exchemist
Veteran Member
Tapdancer? What a hysterical rant.You already know the chain of defense of my ideas, and I already did support my analogy with specific points that should have been enough IF YOU KNOW THE PERTINENT PORTIONS OF YOUR BIBLE AT ALL WELL. But fine, you asked for it. You think I cant provide? Think again Mr. Tapdancer:
From the old testament, Exodus 21:20–21:
And now is when you would say something like "Oh my gosh! I had no idea that sort of statement was made in The Bible! Well, in any case, Jesus never said it, so it doesn't count!" Which is then where we get to Jesus' own words (and you knew this was coming also, don't lie to yourself now):
Matthew 5:18:
So, here we see that Jesus fully endorses the law of the Old Testament. I mean... he can't very well be talking about the New Testament, can he? It wasn't even written!!! Hahahahahahahahahaha! Oh boy... so funny. Give me a second to stop laughing... heh heh... ahhh... hoooo... yeah...good stuff, good stuff.
And so, back to my analogy, which I will quote again here:
So, what I am drawing on here is the fact that "SLAVERY" (something that used to be morally permissible, but no longer is) was legal during the time the Old Testament was written (and remember, the OT is applicable because JESUS SAYS it is applicable), just as "SEGREGATION " (something that used to be morally permissible, but no longer is) was legal during a particular time in U.S./more-modern history. That parallel is pretty darn obvious. And then within that, I am asking what you would believe the implication (that is, the take-away by the layman) of a MODERN LAW to be if it directly described the ways in which you could beat a black person and not be prosecuted under the law. So, I have substituted "slavery" for "segregation" and "slave" for "person or color", and then nearly everything else remains the same. Even the bit about not being allowed to knock out teeth or eyes, see? Look:
Exodus 21:26:
Exodus 21:27:
And, obviously, I am going for shock value here - making it incredibly obvious that it WOULD NOT BE OKAY by our standards today to allow someone to be beaten under the law in this way. And then I would ask people to juxtapose that sense of horror at those thoughts in modern times with what is nearly the exact same situation from Biblical times (a person considered to be of lower stature in society being beaten severely at the hands of another member of society deemed to be of higher stature), and imagine that, instead of horror, those people (and God, apparently) thought it all commonplace, and just fine and dandy. And I then ask, if God is the arbiter of morality... then what could have changed that now we don't write such laws into our law books? Why is it now not okay? Has God's mind on this matter changed? And if not, then aren't we sort of going against His prescriptions with our ideas today? Would you say our morality has evolved beyond God's?
And ultimately (on top of all the other INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS implications of my points above) my claim is that providing the lawful ways in which one is allowed to conduct business is showing lawful, government support for such business. And when "the government" we're talking about is "God", well... it means God supports these things. Period. And can the government change its mind? Of course it can! But what does it mean when God changes His mind?It means fallibility, doesn't it? And we can't have that, now can we?
If you would like to make a more temperate reply, I'll have a go at taking it seriously. But I'm not going to pick over this tirade, looking for rational bits and pieces to try to respond to.