Why is Faith/Belief a Moral Issue?

[Drich]

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.

To Faith no more: This kind of thing is what or why I like to show people to be foolish. Because everything said here completely misrepresents everything I believe, yet holds true to Christian/atheist basic sterotypes. And for someone like Esq to say this tells me he is trolling.

My whole stance on Homosexual stands on the fact that It can be identified as a sexual sin like any other. How can I say this? Because Their is only ONE way sex is permitted, and that is through a sanctified marriage. God has made NO provisions to sanctify a Homosexual relationship, so all Homosexual 'activity' can therefore be identified as a sin. Plain and simple. Just like all other sexual sin the sin of homosexuality need to be repented of. If D-bags like Esq who have adopted pop morality declassify it as a sin, then it condemns all Homosexuals to Hell, because they will not repent of it if they think what they are doing is right/moral.

To identify Homosexuality as a sin gives the homosexual the same chance to repent as everyone else trapped by sexual sin, because it is no greater or worse than anyother sexual sin. It is only when we justify our sins and tell ourselves we need not repent, that we truly condemn ourselves.

[abaris]

Citation?

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

[Drich]

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?

[Rhondazvous]

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.

Why should I explain anything to you? Your very comments evince your inability to profit from explanations. I leave you to your ignorance. Interpret that any way you want.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

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?

So Mary and the Holy Ghost committed fornication that resulted in Jesus.  One of his ancestors was a celebrated hooker.  

[Drich]

Citation?

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

Faith no more: Here is another example of a douche bag side stepping an issue. In this guys orginal post he makes a claim abortion was permitted/used by the jews by making a mud solution and injected by a priest if and when the husband suspected unfaithfulness. I knew the passage this guy was referring to and asked him for a citation. what does this d-bag do? He quotes scriptural scraps editing only the fragments that makes his case.

In what honest setting is something like this permitted in the real world? What kind of man would openly try and deceive another when asked for a citation, by provide a heavily edited work that only shows his side?

You like me have to ask yourself is this person just stupid? or is lying so common place he d-bag thinks it's ok to offer a half truth when asked for the whole? I don't truly don't see any gray here. for me this person can only be lying not even stupid, because he was smart enough to edit around everything that conflicts with his telling of numbers 5.

Now I ask you in that light what should my response be? How can I take a person like this seriously/trat him respectfully when and if he can not/will not do the same?

If the roles were reversed and I was so caught upp in a falsehood as to not be able to admit I was wrong I would want a very strong rebuke outlining how and what when wrong with my logic and reason. It is better to have egg on my face than let my corrupt thought process doom me to hell.

Here is the core of Numbers 5 that what's his face did not want you to see:
19 “Then the priest will make the woman promise to tell the truth and say to her: ‘If you have not slept with another man, and if you have not sinned against your husband while you were married to him, then this water that causes trouble will not hurt you. 20 But if you have sinned against your husband—if you had sexual relations with a man who is not your husband—then you are not pure. 21 If that is true, you will have much trouble when you drink this special water. You will not be able to have any children. And if you are pregnant now, your baby will die.[c] And the Lord will cause your people to speak evil of you and curse you.’

“Then the priest must tell the woman to make an oath. She must agree for the Lord to cause these things to happen to her if she lies. 22 The priest must say, ‘You must drink this water that causes trouble. If you have sinned, you will not be able to have children. Any baby you have will die before it is born.’ And the woman should say, ‘I agree to do as you say.’

Women were not being flushed with a mud solution. They were asked to Drink special water that would make them sterial if they were unfaithful, even kill a baby... In essence GOD via this solution was determining guilt. No one was being flushed by mud in some OT Jewish abortion clinic.

[Rhondazvous]

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 sounds like a closet homosexual. They're the first and the loudest to condemn homosexuality.

I can't help thinking about the "disciple that Jesus loved" leaning on his breast, and wondering what that was all about. Is there anything that the Bible does not condemn in one place and condone in another? The book is a cherry tree. What else can we do?

[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.

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.

This joker won't even stand by his own words if they prove inconvenient.

[abaris]

Now I ask you in that light what should my response be?

Enlightening, I do hope. But your resorting to a barrage of common insults does raise some doubts.

So give us the whole context of these beautiful words, oh wise one. But before you think of doing the usual stepdance of cherry picking your book and saying it doesn't concern christians because of Jesus, let me add another quote - out of context I'm sure.

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished

[Drich]

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.

This joker won't even stand by his own words if they prove inconvenient.

... That's not what I meant.

In plain English: I may identify with a slave, but my indentification as a slave does not mean I am what you and people like you think a slave is. Again, I point to Joseph, he was a slave of Pharroh and no one in Egypt at the time had more power, wealth or authority other than pharroh himself. A slave does not have to be a beaten broken cotton picker as most of you have been programed to think.

The word 'slave' like any other word only has power if you give it to it. That is why I said you are more shackeled as a 'free person' because you must live by the standard/morality pop morality dictates that I do as a "slave" of God. That being the case that would make me a slave in name only and you a slave by work, thought and deed.