I'm going to keep hammering you with the question you don't dare answer, because it clearly demonstrates that you are implacably opposed to the Law of God:
Alcohol, Hashish, Opium, and other powerful Intoxicating Drugs were well-known and commonly-used in the ancient Near East. When God wrote the Civil Law for Israel, however, Intoxication was not specified as a Civil Crime and there was NO Civil Penalty whatsoever for Private Intoxication.
Was it morally right for God to institute no civil penalty whatsoever for Drug Intoxication, or was the Law of God wrong?
This is the third time I have asked this question.
I answer all of your questions; yet you are incapable of answering mine.
Why? Because if you do, you know you'll lose.
Are you this dense? Do people have a right to personally own a nuclear weapon? Answer me that...do people have a right to personally own a nuclear weapon?
Suppose Bill Gates renounces his citizenship. He purchases from France an island in French Polynesia, hundreds of miles from any other human -- full renunciation of Sovereignty by France, full transfer of Sovereignty to "Gates-Land". Bill Gates declares "Gates-Land" to be a Nation without a Government -- i.e., an Anarcho-Capitalist Nation -- and not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. "Gates-Land" is recognized as a Sovereign Nation by all countries in the world. Bill Gates then proceeds to build a nuclear weapon, as a Private Citizen of "Gates-Land", a Sovereign Nation of which he is the sole Citizen.
Does Bill Gates not have the right, as a Private Citizen, to ownership of his own personal nuclear weapon? Why or why not?
I say that under such conditions Bill Gates has the Right to own a nuclear weapon, because he has taken adequate safeguards to Fence in his Externalities -- he's not going to blow up his neighbors.
If you say that under such conditions Bill Gates has NO Right to own a nuclear weapon, explain your reasoning. Also, explain exactly what criteria must be satisfied, in your mind, for any Party (including a Government) to enjoy the Moral Right to own a nuclear weapon. What are the moral criteria?? Can you answer that??
I know why you won't admit this. Because if you do, your libertarian ideology (again, you're not a Christian, you're a libertarian--I know that now by your tolerance of public displays of simulated child pornography.)
You didn't finish your second sentence, but that's okay. You didn't have anything to say anyway.
And to reiterate -- a display is not "Public" if it should be kept behind a Fence high enough to hide it from the street. If I own a couple-acre spread, and I fence in my lawn with a 20-foot-high solid-wall fence, you're just being silly if you claim my lawn is "public".
Ok, the guy who murdered the other guy to eat him...forget about that. Let's just say that a guy wants to eat another human. He pays someone who is terminally ill $5,000 dollars to let him eat him after he dies of natural causes. Ok? There's no coercion or initiation of force. The guy voluntarily agrees to be eaten, after he dies of natural causes. You've already conceded that your belief system would tolerate the public display of simulated child pornography--hey, why not cannibalism? Is voluntarily contracted cannibalism O.K. with you?
Voluntarily contracted cannibalism... hmmm... before I answer that, I'm going to have to ask you to define your Moral terms. To wit: should it be legal for Roman Catholics to eat real human flesh and drink real human blood, if that is the real substance underneath the "accidents" of the elements?
If it is real human flesh and real human blood, should Roman Catholics be allowed to eat and drink it?
Just curious...
How about ownership of nuclear weapons?
You never did answer my questions about the two gentlemen who each lkived alone with a ton of nitro-glycerin in leaky barrels -- one in a house by himself 30 miles from his nearest neighbor, the other in an apartment at the base of an occupied 2-story apartment building.
I suppose you couldn't answer it. So I'll just posit to you the core philosophical question, without the hypothetical:
I hate it when people can't even explain there own positions -- which is all too typical of unthinking clods these days.
Explain yours on this matter -- with precision.
There's no end to the fun you can have with libertarians...
Sure -- especially when you can't bear to answer their questions.
Better to try to bluster your way through, than admit your own hatred against the Law of God.
So, just to remind you, you still have a Question to answer:
Alcohol, Hashish, Opium, and other powerful Intoxicating Drugs were well-known and commonly-used in the ancient Near East. When God wrote the Civil Law for Israel, however, Intoxication was not specified as a Civil Crime and there was NO Civil Penalty whatsoever for Private Intoxication.
Was it morally right for God to institute no civil penalty whatsoever for Drug Intoxication, or was the Law of God wrong?
Right now, you are more in love with the idea of using the State as your own Contract-Murderer than you are in love with God. But you can Repent and become a Christian even yet.
(Sigh)
Here's what you would allow:
-Private ownership of nuclear weapons; -Marketing of simulated child pornography; -Voluntary cannibalism.
Again, answer the question...would you allow voluntarily contracted cannibalism? We already know that you are O.K. with people posting billboards of simulated child pornography in their front yards. And the Eucharist has nothing to do with it...answer the question:
Would you allow me to open up a restaurant offering human flesh on the menu? As long as the people you were "serving" were not killed and voluntarily contracted and agreed to this after they died? Would you allow parents whose children had died to sell their children's bodies to my restaurant?
I hate to be so disgusting, but you are one hard case, my friend. Intelligent people simply cannot be libertarians. It's got to be something else with you, OP. I'm not going anywhere until I release you from Satan's grasp. You're worth saving, OP...