[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Apparently, OP, you can't see it. 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:

In the first place, I actually haven't answered your question on "Voluntary cannibalism" yet, so it is a bearing of False Witness on your part to attribute to me a position which I have not yet claimed. (I have answered all your other questions, despite the fact that you have been uncharitably unresponsive in refusing to answer my questions. But I'll return to that in a bit).

Anyway, I have elected to discuss a "related point" (i.e., the Eucharist) before I proceed -- and so I have not answered the question of Voluntary Cannibalism just yet. You attribute positions to me which I have not claimed -- As I said before, you may repent at your leisure.

Moving forward to the main body of my Post...

---

You assert, Intelligent people simply cannot be libertarians. By your tone, it seems that you are implying you regard me as an intelligent person (hence your befuddlement at my libertarianism); and so I must thank you for the very kind implied Compliment.

However, HumanaeVitae, I feel it is incumbent upon me to observe: one of the marks of an "intelligent person" is the ability to clearly and precisely explain one's positions, and to exposit one's rationale therefore. And this is something which you simply ARE NOT doing. I have repeatedly asked you a number of comparatively simple questions, and you have repeatedly refused to answer them. Why is that? Are you INCAPABLE of clearly and precisely explaining your own positions, and expositing your rationale therefore? Because you are certainly acting like it.

Let's revisit the Grounds of Debate...

Here's what you would allow: -Private ownership of nuclear weapons; -Marketing of simulated child pornography; -Voluntary cannibalism. (and I am going to add one more -- "private intoxication upon one's own Property")

Let's take them each in turn... I am going to mix up the order somewhat, as I care to.

DEBATE #1 -- Marketing of simulated child pornography

There are 613 Laws which God wrote for Israel under the Old Covenant -- Moral, Ceremonial, and Civil Laws, a complete Constitution written for Israel by God Himself.

HumanaeVitae, please elucidate for me the exact Civil Penalty which would be assessed against an Israelite Painter for fabricating an artificial, imaginary representation of an Immoral Act. That's right, there ISN'T any Civil Penalty assigned by the Law of God.

Was it morally right for God to institute no civil penalty whatsoever for fabricating an artificial, imaginary representation of an Immoral Act, or was the Law of God wrong?

Why do you not just answer that Question? It is a simple enough question. Why are you incapable of answering it, do you suppose?

DEBATE #2 -- Private ownership of nuclear weapons

What are the Moral Criteria which must be satisfied for any Party (including a Government) to enjoy the Moral Right to own a Nuclear Weapon? Specify the Moral Criteria, and explain your reasoning.

Why do you not just answer that Question? It is a simple enough question. Why are you incapable of answering it, do you suppose?

DEBATE #3 -- Voluntary cannibalism

Is it a True Fact that Roman Catholics eat real human flesh and drink real human blood? Do you, or do you not? Should such eating and drinking of real human flesh and blood be OUTLAWED, or should it be Legal?

I have my own answer, of course, rigorously foundationalized in the Bible (as is the entire constitution of Christian Libertarianism). But before I proceed, let me hear your answer -- "Is it a True Fact that Roman Catholics eat real human flesh and drink real human blood? Do you, or do you not? Should such eating and drinking of real human flesh and blood be OUTLAWED, or should it be Legal?"

Why do you not just answer that Question? It is a simple enough question. Why are you incapable of answering it, do you suppose?

DEBATE #4 -- Private Intoxication on Private Property.

It is a violent immorality for you to commission the State as your contract-murderer to employ coercion, slavery, and death against Private Vices for which you would NOT have any right to employ Force as a Private Christian.

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 FOURTH time I have asked you this question, and STILL you have no answer whatsoever.

Why do you not just answer that Question? It is a simple enough question. Why are you incapable of answering it, do you suppose?

---

These are four simple, straightforward questions which I have asked you, and for which you have NO answer. And so I have a moral obligation to keep hammering you therewith, and I fully intend to do so.

It is a moral obligation for me, on exactly this basis... not going anywhere until I release you from Satan's grasp.

Let me tell you a little something about "Satan's grasp". Specifically, "Satan's grasp" over the matter of the Making of Law.

In modern America, the Making of Law has been given over almost entirely to "Satan's grasp" by the adoption of the philosophy of Moral Relativism -- If it feels good, do it.

And in this, the modern American Church has been very nearly as guilty as their liberal "opponents". In the modern American Church, there is practically ZERO attention paid to the necessity of foundationalizing one's Political Arguments upon the ground of Scripture. The modern American Church has adopted the very same Morally Relativistic approach to Law-Making as their liberal opponents -- If it feels good, do it.

Different things "feel good" to the liberals, and to the modern American Church. The liberals find that it "feels good" to them to permit Abortion on Demand, and the American Church (at least a portion thereof) find that it "feels good" to them to outlaw Abortion on Demand. But both camps are acting as Moral Relativists. Both Camps are implicitly denying the idea of an Absolute standard of Morality which clearly defines what Caesar must do and what he must not do; Both Camps are simply trying to "win enough votes" to impose their respective "Vision of the Annointed".

The idea that there is an Absolute standard of Morality which clearly defines what Caesar must do and what he must not do has entirely gone by the wayside.

And you have Yourself evidenced this fact.

I specifically challenged you (Post #354) on this matter...

Unless you adopt the Totalitarian View that Caesar may usurp unto himself any power he desires whatsoever, you must provide an explicit and specific Biblical Case for the extents of Caesar’s Power, clearly outlining what Caesar must do, and what he must not do, and it must be Biblical in its entirety (as is the Christian Libertarian case).

You had NO response. You don't have ANY Biblical case to offer as to an Absolute standard of Morality which clearly defines what Caesar must do and what he must not do.

You are as MORALLY RELATIVISTIC as your liberal opponents... you do not have ANY Absolute Standard of Morality which you apply to the Extent of Caesar's Powers; you are basically voting what "feels right" to you, just like any other Moral Relativist -- if it feels good, do it.

Different things "feel good" to you, than to your Opponents; but without an absolute standard of Morality applied to the Extent of Caesar's Powers, you are as much a Moral Relativist as they are.

• OPie don't play that.
• I am a Moral Absolutist on the Extent of Caesar's Powers.

You claim to believe in "Absolute Morality". It appears to me that you just enjoy hearing yourself say the words... because you are certainly NOT acting as any kind of Absolute Moralist when it comes to any Absolute Moral Standard of an explicit and specific Biblical Case for the extents of Caesar’s Power, clearly outlining what Caesar must do, and what he must not do.

---

If you are not just another Moral Relativist, then prove me wrong. Answer my Questions.

• Was it morally right for God to institute no civil penalty whatsoever for fabricating an artificial, imaginary representation of an Immoral Act, or was the Law of God wrong?

• What are the Moral Criteria which must be satisfied for any Party (including a Government) to enjoy the Moral Right to own a Nuclear Weapon? Specify the Moral Criteria, and explain your reasoning.

• Is it a True Fact that Roman Catholics eat real human flesh and drink real human blood? Do you, or do you not? Should such eating and drinking of real human flesh and blood be OUTLAWED, or should it be Legal?

• Was it morally right for God to institute no civil penalty whatsoever for Drug Intoxication, or was the Law of God wrong?

If you can provide me with a Morally Absolute definition and explanation of your views on these questions, then I'll believe you are a Moral Absolutist, and I'll be interested in your Arguments.

If you CAN'T, then you are just another Moral Relativist to me -- voting your emotions, "if it feels good, do it."

And I am a Christian Libertarian.
A Moral Absolutist.
I have no use whatsoever for Moral Relativists, of any stripe.

[HumanaeVitae]

"In the first place, I actually haven't answered your question on "Voluntary cannibalism" yet, so it is a bearing of False Witness on your part to attribute to me a position which I have not yet claimed."

I know you haven't. Answer the question and we'll talk more. Would you allow cannibalism?

You say that you have answers to this question and other questions that are 'grounded in the Bible'. So what? Your libertarianism would not allow you to impose your views on an atheist, would it? Read that again...that is the fatal flaw in your "belief system".

You cannot answer the question about cannabalism without exposing the inherent contradiction of your belief system. You are holding that man needs Christ for salvation, but only needs 'enlightened self-interest' for his personal salvation. This is an outgrowth of the flawed Calvinist doctrines of sola fide and strict predestination.

Cannabalism, OP, yes or no?