Because Jesus did not 'love' d-bags the way they loved themselves.

In the end, most were lost, but he did manage to save a few (Nicodemus and Joseph of aremathia come to mind) who were really looking for truth EVEN at the expense of their own pride.

How did He win them over? He loved them by working with them, and answering their questions right up to the point the others killed him...

So I guess your right here. I don't see the contradiction, but again I am not working with a false model of Christ or Christianity, that teaches we have to love people how they love themselves.

[Drich]

Is that what you've been doing here?  Loving your neighbor as you love yourself?

It seems to me that if you truly believed that, you would be forced to believe that your own atonement is still out of reach.

Remember, Drippy thinks we're all slaves, including himself. You have to be something of a masochist to want to be a slave. If he loves us the way he loves himself, that doesn't bod well for us.

He also knows, that the word only has the meaning/power we give it. That our shackels are not defined by a title or word, but by our own knowledge, beliefs and ablity to act and react to truth, and not the propaganda pop culture is calling truth.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

Here's the thing: Drich is down on homosexuality... which is only mentioned in the old testament. If one were to point out some terrible thing in the old testament, Drich has a long standing habit of dismissing the entire text as ancient Jewish law, and not something that christians need to obey or care about. Homosexuality is not mentioned by Jesus at all.

So, the old testament doesn't count and shouldn't be applied to christians... except for those passages that are convenient for Drich's own bigotry. You're not dealing with someone who actually cares what his holy book says; you're dealing with someone who cares only about his own illusory superiority and how he can lord it over others by clobbering them with whatever passage of his holy book  "counts" today.

Jesus might not say anything in the Gospels about homosexuality, but Paul does:  1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Romans 1:26-27.   Not to mention 1 Timothy 1:9-10 which most scholars think Paul didn't write though Dritch probably thinks he did.   The Romans text is the only mention of female homosexuality I know of:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

---

Romans 18-27

In fact Paul appears to be a homophob to the point that I've wondered if he wasn't a closeted gay.

But your main point is quite valid.  Christians, especially Dritch, do say the OT doesn't count when they don't like what it says, and that it does count when they do like what it says.

Paul did do a circumcision or two so, per the usual practice, he had to suck the bloody stump.

[Drich]

Yet the book in question doesn't take a stance on abortion.

Actually Jesus Himself said: "It is far better from one to have never been born, than to intentionally case harm to a little one." Last time I check killing babies is actually a step beyond causing harm to them.

As I already said yesterday, the fetus was considered water or a limb of it's mother. Apart from the rather frequent passages about killing infants and every woman having known men. If a men suspected one of his wives (can't be stressed enough that there were usually several) cheated on him, he could bring her before a priest, who then forced an abortion with mud potion. So babie's life wasn't as precious as todays christians make it out to be.

Citation?
because what I have found reads completely different. It was only lawful to abort a baby if the mother was endanger only if the child itself had not yet been born. otherwise the mother was to give her life for the child. Jewish law even went so far to say any man who intentionally kills an unborn child should also be put to death. and man who accidently kills an unborn child will be heavily fined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion

Same goes for same sex relationships. Only men are mentioned. For the simple reason that women were property.

Uh, no. Rom 1:26

So tell me again about the wisdom of that old book and why our morality is ultimately wanting compared to that archaic nonsense.

your points have been defeated, by have been shown to be in error. (what you think you know about the bible is wrong, therefore you final conclusion is also wrong)