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.
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.
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.
Your position has not been "straw manned" whatsoever
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.