I gave you the rationale you asked. Because you don’t like the answer you act like I didn’t offer one or need to offer something else.
Of course we disagree. That’s OK. What I am saying goes against the status quo, popular culture, mode-o-day conventional wisdom, and like many in the past who have done the same, understand that people don’t necessarily like new, innovative ideas that challenge long-held, but unexamined or unquestioned beliefs.
I understand and don’t hold it against anyone. I’m sure I’m the same way when something new comes along that challenges my paradigm. But even though it is uncomfortable sometimes, I know whatever the truth is, I’m better off learning it.
You mean like ABORTION and GAY MARRIAGE?
This is a prime example of my point that you do not present a rationale, but rather provide the assertion as self-evident. Your statement that others' beliefs are long-held but unexamined or unquestioned is an attempt to cast the opposing opinion as uninformed, which consequently means that yours is the only informed opinion.
The example you cited has long been taught as Christ's repudiation of the legalistic punishment meted out by the church, as opposed to the government. It is, further, unrelated to the crime of murder.
It is not that I disagree with your answer, but rather that your answer is insufficient to the question, and the envelope in which you deliver your answer is made of unsupported assertions about other people's state of mind, including my own.