Another law thread

[Esquilax]

My example using death penalty crimes establishes that you are not an anti societal extremist. Like Osama bin Ladin, correct? Which makes you compliant or accepting of ALL the laws concerning death penalty crimes does it not? or again have you committed a death penalty level crime in open defiance of the western culture as Osama has? If yes please use this opportunity to claim your actions as Osama has completing the sociopaths pattern. if not then understand that you are willing subject to all laws concerning capital offenses. As such if Christ in his time here two thousand years ago established A verifiable open channel to heaven that scientist could test and approve as being the real deal. Then it would be safe to say our societies would look a lot different. Our laws would most likely reflect the laws the bible outlines as was the case in OT Judaism and in the dark ages when the Christian church ran the world into the ground.

First, and this may be nitpicking, but I'm not compliant to any death penalty crimes, because I come from, and am living in, a country that has no death penalty. And even if I were living in one that does have it, I wouldn't agree with it. I would, in fact, protest against it. See, that's the thing you don't seem to have gotten here: it's possible to disagree with a law without having to break it in order to demonstrate such. Maybe the fact that I haven't committed a capital offense has less to do with the fact that I secretly agree with the death penalty, and more to do with the fact that I'm not a psychopath and don't want to hurt someone.

But more than that, and forgive me if I'm wrong here, but weren't you the one earlier arguing that the new testament alters the laws of the old? Weren't you, in fact, arguing that Christ's new laws supersede the old testament completely? So... why would Christ's appearance change the world so much if he opened a channel to heaven in doing so? I mean, if the new testament reflects god's will now then wouldn't that still be the case if he were verifiable, and not encourage a dark ages style church?

Again because as you have demonstrated you do not have it in you to fight against the society's highest level offenses, and that you are willing to simply roll over and adopt what society has deemed to be 'moral'. It would stand to reason that you would have simply adopted societies standards even if some of the sins you enjoy now were elevated to capital crimes. Or again do you think yourself such a different person than the millions who lived and submitted themselves under church rule? In truth the only difference between you and some poor guy living 1500 years ago is the benefit of perspective that he provided by living in such terrible times. Without it you would not even question the life society had slated for you to live. As demonstrated by your current acceptance of all the major laws you dare not break.

The difference between me and a guy living 1500 years ago is that we now live in a free society (some might argue that's because it's a secular one) that has not only a right to a free discourse, but an expectation of a civil one. That's where your argument falls down: I don't just roll over and take whatever social standards there are. I protest, I sign petitions, I go to rallies and marches. I participate in awareness programs. And I refuse to participate in events, or involve myself with organizations or peoples that act in ways I consider harmful or offensive.

There are ways to disagree that aren't violent, no matter what the bible tells you.