Religious Zealotry

[JudgeRightly]

It means the law overall works just fine as it is now.

You seem to have forgotten the purpose of the law, Arty.

Tell me, what is the purpose of the law?

Does it match what we see today?

Of course your "government" would impose on the rights of people.

Wrong.

In our respective countries we have the right to freedom of and freedom from religion.

The proposed government would have the same right to worship.

You would usurp all that and force your ideals onto society

Yes, that's how law works. It's an enforcement of ideals onto society.

regardless of what people believe.

Likewise with our current systems. The difference is that the current systems are wicked and unjust.

Whilst not perfect the bar as it stands now is significantly higher than yours as it is.

You're being wordy again.

And no, it's much, MUCH lower.

For one thing we have sensible laws that protect children from harm, predators, abusers

We have a government that is actively promoting sexualizing children.

That's not protecting children from harm, predators, OR abusers.

Children should not be taught about sex. PERIOD. And that's before we get to the other perverts.

and that recognize they can't be held as accountable for their actions as an adult.

Which has led to millions of children committing crimes and practically getting away with them scott free.

"You and your ilk" is not a personal attack JR. If you prefer, how about "You and those of similar persuasion"?

I prefer you just address my arguments, not me or those who believe similarly to myself.

There is absolutely no goalpost moving going on at all and frankly, it's feeble of you to even attempt that deflection.

Changing the word used from "children" to "infants" IS moving the goalposts.

You have not provided anything remotely resembling what I asked for.

Yes, I did.

I asked you for the following:

provide a quote from the Bible that expressly and specifically supports . . . the . . . notion that children . . . should be put to death if they've committed a capital crime.

Which I provided.

You have in no way, shape or form met the criteria as outlined.

False.

The verse is clearly not referring to children which should be obvious.

The verse says "Whoever."

What does "whoever" mean, Arthur?

It's not an appeal to emotion JR.

False.

Your position has not been "straw manned" whatsoever

False.

Because you just said "That's how laws work, Arthur. If you enter or reside in a country, you must follow that country's laws, or face the consequences. Then they would have to obey the laws. Or they could choose to not obey them, and face the consequences."

Since you reside in the U.S. you are subject to the law of the U.S.

Not as a member of the Body of Christ.

No matter how much you base your personal life on the Bible, you cannot impose Biblical law on anyone if it violates their constitutional rights.

What we're talking about is a new system that DOES NOT use the current US Constitution as it's foundation.

Thus, your argument is moot.

As Arthur's said, would you be ready to put your money where your mouth is? Simple question.

If I were wronged in some way by the person, yes.

But that's not the question. The statement was: "Whether they match biblical law or not is irrelevant."

If a law is found unjust such that it needs to be amended or abolished, that determination is made on the basis of its constitutionality.

Using the constitution as a basis for justice is a terrible idea, because the document itself is unjust.

But when you're standing in a courtroom, your rights are based in civil law, not religious law.

Nope. My rights come from God, not laws drawn up by men.

 

[Hoping]

There’s no need. The observation stands on it’s own. I can’t make anyone acknowledge it that is intent on not acknowledging it.

There is the zeal I was looking for !

 

[Hoping]

On the other hand, presuming to know what God will do for you is both dishonest and arrogant.

Hardly, as God has spelled it out in the bible.
I need not "presume" anything but that God is true.

 

[Hoping]

”Say your prayers, but tie your camels.”

Camels supplied by God, of course.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You seem to have forgotten the purpose of the law, Arty.

Tell me, what is the purpose of the law?

Does it match what we see today?



Wrong.



The proposed government would have the same right to worship.



Yes, that's how law works. It's an enforcement of ideals onto society.



Likewise with our current systems. The difference is that the current systems are wicked and unjust.



You're being wordy again.

And no, it's much, MUCH lower.



We have a government that is actively promoting sexualizing children.

That's not protecting children from harm, predators, OR abusers.

Children should not be taught about sex. PERIOD. And that's before we get to the other perverts.



Which has led to millions of children committing crimes and practically getting away with them scott free.



I prefer you just address my arguments, not me or those who believe similarly to myself.



Changing the word used from "children" to "infants" IS moving the goalposts.



Yes, I did.



Which I provided.



False.



The verse says "Whoever."

What does "whoever" mean, Arthur?



False.



False.

Nope and that's hardly agreed upon overall as it is so if you want to talk about the purpose of law then take it to a separate thread. As it stands the laws we have are for the most part - just fine.

So, you state that it's "wrong" that your proposed government wouldn't impose on people's rights and then acknowledge that said government would enforce its ideals on society. That would usurp a myriad freedoms we have at present so it wasn't "wrong" to state such at all. Obviously our countries have laws that restrict certain actions but based on common sense and not religious zealotry.

I'm being "wordy"? Oh, I'm sorry, was I using words with too many syllables for you? It absolutely isn't lower than what you propose at all. That we have laws that protect five year old children from being executed makes the bar infinitely higher in itself.

You have yet to answer a completely straightforward question regarding as to whether it's rape if an adult has sex with a ten year old. The law rightfully regards that as child rape as the child is a minor and deemed too young to give informed consent. Do you agree with that law? You're in no position to opine about deficiencies as to how children are taught and whatnot until you answer that. So, do you agree that it's child rape. Third time of asking now...

"Millions of children committing crimes and getting away scott free"?! Where do you get that from? Do you actually understand why the law doesn't regard five year old children as anywhere near as cognizant of their actions as an adult? Does the obvious need to be pointed out to you yet again?

Your arguments are being addressed in detail. You on the other hand seem to think that repeatedly declaring the word 'false' somehow resembles one. When you continually do so it only shows that you're devoid of one.

Again, no goal post moving whatsoever. Here, let me remind you of that post that asked you for such specific criteria. I'll bold and enlarge the font regarding the salient bit:

"You have no Biblical support for it whatsoever JR, else provide a quote from the Bible that expressly and specifically supports your contention on the score. By that I mean one that incontrovertibly supports your notion that children as young as infants should be held as accountable for their actions as an adult and should be put to death if they've committed a capital crime."

Now that that's been sorted out you haven't provided a verse that expressly addresses infants as being accountable for their actions as adults and deserving of capital punishment, nowhere near. The ones you have provided don't stipulate children whatsoever and are clearly referring to adults. Now, if you can't find one then honesty is the best course of action on your part and an acknowledgement that there's no such verse in the Bible that would support your position that children as young as five can rightfully be executed.

You're wrong on both in regards to your latter but unlike you I won't simply reply "false" but explain why. Well, with the first I'll reiterate that it isn't an appeal to emotion but rather an untenable position you hold that fails on a moral, spiritual and logical outlook whilst an emotional aspect could certainly and should inform an intrinsic revulsion to your posit also. A bit like rape, cruelty to animals etc. Indefensible on all levels.

Your failure to read a post properly - as outlined and bolded above - is not straw manning your position.

 

[ok doser]

Camels supplied by God, of course.

Rope as well

 

[Arthur Brain]

If I were wronged in some way by the person, yes.

Hang on, what? You'd be prepared to execute a five year old child if they'd wronged you in some way?

 

[Arthur Brain]

People have the 'right' to reject God and go to hell but they do not have the right to destroy God Bless America with new Marxist hedonist barbarian perversions.

Well, typical overblown hyperbole that was tiresome enough previously to put you on ignore. Two posts after taking you off ignore and...yeah...back you go.

 

[Clete]

But that's not the question. The statement was: "Whether they match biblical law or not is irrelevant."

If a law is found unjust such that it needs to be amended or abolished, that determination is made on the basis of its constitutionality.

No it isn't!

I mean, sure, that's one reason why a law might be amended or repealed but that isn't the only nor even the normal reason. Laws changed on the basis of morality all the time in this country. The question is whether or not they are ACTUALLY moral or not and the constitution isn't going to help you answer that question.

Law enforcement, judges, legislators, etc.

You mean people that represent the state then. That's a related but sufficiently different issue that I think we can leave it be.

But when you're standing in a courtroom, your rights are based in civil law, not religious law.

So what? That doesn't make it just and it doesn't make it moral either (same thing I suppose).

And that matters!

To the degree a society's laws are unjust, that society is NOT free and whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the Constitution DOES NOT define what justice is. Not even close.

Freedom is based on the Constitution in this country.

That's backwards!

It is the constitution that is based (ostensibly) on freedom.

You had your rights before they were written on paper. Your rights are not endowed by the Constitution but by God. You have rights because you are a living human being.

Much, often the majority of the adult population of the U.S. disagrees with you on many moral positions, but they're not a threat to your freedom because they disagree with you.

Of course they are. The closer we get to a democracy, the bigger threat the majority becomes to the minority.

You said: When the immoral segments of society are allowed out of the closet." Who would you keep in the closet?

Have you lost your mind? The people who used to be in it!

How naive are you?

Are you talking about people who break the law based on the Constitution? Murderers, rapists, etc.? Or are you talking about people you fundamentally disagree with, like Constitutionally law-abiding homosexuals? Unmarried people living together? Liberals? Feminists?

There isn't hardly a dime's worth of difference between all of those groups, at least not politically speaking. They all row the boat in the same direction and they'd all shut me up permanently if they could, and they'd shut you up to if you didn't toe their line. Nearly all the immoral are leftist and absolutely all leftists are immoral and they will all turn into tyrants if left to their own devices.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Jumping in here to answer a question that wasn't asked of me so mea culpa

Overall I would say that most of the laws in the US are just. Some are not. Of those that are just many of them are enforced unjustly. Overall I would give the American justice system a B- for intent and an F for execution.

The law itself determines both the means and the method of its enforcement, so...


Also, I'd love to know by what standard you give the American legal system any sort of passing grade whatsoever.

What is the justice for the murderer?

What is justice for the rapist?

What is justice for the thief?

There isn't 2% of people in the country that know the answer to those three questions and even fewer than that of those who work anywhere near the legal justice system. Most people think that justice is a matter of personal opinion and lawyers believe that justice is whatever the law happens to say!
The people of this country have forgotten what justice looks like so long ago that they literally have no idea what it is or why and they'd be appalled if they saw it (unless they or one of their loved ones was the victim of a crime).

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

Nearly all the immoral are leftist and absolutely all leftists are immoral and they will all turn into tyrants if left to their own devices.

And that's why Hell exists.

 

[ok doser]

And that's why Hell exists.

I thought hell exists so that people in New Jersey could feel good about themselves

 

[Arthur Brain]

There isn't hardly a dime's worth of difference between all of those groups, at least not politically speaking. They all row the boat in the same direction and they'd all shut me up permanently if they could, and they'd shut you up to if you didn't toe their line. Nearly all the immoral are leftist and absolutely all leftists are immoral and they will all turn into tyrants if left to their own devices.

Clete

I'm what you'd probably consider "leftist" and I'd have no interest in shutting you up temporarily let alone permanently as I'm an advocate for freedom of speech. No interest in being a tyrant and riding roughshod over people's rights and freedoms either. A whole load of hyperbole going on with you here and no bearing on reality at all.

 

[ok doser]

The law itself determines both the means and the method of its enforcement, so...


Also, I'd love to know by what standard you give the American legal system any sort of passing grade whatsoever.

What is the justice for the murderer?

What is justice for the rapist?

What is justice for the thief?

There isn't 2% of people in the country that know the answer to those three questions and even fewer than that of those who work anywhere near the legal justice system. Most people think that justice is a matter of personal opinion and lawyers believe that justice is whatever the law happens to say!
The people of this country have forgotten what justice looks like so long ago that they literally have no idea what it is or why and they'd be appalled if they saw it (unless they or one of their loved ones was the victim of a crime).

Clete

Death
Death **
and leveraged restitution

 

[Arthur Brain]

And that's why Hell exists.

Nonsense of course.

 

[marke]

I thought hell exists so that people in New Jersey could feel good about themselves

Hell exists for rebels who refuse to yield to God after He has clearly appeared to them urging them to do so.

 

[PureX]

There is the zeal I was looking for !

 

[PureX]

Camels supplied by God, of course.

And taken away, too. But which? And when? You don't know, and neither do I.

 

[Hoping]

And taken away, too. But which? And when? You don't know, and neither do I.

You are correct.
It does pay to pray in thanksgiving, day and night.

 

[annabenedetti]

So what? That doesn't make it just and it doesn't make it moral either (same thing I suppose).

So what? Regardless of your opinion of our legal system (and there's a lot of room for improvement) it is the law. If you're charged with a crime or hit with a lawsuit, when you're standing in a courtroom, you're going to be facing charging documents, complaints, whatever fits the situation. The judge isn't gonna sit down and open a Bible.