Since when has the Christian faith advocated circumcision of any sort?

The religion of the Founders was, by and large, the Christian faith, not some pagan African superstition.

Do try not to make a straw man out of me.

I'm sorry. The opening paragraph says:

"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."

It doesn't say it is only talking about the Christian religion. Perhaps I should have assumed it.

Nevertheless, the Christian religion does the same with males (though not quite as harmful, painful, or dramatic). What exactly is the morality of genital mutilation, in the CHRISTIAN...

Since when has the Christian faith advocated circumcision of any sort?

The religion of the Founders was, by and large, the Christian faith, not some pagan African superstition.

Do try not to make a straw man out of me.

I'm sorry. The opening paragraph says:

"[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."

It doesn't say it is only talking about the Christian religion. Perhaps I should have assumed it.

Nevertheless, the Christian religion does the same with males (though not quite as harmful, painful, or dramatic). What exactly is the morality of genital mutilation, in the CHRISTIAN religion?

And in the Jewish religion: see article: snip:

"Ten days after Rabbi Yitzhok Fischer performed religious circumcisions on twins last October, one died of herpes and the other tested positive for the virus, according to a complaint filed by the health department in Manhattan Supreme Court."

You see, the Rabbi drew the blood after the circumcision, with his mouth (one of the older traditional ways). The Rabbi had herpes.

Christianity came from Judaism (and a host of pagan traditions), not "some pagan African superstition" as your straw man accusation admonishes.

I could make the case that Christianity is entirely borrowed from Pagan traditions, but that's not the point.

The point is: How is ANY circumcision a moral "principle upon which freedom can securely stand"?

I think you can see that the more we get away from religious principles the better our quality of freedom stands. Which is my point.

Nevertheless, the Christian religion does the same with males

Incorrect. Jews circumcise male children on the eighth day, as dictated in their law. Christianity, however, is about cultivating inward virtues, not external symbols of religiousity. You will find no teaching of circumcision in the New Testament. In fact, Paul uses this to differentiate between Jewish and Gentile believers.

There is a free Bible program called e-sword available on the 'net. If you wish, download it and look up the use of the word "circumcision" in the New Testament. You will find that Paul says it is only an outward sign, and is ultimately irrelevant.

In contemporary American society, male c...

Nevertheless, the Christian religion does the same with males

Incorrect. Jews circumcise male children on the eighth day, as dictated in their law. Christianity, however, is about cultivating inward virtues, not external symbols of religiousity. You will find no teaching of circumcision in the New Testament. In fact, Paul uses this to differentiate between Jewish and Gentile believers.

There is a free Bible program called e-sword available on the 'net. If you wish, download it and look up the use of the word "circumcision" in the New Testament. You will find that Paul says it is only an outward sign, and is ultimately irrelevant.

In contemporary American society, male children are usually circumcised (I believe on the second day) unless the parents specifically request that the child not be circumcised. This is for health reasons.

But no, circumcision of any sort is not a Christian doctrine.

God makes a law in the OT, and it doesn't matter if it's not in the NT. By bad. [sic]

If I'm not mistaken, you did once say you read the Bible, did you not? There are certain moral commandments in the OT that certainly still hold true, but there are certain parts of the OT that applied to God's people (the Jews, in case there's any discrepancy about that), and do not apply to present day Christians. As Paul (I believe) said, "You are not under the law, but under grace."

There is an interesting verse concerning those who say, "Behold, everything continues as it was from the beginning."

Times change, and the way God deals with people changes. The Bible indicates the f...

God makes a law in the OT, and it doesn't matter if it's not in the NT. By bad. [sic]

If I'm not mistaken, you did once say you read the Bible, did you not? There are certain moral commandments in the OT that certainly still hold true, but there are certain parts of the OT that applied to God's people (the Jews, in case there's any discrepancy about that), and do not apply to present day Christians. As Paul (I believe) said, "You are not under the law, but under grace."

There is an interesting verse concerning those who say, "Behold, everything continues as it was from the beginning."

Times change, and the way God deals with people changes. The Bible indicates the following periods, during which things were distinct from other periods:

(1) Perfect Creation
(2) Pre-Flood World
(3) Pre-Abrahamic Covenant
(4) Looking forward to Messiah
(5) Messiah's lifetime (Christ)
(6) Between Christ and completion of Scripture
(7) Present day church age

Some of these can perhaps be further divided, but you get the point.

Some of these can perhaps be further divided, but you get the point.

Yeah. Some things you decide to keep, some things you don't. And they are quite arbitrary. Homosexuality continues to be an abomination, but eating shelled fish (lobster, shrimp, etc.) isn't.

What exactly made one continue to be bad, while the other turned out good? They are BOTH abominations!

And of course this means god changed his moral mind. Or, was it simply that secular sensibilities dropped that which was ridiculous! Which was my entire point.

As we get smarter, and away from religious dogma, we tend to drop stupid traditions.

In the case of the Rabbi, an old tradition to remove the blood of cir...

Some of these can perhaps be further divided, but you get the point.

Yeah. Some things you decide to keep, some things you don't. And they are quite arbitrary. Homosexuality continues to be an abomination, but eating shelled fish (lobster, shrimp, etc.) isn't.

What exactly made one continue to be bad, while the other turned out good? They are BOTH abominations!

And of course this means god changed his moral mind. Or, was it simply that secular sensibilities dropped that which was ridiculous! Which was my entire point.

As we get smarter, and away from religious dogma, we tend to drop stupid traditions.

In the case of the Rabbi, an old tradition to remove the blood of circumcision with the mouth does not live up to modern secular standards of cleanliness. (Can't you see that?)

And so, I wonder why god didn't stop that practice since it was supposedly HIS idea!

As with teaching about germs (instead of casting out devils)... Do you really get the point?

Homosexuality continues to be an abomination, but
eating shelled fish (lobster, shrimp, etc.) isn't.

Homosexuality is universally wrong. Eating shellfish was wrong for the children of Israel under the Law, because God commanded them not to eat it. However, the former is morally wrong; the latter is situationally wrong, and in the New Testament, God repeals his prohibition on certain foods: "It is not what enters the mouth that defiles a man," "what I have cleansed, do not call unclean." (paraphrased)

And
of course this means god changed his moral mind.

Wrong. There has never been anything immoral about eating shellfish, unless you were Jewish, in which case ...

Homosexuality continues to be an abomination, but
eating shelled fish (lobster, shrimp, etc.) isn't.

Homosexuality is universally wrong. Eating shellfish was wrong for the children of Israel under the Law, because God commanded them not to eat it. However, the former is morally wrong; the latter is situationally wrong, and in the New Testament, God repeals his prohibition on certain foods: "It is not what enters the mouth that defiles a man," "what I have cleansed, do not call unclean." (paraphrased)

And
of course this means god changed his moral mind.

Wrong. There has never been anything immoral about eating shellfish, unless you were Jewish, in which case God had commanded you not to eat them, so if you did, you were guilty, not of eating shellfish, but of disobeying God.

A parent may tell a child not to walk out into the street. It is not morally wrong to walk out into a street, it is just rather unwise. However, parents may give their teenager the leeway to walk out into a street, provided they exercise discretion.

Or, was it simply that
secular sensibilities dropped that which was ridiculous! Which was my
entire point.

And it's not a bad point. From a secular perspective it makes some sense.

And so, I wonder why god didn't stop that practice since it was supposedly HIS idea!

If God had actually commanded the drawing of the blood by mouth in His law, that argument might hold water. As it is, male circumcision is standard medical practice today, and there is no command in the Bible to draw the blood by mouth.

Homosexuality is universally wrong. Eating shellfish was wrong for the children of Israel under the Law, because God commanded them not to eat it.

That makes no sense. What exactly is "wrong" with homosexuality between two consenting adults? And what exactly is "wrong" with eating shellfish?

To say it is wrong because god commanded it, means homosexuality is wrong because god commanded it. They are no different in that neither is inherently wrong except by decree. (Like wearing cloth made of two differing fibers; there is nothing inherently wrong with it, except by decree.)

"..and in the New Testament, God repeals his prohibition on certain foods.."

See? Ar...

Homosexuality is universally wrong. Eating shellfish was wrong for the children of Israel under the Law, because God commanded them not to eat it.

That makes no sense. What exactly is "wrong" with homosexuality between two consenting adults? And what exactly is "wrong" with eating shellfish?

To say it is wrong because god commanded it, means homosexuality is wrong because god commanded it. They are no different in that neither is inherently wrong except by decree. (Like wearing cloth made of two differing fibers; there is nothing inherently wrong with it, except by decree.)

"..and in the New Testament, God repeals his prohibition on certain foods.."

See? Arbitrary. An all-knowing being changed his mind! There's a clue in there, somewhere.

"There has never been anything immoral about eating shellfish, unless you were Jewish.."

Then there is nothing immoral about homosexuality, unless you're Jewish!

But then it also says: "But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."
Lev 11:23 (KJV)

Insects with four feet? Um hum. Clearly, no all-knowing god is doing the inspiration for this book!

"If God had actually commanded the drawing of the blood by mouth in His law, that argument might hold water."

No, I meant that circumcision was his idea. But when I went to look it up further, I found it wasn't his idea after all!

"The History of Herodotus (484–420 B.C.E.) is the earliest Greek text reporting the practice of genital mutilation of various degrees, such as circumcision. Herodotus ascribes circumcision to the Colchians, Ethiopians, Phoenicians, Syrians, and Macrones, as well as to the Egyptian priestly caste."

I guess I was wrong!

To say it is wrong because god commanded it, means homosexuality is
wrong because god commanded it. They are no different in that neither
is inherently wrong except by decree.

OK, I'll play along. Morality is arbitrary, and things are only wrong because God says so. If there were no God, everything would be permissible.

See? Arbitrary. An all-knowing being changed his mind!

God often changes His approach towards human beings, often based on their response to Him. Certain arbitrary decrees obviously must have served certain purposes at certain times. So what?

Then there is nothing immoral about homosexuality, unless you're Jewish!

There is s...

To say it is wrong because god commanded it, means homosexuality is
wrong because god commanded it. They are no different in that neither
is inherently wrong except by decree.

OK, I'll play along. Morality is arbitrary, and things are only wrong because God says so. If there were no God, everything would be permissible.

See? Arbitrary. An all-knowing being changed his mind!

God often changes His approach towards human beings, often based on their response to Him. Certain arbitrary decrees obviously must have served certain purposes at certain times. So what?

Then there is nothing immoral about homosexuality, unless you're Jewish!

There is some illogical leap there. God judged Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality, and they were not Jewish. Shellfish were prohibited by God only to the Jews. I hope my English is clear.

Insects with four feet? Um hum. Clearly, no all-knowing god is doing the inspiration for this book!

Oh, my, Moses (educated in Pharaoh's house) either was an ignoramus or he couldn't count! I guess we Christians all ought to pack up and throw in the towel right now.

Moses was probably one of the best-educated men of his time. He could read and write (presumably) not only Egyptian (at least one of their scripts, at least) but also Hebrew. If he wrote that locusts have four feet, then either (1) the Hebrews had a different way of classifying things, or (2) he was using a figure of speech of the times. I suppose you adhere to (3) Moses was deranged, and the Hebrews were deranged to have followed such an obviously flawed Law.

If there were no God, everything would be permissible.

That makes no sense. Are you really so morally impoverished that you can't tell the difference between right and wrong unless a god tells you?

Are you getting your morals from the same god that required the blood of animals to absolve the guilty? The same god that requires the sacrifice of the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty?

You don't have to "play along". You can think freely about this to see if it makes sense. Killing the innocent to pay for the guilty is about as immoral as one can get!

There is some illogical leap there. God judged Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality, and they were no...

read more»

If there were no God, everything would be permissible.

That makes no sense. Are you really so morally impoverished that you can't tell the difference between right and wrong unless a god tells you?

Are you getting your morals from the same god that required the blood of animals to absolve the guilty? The same god that requires the sacrifice of the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty?

You don't have to "play along". You can think freely about this to see if it makes sense. Killing the innocent to pay for the guilty is about as immoral as one can get!

There is some illogical leap there. God judged Sodom and Gomorrah for their homosexuality, and they were not Jewish.

But that's my point! If it's wrong....it's wrong because it IS wrong, not because "I say so".

But when you say it's wrong "because I say so" then the argument that it only applies to Jews is arbitrary.

You're applying two different standards. You're trying to have it both ways because NEITHER stand on their own as inherently wrong! (Still waiting.)

Oh, my, Moses (educated in Pharaoh's house) either was an ignoramus or he couldn't count! I guess we Christians all ought to pack up and throw in the towel right now.

I could be mistaken. I was told the bible was "Inspired" by god, not written to the limit of Moses' knowledge. But then, that's the size of it. Six day creation; talking snakes.

Did the bible come from god or not? If so, it should at least be reasonably accurate. Otherwise anything will do.

I suppose you adhere to (3) Moses was deranged, and the Hebrews were deranged to have followed such an obviously flawed Law.

No. Simply put. It was the extent of man's knowledge at the time, and had nothing to do with knowledge from a god.

Are you really so morally impoverished that you can't tell the difference between right and wrong unless a god tells you?

What is your basis for criticizing my morality? If morality isn't absolute (which you seemed to suggest above) then it is relative, and I can define morality as whatever the heck I want it to be.

the same god that required the blood of animals to absolve the guilty?

There was only once innocent sacrifice that atones for sin: Jesus Christ. People in the OT were saved by faith just as they are now, according to the Apostle Paul.

Killing the innocent to pay for the guilty is about as immoral as one can get!

And just who killed ...

Are you really so morally impoverished that you can't tell the difference between right and wrong unless a god tells you?

What is your basis for criticizing my morality? If morality isn't absolute (which you seemed to suggest above) then it is relative, and I can define morality as whatever the heck I want it to be.

the same god that required the blood of animals to absolve the guilty?

There was only once innocent sacrifice that atones for sin: Jesus Christ. People in the OT were saved by faith just as they are now, according to the Apostle Paul.

Killing the innocent to pay for the guilty is about as immoral as one can get!

And just who killed Christ?

But when you say it's wrong "because I say so" then the argument that it only applies to Jews is arbitrary.

You're applying two different standards.

Very well; it is arbitrary. I'm not sure what you're hung up one here. God defines morality. Either He does so based on arbitrary decree, or He does so based on some absolute morality. Either way, the end result is the same: people are responsible to adhere to God's moral standard.

I was told the bible was "Inspired" by god, not written to the limit of Moses' knowledge.

Absolutely. But it was still written in a social and linguistic context. Therefore, we can expect certain figures of speech, expressions, etc. to be present in the Scriptures.

It was the extent of man's knowledge at the time.

I don't think that makes sense. The locusts you pointed out are designated as OK to eat; therefore people would have been coming in very close contact with the critters.

What is your basis for criticizing my morality?

I'm sorry; that came off a bit harsh. You made the assessment that "If there were no God, everything would be permissible."

It implied that in the absence of a god, there would be no morality, no ethics, no sense of fair play. (Everything would be permissible.)

It implies that a person that doesn't believe in your god (or any god) is thereby immoral. It also implies that you have no sense of right and wrong without a god telling you so. Would that be true?

People in the OT were saved by faith just as they are now, according to the Apostle Paul.

So animal sacrifice was for what?

And just who killed Ch...

read more»

What is your basis for criticizing my morality?

I'm sorry; that came off a bit harsh. You made the assessment that "If there were no God, everything would be permissible."

It implied that in the absence of a god, there would be no morality, no ethics, no sense of fair play. (Everything would be permissible.)

It implies that a person that doesn't believe in your god (or any god) is thereby immoral. It also implies that you have no sense of right and wrong without a god telling you so. Would that be true?

People in the OT were saved by faith just as they are now, according to the Apostle Paul.

So animal sacrifice was for what?

And just who killed Christ?

Suicide. But that's not the issue. The issue is killing the innocent to atone the guilty! That's immoral.

God defines morality.

And that's why it's not absolute! His morality is arbitrary and changes with the wind. You couldn't tell his actions from that of a devil. ( Try it! )

But it was still written in a social and linguistic context. Therefore, we can expect certain figures of speech, expressions, etc. to be present in the Scriptures.

If god's work is no better than that of a first century man, I'd be forced to question if it were indeed only the work of a first century man.

The locusts you pointed out are designated as OK to eat; therefore people would have been coming in very close contact with the critters.

True. What's interesting is that the translation of "four" is not a mistranslation or a figure of speech. It literally means 4. I wonder why an inspired work would contain an abundance of scientific errors "on purpose"?

But you do make a good point.

@ Johanna_G:

I can see I'm getting into dangerous waters... Philosophy is not my thing, but I'll give it a shot.

First of all, I should clarify that the quote you mentioned was a concession on my part, and that I do not believe the first part of it ("Morality is arbitrary, and things are only wrong because God says so"). I was trying to explain (perhaps poorly) that regardless of whether you believe the means of defining morality to be (1) God arbitrarily defines it, or (2) It is an absolute, that the result is in effect the same: there is at any given time a certain moral code that man has a responsibility to follow. In effect, an absolute morality, whether it is inherently absolute...

@ Johanna_G:

I can see I'm getting into dangerous waters... Philosophy is not my thing, but I'll give it a shot.

First of all, I should clarify that the quote you mentioned was a concession on my part, and that I do not believe the first part of it ("Morality is arbitrary, and things are only wrong because God says so"). I was trying to explain (perhaps poorly) that regardless of whether you believe the means of defining morality to be (1) God arbitrarily defines it, or (2) It is an absolute, that the result is in effect the same: there is at any given time a certain moral code that man has a responsibility to follow. In effect, an absolute morality, whether it is inherently absolute or only absolute by decree.

Personally, I believe that there is an absolute morality which is based upon the actual character of God, and thus is as unchanging as He is.

That said, there are certain arbitrary commands of God given at certain times to certain people. Those people still had an obligation to follow those commands, since they were dictated by God. For the rest of humanity, however, those commands did not apply. I don't think you could therefore call them a "morality," any more than you could say it is inherently wrong for a child to cross the road and their parent has forbidden them to do so. The immoral part of the crossing of the road is in the disobedience, in that case, and not in the crossing. And the disobedience is part of the morality that applies to the whole of humanity.

I'll have to actually read Kant's Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone before I can do anything with it, so please bear with me... Fortunately, it seems to be rather short, so I might get through it in a week or three.

@AcesLucky:

It
implied that in the absence of a god, there would be no morality, no
ethics, no sense of fair play. (Everything would be permissible.)

Perhaps it would be better to say that nothing would be condemnable.

It
implies that a person that doesn't believe in your god (or any god) is
thereby immoral. It also implies that you have no sense of right and
wrong without a god telling you so. Would that be true?

I'm not entirely sure whether it is inherently wrong to not believe in God or not. The Bible is clear that believing in God is not necessarily virtue ("the devils believe and tremble"). It is sin to reject God, certainly. The Bible does say that Nat...

@AcesLucky:

It
implied that in the absence of a god, there would be no morality, no
ethics, no sense of fair play. (Everything would be permissible.)

Perhaps it would be better to say that nothing would be condemnable.

It
implies that a person that doesn't believe in your god (or any god) is
thereby immoral. It also implies that you have no sense of right and
wrong without a god telling you so. Would that be true?

I'm not entirely sure whether it is inherently wrong to not believe in God or not. The Bible is clear that believing in God is not necessarily virtue ("the devils believe and tremble"). It is sin to reject God, certainly. The Bible does say that Nature itself attests to God's existence, so perhaps there is no such thing as a person who is ignorant of His existance.

There is no meaningful sense of right and wrong without God.

Suicide. But that's not the issue. The issue is killing the innocent to atone the guilty! That's immoral.

I might not have been clear in my response. You may not like the killing of innocents; it may offend your sensibilities, but your use of the word "immoral" simply means it offends your morality if there is no moral absolute. "Immoral" becomes a meaningless term.

But according to God's standard, you're right. Christ "gave up the ghost," (not suicide), but Paul places the blame for his death on the Jews. (He was actually executed by the Romans, at the behest of the Jews.)

However, God's moral standards do not necessarily apply to Himself. He has ownership of all things, and is completely justified in doing whatever He wants with them.

Perhaps it would be better to say that nothing would be condemnable.

That's also untrue and immature. Is raping a child condemnable? Did you need a god to tell you that?

There is no meaningful sense of right and wrong without God.

Is raping a child condemnable? Did you need a god to tell you that?

You may not like the killing of innocents; it may offend your sensibilities, but your use of the word "immoral" simply means it offends your morality if there is no moral absolute.

And thus your contradiction of concept. God can do heinous crimes that any sane person will call immoral. But if god does it, it's okay. [u]That's why it's not abso...

Perhaps it would be better to say that nothing would be condemnable.

That's also untrue and immature. Is raping a child condemnable? Did you need a god to tell you that?

There is no meaningful sense of right and wrong without God.

Is raping a child condemnable? Did you need a god to tell you that?

You may not like the killing of innocents; it may offend your sensibilities, but your use of the word "immoral" simply means it offends your morality if there is no moral absolute.

And thus your contradiction of concept. God can do heinous crimes that any sane person will call immoral. But if god does it, it's okay. That's why it's not absolute. If it were absolute, it would be wrong PERIOD.

YOUR morals are good depending on who's doing the killing, raping, torturing, etc.. But if someone else did them, they'd be called immoral. It's an arbitrary standard to which your own god does not respect or adhere.

God's moral standards do not necessarily apply to Himself. He has ownership of all things, and is completely justified in doing whatever He wants with them.

You know, I could buy that if for one instant it could be verified as coming from a god. But no man has any factual knowledge of any god whatsoever. And so for one man to say his crimes of immorality against humanity are sanctioned by a god -- is just a damnable lie.

Anyone can make such a claim, and no one can disprove it. It's a joke.

So our morals are left to our good judgment of secular values that are far fairer than the criminal morals of religion. Where things are wrong because they are -- not because some invisible ghost said "because I said so."

@ jstates1

I can go a fairly long way with you: there is a God, and there is a moral law, and there is an essential connection between God and the moral law. The only critical point I see in the text that you've clipped, is its apparently theopolitical orientation. I have a queasy feeling about endeavors to sanctify a political system or to found a regnum sacrum.

I also contradict the clip and some statements of yours in so far as they seem to equate morality with the heteronomy of a mere observance of (divine) regulations.

Following Kant's philosophy of morality and religion, the thought of God is a (unprovable) construct which, from the practical (moral) point of view, must/sho...

@ jstates1

I can go a fairly long way with you: there is a God, and there is a moral law, and there is an essential connection between God and the moral law. The only critical point I see in the text that you've clipped, is its apparently theopolitical orientation. I have a queasy feeling about endeavors to sanctify a political system or to found a regnum sacrum.

I also contradict the clip and some statements of yours in so far as they seem to equate morality with the heteronomy of a mere observance of (divine) regulations.

Following Kant's philosophy of morality and religion, the thought of God is a (unprovable) construct which, from the practical (moral) point of view, must/should necessarily be thought as the ultimate fundament of any ethics of responsibility ("act as if there be a God"). Kant's term of morality is a term of reason-based duty as opposed to both arbitrary and heteronomy-based obedience. Moral acting is not sheer obeying any (specified) precepts, commands or instructions. The moral law is given by reason a priori, and, "if the will is free" and "if there is a God", it dictates "what ought to be done":

I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law.

Act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature.

Act as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end in itself, never as means only.

So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends.

Finally a remark concerning Jesus: "Fulfilling the (Mosaic) Law" meant and means excavating its both humane and divine core out of the formalities and outwardnesses which the esoterism, bigotry and imperiousness of priests and scribes had imposed on the people in order to domineer over them.

Again you persist in making opinion-based value judgments, and fail to answer my question. What basis do you have for condemning anything without an absolute morality?

There's no such thing as an absolute morality! I can't make it clearer than that. Morality IS a value based judgment! And it's based on our sense of fairness.

If I said, "I think XYZ is wrong," and didn't back it up, freethinkers would be all over me.

No, we'd simply ask you "why", to see if it has any reasonable merit.

"..even when I do justify what I believe by pointing to the Bible as my source, I still get criticized!.."

The source is irrelevant, it's t...

Again you persist in making opinion-based value judgments, and fail to answer my question. What basis do you have for condemning anything without an absolute morality?

There's no such thing as an absolute morality! I can't make it clearer than that. Morality IS a value based judgment! And it's based on our sense of fairness.

If I said, "I think XYZ is wrong," and didn't back it up, freethinkers would be all over me.

No, we'd simply ask you "why", to see if it has any reasonable merit.

"..even when I do justify what I believe by pointing to the Bible as my source, I still get criticized!.."

The source is irrelevant, it's the quality of the moral. But if your answer to the quality of the moral is "some god told me so in a book" you can expect it to have as much authority as if it were from The Cat in the Hat.

It fails as a credible source for god's word because it's not god's word, it's mans word pretending to be god's word as evidenced by its being arbitrary.

You have no source for your nice little opinions, and you expect to get away with making such unfounded value judgments?

Morals come from the fairness of human experience. For example: Is raping a child wrong? Did you need a god to tell you that answer?

See? You didn't did you?

It becomes apparent to me that you aren't even trying to understand my argument, or even address it. I am just wasting my breath, aren't I?

Your argument was understood from the start. You think morals are absolute and come from a god.

Correct?

I am simply pointing out that that's not true. Not on a human level; not on a divine level. Morals are not absolute, nor do they come from a god.

For example: Is raping a child wrong? Did you need a god to tell you that answer? Yes or no.