I'll put this one on you - why do you think that it's important for everyone to be subject to the same rules? It's not an empirical argument from favorable outcomes - it's something else, right? What is that other thing? Why?
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @SirDowden @CovfefeAnon
Leviticus 19:2 makes it clear that this is only true for fellow Israelites, those who hold God holy, for He is holy. Therefore it only applies as long as the nation itself is Jewish or Christian—which is no longer true of any Enlightenment nation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Therefore Christian or Jewish INDIVIDUALS may be bound by this scripture, but the state itself, being secular, absolutely is not.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @SirDowden @CovfefeAnon
Why? Scripture makes it clear that this was intended only to be true among Israelites toward fellow Israelites, for they are bound by the same holy law toward each other. No such strictures exist within an Enlightenment nation; therefore the model no longer makes any sense.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @SirDowden @17cShyteposter
The point isn't that it applies *to* Israelite communities - it's that it applies *within* Israelite communities It's not how Israelites are supposed to deal with outsiders because those situations call for different rules so social peace can exist
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
*Nations* don't have outsiders living as citizens - the US isn't a nation - merely a state. Nothing in your passage applies here Citizen doesn't mean "member of a nation" - it means "subject of a state"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.