I think people misconstrued the point of my post in the previous thread because it really wasn't about slavery or torture. Whether you believe in either can be considered a different discussion but as examples they go to the heart of the original thread.
For a completely, totally, theoretical, example only. Did you get that? I am only using the below as an example. I am not referencing something that is happening in my life, though there is the unrelated possibility my Father, Bird of Pray on Steam, might be looking for help, this is written here only as an example.
The example Let's ask would you follow a law that resulted in your Mother not being able to get the medication she needed to prevent going blind or dying on a legal technicality? Keep in mind intent of the law was to do the opposite but this is the result. Nor are you stealing or hurting anyone it is purely a legal technicality.
Again using torture. Laws against torture were intended to protect people but by flatly forbidding it you theoretically endanger more lives. Let me put it this way...
1. A terrorist has a detonator in his hand so you beat him up to make him let go.
This man is hailed as a hero.
2. A terrorist has planted a bomb that is going to go off at noon so you beat him up to make him tell you where it is at.
This man committed torture and is a criminal.
The same men, the same threat, the same intent, the same certainty of guilt, the same amount of force and the same result. Yet because our society is so brainwashed one is a hero and the other is a criminal. Would you do number two? Remember the guilt is certain I'm not talking about rogue cops. Bear in mind I am well aware of the abuses of torture and slavery. I am not making any statement about bringing them back nor wish to debate them in this thread.
They'll condemn something completely because the law or "the people" say so without giving thought to the moral intent of the law. It's like saying...
All food is bad, it's not, gluttony is.
or
Killing is bad, it's not, murder is. (and I did not specifically say killing people you can kill plants)
A just law that deviates from it's intent is no longer just. That's why I stated the thing about coppa in the last thread. A law intended to protect children is hurting them. Likewise the original other thread included a law intended to prevent abuses that is now in fact hurting people. It was asking at what point do you continue to follow that law over what is morally right? Bear in mind I am willing to submit myself to the suffering and yoke of an unjust ruler but should we tolerate that ruler doing it to others? Should we tolerate it if it goes against the Bible?
For a completely, totally, theoretical, example only. Did you get that? I am only using the below as an example. I am not referencing something that is happening in my life, though there is the unrelated possibility my Father, Bird of Pray on Steam, might be looking for help, this is written here only as an example.
The example Let's ask would you follow a law that resulted in your Mother not being able to get the medication she needed to prevent going blind or dying on a legal technicality? Keep in mind intent of the law was to do the opposite but this is the result. Nor are you stealing or hurting anyone it is purely a legal technicality.
Again using torture. Laws against torture were intended to protect people but by flatly forbidding it you theoretically endanger more lives. Let me put it this way...
1. A terrorist has a detonator in his hand so you beat him up to make him let go.
This man is hailed as a hero.
2. A terrorist has planted a bomb that is going to go off at noon so you beat him up to make him tell you where it is at.
This man committed torture and is a criminal.
The same men, the same threat, the same intent, the same certainty of guilt, the same amount of force and the same result. Yet because our society is so brainwashed one is a hero and the other is a criminal. Would you do number two? Remember the guilt is certain I'm not talking about rogue cops. Bear in mind I am well aware of the abuses of torture and slavery. I am not making any statement about bringing them back nor wish to debate them in this thread.
They'll condemn something completely because the law or "the people" say so without giving thought to the moral intent of the law. It's like saying...
All food is bad, it's not, gluttony is.
or
Killing is bad, it's not, murder is. (and I did not specifically say killing people you can kill plants)
A just law that deviates from it's intent is no longer just. That's why I stated the thing about coppa in the last thread. A law intended to protect children is hurting them. Likewise the original other thread included a law intended to prevent abuses that is now in fact hurting people. It was asking at what point do you continue to follow that law over what is morally right? Bear in mind I am willing to submit myself to the suffering and yoke of an unjust ruler but should we tolerate that ruler doing it to others? Should we tolerate it if it goes against the Bible?
Last edited: