Religious Zealotry

[ok doser]

Yup. 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.

I ran across something today that I'm not sure how to research - let me run it past you and the others here in the peanut gallery - I was looking at Bali as a tourist destination and in the information I ran across there was a lot of discussion over people using it as a sex tourism (yes it's a thing) destination and warnings of making sure that if you hired the services of a prostitute to make sure that they were old enough to be legal in Bali, which was 16.

There were additional warnings to make sure that they were old enough to meet the legal requirements of whatever country you are a citizen of as you would be liable upon returning to your home country if it was discovered that you hired an underage prostitute, even if they were legal in the country that you hired them in.

That struck me as unlikely, but may have been the result of some UN proclamation or such to try and control global pedophilia. Have you ever heard that - that you will be liable upon return home to your home country for engaging in actions that were legal in the country in which you engage them?

Would that apply to other things like traveling outside of your country to get an abortion, or engage in drug use that is illegal in your home country, but legal in a destination like Amsterdam?

 

[ok doser]

The parameters were "stealing is wrong." And "lying is wrong." That was the black and white. The gray is when those wrongs are permissible.

As much as you make me tired : ) I always have the impression you're arguing in good faith.

Stealing and lying are always wrong, but situations might arise where they are the least bad of a number of bad choices.

What lesson is the starving child taught when the parent steals to feed him?

Is it

A. Stealing is only okay if you are doing it to feed a starving child
or
B. Stealing is only okay if you are doing it because you have desperate need of something somebody else has
or
C. Stealing is only okay if you are doing it because somebody has more than you have
or
D. Stealing is only okay if you are doing it because somebody has something you want

 

[JudgeRightly]

lying [is] always wrong

It's not wrong to lie to protect the innocent. See Exodus 1:11-22

 

[annabenedetti]

Yup. 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.

Which kinda negates the whole Bible as law argument for the U.S. and the UK right there.

“Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.
- Genesis 9:6

Would you be the willing executioner of a child?

 

[Arthur Brain]

It really is.

God gave His principles of government in the Bible.



Yup. 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.



False.



Nope. I'm simply repeating what the Bible says on the matter.



No, I'm not a Pharisee, no matter how many times or ways you accuse me of being one.

Also, this does nothing to address what I said, but instead attacks me, your opponent. Say it with me now!

"Ad Hominem Fallacy!"



False.



False.



“Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.
- Genesis 9:6

And yes, that's a command, not an observation.



It really is.



Nope.



Morality has never changed. It is an absolute.



I have no idea what you're trying to say.



Say it with me now!

"Ad Hominem Fallacy!"

The law works how it does now JR and your opining about how it's somehow an ad hominem to observe that you have many characteristics of the religious leaders of the time that Jesus criticized so much should actually give you pause for thought instead of the knee jerk reaction displayed here. You would have a governance that would impose on the rights of people through your interpretation of what a "Godly" society should be and that's all it is. Just yours and similar ilk that might agree. Society is thankfully protected from that.

The verse you provide is an absolute fail in regards to it being applied to infants as you should well and probably do know so you haven't actually got anything specific on that score do you? Nor will you be able to provide one as you also well know. It's no wonder you couldn't address why we have laws that protect children in any depth whatsoever in that regard. Your contention is completely indefensible JR. It's little wonder nobody wants to touch it with the proverbial barge pole besides Jefferson (to give him his due) who commented that where severe punishments are concerned regarding unruly children they'd actually be adults at that point.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Which kinda negates the whole Bible as law argument for the U.S. and the UK right there.



Would you be the willing executioner of a child?

The verse he uses obviously doesn't apply to infants anyway. What's more, he knows this.

 

[ok doser]

Would you be the willing executioner of a child?

If Peyton Gendron had committed his act of violence in Buffalo when he was 17, would you have any problem executing him after a fair trial and sentencing?



Would you balk at executing Robert Thompson and Jon Venables for the deliberate torture and murder of James Bulger?

Murder of James Bulger - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[ok doser]

It's not wrong to lie to protect the innocent. See Exodus 1:11-22

Good example.

How would you apply it to Joe Biden lying about the deliberately open border, defended by many on the left as being a moral lie to save the innocent lives of people fleeing violence in Central America?

 

[Arthur Brain]

It really is.

God gave His principles of government in the Bible.



Yup. 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.



False.



Nope. I'm simply repeating what the Bible says on the matter.



No, I'm not a Pharisee, no matter how many times or ways you accuse me of being one.

Also, this does nothing to address what I said, but instead attacks me, your opponent. Say it with me now!

"Ad Hominem Fallacy!"



False.



False.



“Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.
- Genesis 9:6

And yes, that's a command, not an observation.



It really is.



Nope.



Morality has never changed. It is an absolute.



I have no idea what you're trying to say.



Say it with me now!

"Ad Hominem Fallacy!"

Look again at that verse and see how ridiculous and (hopefully) sickening it is to your repugnant posit. A two year old could be the cause of a man's death by leaving a toy on the floor that he trips over and breaks his skull. Was there malice aforethought? Deliberate and calculated intent?

Of course not and the same would go for any infant. Your position is untenable and about time you acknowledged it.

 

[Hoping]

I.e., to serve those who are suffering, not to rule over them, condemn them, and punish them for their weakness.

Amen, (and that is dependent on what you refer to as "weaknesses".)
Christians realize that it is God who will do the punishing.

Purex: Seems a lot of self=proclaimed Christians these days want to rule over their fellow humans, and judge and punish them and even blame them for their suffering.
That "self-proclaimed" bunch gives the real Christians a black eye.

 

[Hoping]

And therein lay the formation of the toxic religious zealot, using his own understanding of God, and his own clan's holy books to appoint himself the right hand of God. Inerrant and unquestionably righteous in his own eyes, now, and free to mete out divine vengeance as he sees fit. It's a very old story, with a very sad ending.

Are you going to zealously defend that POV?

 

[Hoping]

In both these scenarios the stealing and lying part is black and white----of course you do. You steal the food, and you lie to the Nazis, absolutely no question.

The gray or grey part is whether you also attempt to kill the Russians and the Nazis.

This is not because trying to kill Russians /Nazis is gray or grey, trying to kill them is 100% black and white totally fine.

But, there are two possible options and two possible outcomes here.
Option 1. Try to kill the Russians /Nazis
Option 2. Don't try to kill the Russians /Nazis

Outcome 1. The Russians /Nazis kill you
Outcome 2. The Russians /Nazis don't kill you

It's grey or gray because even if you don't try to kill the Russians /Nazis, they may either kill you (Option 2 and Outcome 1), or not (Option 2 and Outcome 2).
But if you don't try to kill them, maybe they won't kill you (Option 2 and Outcome 2).
But maybe if you do try to kill them, then they won't kill you (Option 1 and Outcome 2), but then maybe they will kill you (Option 1 and Outcome 1).
And if you succeed in killing the Russians /Nazis, then they won't kill you, because you killed them first (Option 1 and Outcome 2).

So to not die in these scenarios, it is not black and white, but a shade of grey or gray.

Stealing shows a lack of faith that God will provide for you.

 

[Idolater]

Stealing shows a lack of faith that God will provide for you.

I told you before: You're too Heavenly minded to be of any Earthly good.

 

[Hoping]

Which ironically enough comes under the banner of fundamentalism...

Non-Christian fundamentalism.

 

[Hoping]

I told you before: You're too Heavenly minded to be of any Earthly good.

Care to elaborate?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Which kinda negates the whole Bible as law argument for the U.S. and the UK right there.

Why?

Would you be the willing executioner of a child?

Why does it matter?

 

[JudgeRightly]

The law works how it does now JR

Whatever that means...

and your opining about how it's somehow an ad hominem to observe that you have many characteristics of the religious leaders of the time that Jesus criticized so much should actually give you pause for thought instead of the knee jerk reaction displayed here.

Continuing to attack me, rather than my argument, should give you pause for thought.

You would have a governance

No, I would have a government.

that would impose on the rights of people

No, it wouldn't.

through your interpretation of what a "Godly" society should be and that's all it is.

You're free to come up with one better, but you certainly have a high bar to clear.

Just yours and similar ilk that might agree.

Still with the personal attacks.

Say it with me now!

"Ad Hominem Fallacy!"

The verse you provide is an absolute fail in regards to it being applied to infants

Moving the goalposts.

you haven't actually got anything specific on that score do you?

You asked for me to, quote:

"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."

I provided exactly that.

You did not ask for me to "provide a quote from the Bible that expressly and specifically supports . . . the . . . notion that infants . . . should be put to death if they've committed a capital crime."

Nor will you be able to provide one as you also well know.

I provided what you asked for. That you're in denial about it is YOUR problem, not mine.

The verse he uses obviously doesn't apply to infants anyway. What's more, he knows this.

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?

Look again at that verse and see how ridiculous and (hopefully) sickening it is to your repugnant posit.

Appeal to emotion is a logical fallacy.

A two year old could be the cause of a man's death by leaving a toy on the floor that he trips over and breaks his skull. Was there malice aforethought? Deliberate and calculated intent?

Clearly not what the verse is referring to.

Of course not and the same would go for any infant.

Again, moving the goalposts.

Your position is untenable and about time you acknowledged it.

Straw manning my position, and then claiming my defeat because you've moved the goalposts doesn't work, Arthur.

 

[PureX]

Are you going to zealously defend that POV?

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.

 

[PureX]

Stealing shows a lack of faith that God will provide for you.

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

 

[PureX]

Care to elaborate?

”Say your prayers, but tie your camels.”