Why is Faith/Belief a Moral Issue?

[robvalue]

I don't believe for a second Jesus came to just say "yeah, forgot all that OT shit". It's twisting his words.

The OT is becoming an increasing embarrassment; the only reason they can't jettison it is because it has the story of original sin (which is obviously fictional) which Jesus is meant to solve. (After rewrites, that wasn't his original purpose. He was meant to put an end to animal sacrifices, if I remember right.)

I find it humorous that I take the bible and jesus' words more seriously than most Christians

[Whateverist]

I find it humorous that I take the bible and jesus' words more seriously than most Christians

So do I.  

[robvalue]

Mind you, the NT isn't all peaches and cream either. It still has slavery endorsement.

[abaris]

You haven't answered the question: what is the purpose of the law?

Because it's not my answer to give and, quite frankly, I couldn't care less. There is no divine law in my worldview. So why should I speculate about something I don't think exists?

But it's a good example of how many of you go out and interpret what is written. I simply read it as nothing has changed with my coming, since, well, that's what the passage says. You on the other hand look for a deeper meaning to make the pieces fit your specific denomination of christianity.

[Kingpin]

Care to cite and discuss?

I not only care to, I'd be happy to.

This is just one of many, but how many do you need?

Matthew 12: 1, 2
At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath.”

Jesus goes on in the next few verses to remind the Pharisees that King David and even the priest did things that weren’t lawful whenever keeping the law posed an inconvenience.

God said those who break the law shall be put to death. Jesus said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Where in the Mosaic Law does it say only the sinless can cast stones?  It simply said to stone those people with no stipulation as to the character of the executioners.  If they hadn’t caught you, you didn’t do it.   Why then would god impose the death sentence for violating a law that was only meant to be followed when convenient?  

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. The Church makes abolish and fulfill mean the same thing.

So Jesus and the Church have their own special definitions of words like “change,” “add” and “pass away.”

Thank you.  This was also in Mark 2:23 and Luke 6:1

You are taking that a bit out of context.  First, the disciples were the ones doing the picking, not Jesus directly but the Pharisees wanted to hold Jesus responsible as their teacher.  

Over the years, Rabbinic tradition had evolved a host of infractions (some 39) that, allegedly, violated the law’s prohibition of work on the sabbath.
Jesus cited the case where David unlawfully ate of the tabernacle showbread (Mt. 12:4; cf. 1 Sam. 21:6). Since the Pharisees did not condemn David, who actually did what was “not lawful,” they were hopelessly illogical in censuring the disciples, who had breached no more than Pharisaic, uninspired traditions. This was a blistering exposure of their insincerity. However, not even the disciples actually violated the sabbath law of the Mosaic system. Hebrew law made provision for those in need to eat when they passed through a field of grain (Dt. 23:25; cf. Ruth 2:2-3)

Jesus argued for the legitimacy of the disciples’ conduct on the ground of the purpose of the sabbath law. It was designed originally for the benefit of man. It was an act of “mercy” from God to grant the Hebrews a respite one day a week — to rest the body and refresh the soul with religious exercises. The sabbath law was never intended to be a slavish regulation that functioned as an “end” within itself. Had the Pharisees recognized this principle, they would never have condemned these “guiltless” disciples of Jesus (Mt. 12:7).

---

Mind you, the NT isn't all peaches and cream either. It still has slavery endorsement.

Slavery in the context of modern times is not the same as in biblical times.  The Bible does not categorically condemn debt bondage. In fact, in the Old Testament it was regulated as a type of welfare. The New Testament speaks more about exhibiting Christian character within the context of slavery.

- Slaves are not supposed to stay in the master's house forever (John 8:35) 

- Slavery is not ideal, and "if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity" (1 Corinthians 7:21-24)

- Being a slave has no bearing on salvation or the spiritual state of a person before God (1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:28)

- Slaves are to respect the world's system of authority while knowing that God is the only true authority (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-24)

- Masters are also to keep in mind that their position in Christ is no different from that of their slaves; they themselves are slaves to God (Ephesians 6:9)

- Christian slaves are authorized to act on conscience if their master commands them to do something wrong, but they need to humbly accept the punishment for their justified rebellion, just as Jesus did (1 Peter 2:19-20)

Indirectly, the New Testament has even more to say about slavery:

- Kidnapping is a serious offense (1 Timothy 1:8-10)

- Giving to the poor (which would prevent debt-bondage) is promoted (Matthew 6:2-3; 19:21; 26:11;Luke 14:13)

- The church is responsible for giving to the poor (Romans 15:26; Galatians 2:10)

- Widows and orphans are to be supported, not owned (James 1:27)

[orangebox21]

You haven't answered the question: what is the purpose of the law?

Because it's not my answer to give and, quite frankly, I couldn't care less. There is no divine law in my worldview. So why should I speculate about something I don't think exists?

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

But it's a good example of how many of you go out and interpret what is written. I simply read it as nothing has changed with my coming, since, well, that's what the passage says. You on the other hand look for a deeper meaning to make the pieces fit your specific denomination of christianity.

How can you make a claim that Christians have made false interpretations when you haven't offered a correct one?

[robvalue]

Kingpin, are you really going down the road of being a slave apologist? I'm very surprised

A type of welfare? I assume you are trying to conflate indentured servitude with slavery. They are two completely different things. I hope you didn't already realise that; now you know.

Please tell me you're not serious with this... This is exactly what happens when an immoral disgusting book like the bible has to be defended as some sort of moral guide. It clearly says you can buy slaves, they are your property, and you can beat them as long as they don't die within a couple of days. It regulates slavery. In all the hundreds of arbitrary stupid laws God gave out, he could have just said "you can't own people as property". Done. If he can't do that, he's some pathetic God.

The bible, and these same passages, were used to keep slavery going even in fairly recent times. It provides righteous justification for those who believe the book has any meaning.

[abaris]

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.

[Kingpin]

Kingpin, are you really going down the road of being a slave apologist? I'm very surprised

A type of welfare? I assume you are trying to conflate indentured servitude with slavery. They are two completely different things. I hope you didn't already realise that; now you know.

Please tell me you're not serious with this... This is exactly what happens when an immoral disgusting book like the bible has to be defended as some sort of moral guide. It clearly says you can buy slaves, they are your property, and you can beat them as long as they don't die within a couple of days. It regulates slavery. In all the hundreds of arbitrary stupid laws God gave out, he could have just said "you can't own people as property". Done. If he can't do that, he's some pathetic God.

The bible, and these same passages, were used to keep slavery going even in fairly recent times. It provides righteous justification for those who believe the book has any meaning.

Not at all Rob, I was merely pointing out what it says and how it's perceived.  yes I was conflating indentured servitude with slavery.  There was indeed slavery in the Bible and yes that was used in recent times to condone it.  I don't propose to have all of the answers to Biblical texts, I can only make my own interpretations and assertions.

[loganonekenobi]

If my sense of morality came from god, that means my sense that rape, slavery and genocide came from god. How then can Christians claim that scriptures which instruct followers to engage in such acts are based on a higher moral authority?

How can anyone stay sane adhering to notions that fall apart so easily in the light of scrutiny?

Because things like rape, slavery, Genocide have no intrinsic moral value in of themselves. Meaning before God these acts are netural. What makes them ok or not ok is what God says about them/The situation that they are wrong or permissible.

For instance we/pop culture says Genocide is always bad. Now God says Genocide is a sin unless he commands it. (which has been done for several thousand years.) How can He then permit Genocide? Because He is in a position to know whether or not a person/people will be responsible for the premature destruction of this world.

Think about it. In OT times God's primary focus was the preservation of a single blood line in Israel so as His Son could be born and save the world from sin. If Israel was destroyed prematurally, or that blood line was somehow corrupt and prophesy could not be full filled, then their would be no hope for humanity. Per the example found in revelation when the cup of man's iniquity is full, God puts an end to Man's reign.

So the question then becomes, end one people? Or end the whole race?

Simply put I'm just not seeing that an omnipotent/omnicient being would need to make any one suffer to fulfill a prophecy. Certainly if this deity had the power his "son" could have been born to anyone. The bible is a history/story/fable of the jews so it makes more sense to me that they would tell the story of how important they are compared to others.
I've seen this too often with real parents "do as i say not as i do" we all know that doesn't go well and "we" are mere human.
If this deity won't live by example then there is no moral reason to follow it.