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?
"Answer the question and we'll talk more". I was hoping that you would post such an implied Ultimatum to me, HV; and I rather expected that you would. Thanks for obliging me.
Buy your implied ultimatum, you have given absolute moral grounding to my criticisms of your refusal to answer the simple and explicit Questions which I have already and repeatedly posed to you.
Questions which you have refused to answer, and for which you have no response.
And why have you no response? Because, when it comes to the Political question of the Extent of Caesar's Powers, you really are just another Moral Relativist. "If it feels right, Vote it".
As I have already said, 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.
And despite your refusal to engage in a good faith discussion (one characterized by charitable "give-and-take"), your refusal to answer my simple questions... you post the following to me:
Well, as I said before, I am not prepared to waste my time on a Decalogue-hating Moral Relativist who cannot even explain, exposit, and justify your own positions -- and who has repeatedly refused to do so.
I have been very disappointed in your Morally Relativistic refusal to explain, exposit, and justify your own positions. I have an answer for your "voluntary cannibalism" question, and with regard to the Roman Eucharist; an answer rigorously foundationalized in the Bible, as is the whole of the Christian Libertarian case. It probably won't be an answer you'll like, but I do not think it is the answer you expect.
But I won't play Poker with a Cheater. And I won't waste my time with a Decalogue-hating Moral Relativist who cannot even explain, exposit, and justify your own positions -- and who has repeatedly refused to do so.
And so I say to you, as a condition of proceeding:
Here are the Questions which I have already and repeatedly posed to you (and I have even charitably redacted our more recent controversy over Cannibalism/Eucharist):
BUT IF YOU WILL NOT, then it is obvious to me that you are nothing but a Decalogue-Hating Moral Relativist who cannot even explain, exposit, and justify your own positions.
And I am a Moral Absolutist. I shan't waste my time on Moral Relativists. The "if it feels good, Vote it" philosophy is nothing but an Abomination against the Law of God.
And if you cannot even explain, exposit, and justify your own positions, and answer FIRST the Questions which I have already and repeatedly posed to you, then that is all that you are.
If you have ANY MORAL ABSOLUTES whatsoever, then just Answer the Questions which I have already and repeatedly posed to you.
And then we'll proceed.