No, you did not point out a moral quandary that actually exists. You asked if I could see the same nonexistent moral quandary that you see in God’s commandment not to murder. I answered your question. No, I don’t see it. Throwing in a strawman asking me to speculate about your limited capacity for charity does nothing to address the issue at hand. But then, it isn’t designed to, is it? If I answer your silly question, will you get back on topic? I doubt it, but what the heck, here goes. Yes, I do think that some people are limited in their willingness to be charitable. Now, back to the topic at hand. I still don’t think there should be a death penalty for failure to pay a debt. And I still don’t see how your approach to limiting charity could ever justify such a position.
“You asked if I could see the same nonexistent moral quandary that you see in God’s commandment not to murder.”
I did not ask this.
“Throwing in a strawman asking me to speculate about your limited capacity for charity does nothing to address the issue at hand. “
This is not what I asked.
“Yes, I do think that some people are limited in their willingness to be charitable. “
Not what I asked.
“I still don’t think there should be a death penalty for failure to pay a debt.”
With whom do you disagree about this? It is not me.
“And I still don’t see how your approach to limiting charity could ever justify such a position.”
What approach did I advocate? I don’t recall advocating for anything.
Again, you need to be honest in your discussion, otherwise you are arguing with yourself.
Honesty....you had a fleeting brush with it last night, but I see a nights rest has you returning to your previous dishonesty on this discussion
If you wish to debate me, don’t debate yourself. If you just wish to debate yourself, have at it - but don’t include me - I can’t participate.