If we legislate laws in U.S. based on the Bible . . .

[Kidlicious]

This is the post you are referring to. It does not provide a way to distinguish between just and unjust laws. What the hell is wrong with you?

There's nothing wrong with me. Like I said, I don't explain things to trolls because they just end up calling me a giraffe ****er for it.

[loinburger]

Your moral incompetence probably has little to do with your giraffe-****ing antics. It's not as though you said "hurf durf I can't tell right from wrong, I'd better **** a giraffe"

[Kidlicious]

So you see nothing immoral about ****ing giraffes? It's no wonder you are asking me about justice.

[loinburger]

So you see nothing immoral about ****ing giraffes?

Where do you come up with these retarded assertions? Do you decide ahead of time what you want somebody's post to say before you misread their post, or do you zero in on one or two words and then fill in the blanks with the **** that pours out of your diseased mind? Basically, I'm asking if you're dishonest a priori or a posteriori - I'm assuming it's the latter since the former would require some premeditation on your part (which would require you to have a cohesive thought for longer than a minute)

[Kidlicious]

All I know is that you said that my moral incompetence has nothing to do with the fact that I **** giraffes.

[loinburger]

That's correct. It has more to do with your insatiable lust for giraffe ass.

[Kidlicious]

I'm quickly getting tired of your double talk. You just said, again, that it's moral to **** giraffes.

[loinburger]

No I didn't. I said that your motivation for ****ing giraffes was that you lusted after giraffe ass. This is in contrast to a motivation based on your moral incompetence, which would be something like "the Bible never says not to **** giraffes, therefore I'm going to **** giraffes." You might use this latter statement to morally justify your giraffe-****ing, but the statement is not your motivation for giraffe-****ing. That's why I said that your moral incompetence had little (note the use of the word "little," as opposed to a word such as "nothing" that you've been inserting into my posts) to do with your giraffe-****ing antics - you **** giraffes because you think they're sexy, and your moral incompetence means that you don't mind disregarding the giraffe's feelings on the matter.

[MrFun]

You are lying again. Please quote the post where I said that I didn't know the difference between the two.

Nobody has ever asked me to provide a distinction between the two, and so I have never said that I can't provide a distinction nor have I implied that I can't provide a distinction by means of changing the subject or otherwise refusing to answer the question. You, on the other hand, have consistently refused to answer the "simple" question, because you can't - you assume that all current laws are just, and you only admit that previous laws were unjust because the weight of history forces you to do so.

Since you obviously can't answer the question in general, maybe you'll find it easier to answer the question by providing one specific example of a current US law that is unjust, along with an explanation as to why the law is unjust. If you can't provide the why, then don't bother providing the what, as it'll just be another one of your brain farts.

[Kidlicious]

I just think it's hilarious how some people buy into his crap.

[Proteus_MST]

More stuff I found with the Google thingy:

http://themoderatevoice.com/9615/just-and-unjust-laws-according-to-dr-martin-luther-king-jr/

Ius Gentium is ‘ius’ or ‘law’ that is universally practiced. For instance: When someone buys a certain product, one has got to pay for it, stealing is not allowed, nor is murder. In the time of the Romans, however, slavery was universally used and accepted as well.

Ius Naturalis means ‘natural law’ or ‘moral law’ (see resemblance with dr. King: exact same word). Certain things could fall under the Ius Gentium but not under Ius Naturalis. The best way of explaining the difference is slavery: Although slavery was universally used in their time (thus it was Ius Gentium), the Romans themselves condidered it in breach with Ius Naturalis or moral law.

Dr. Martin Luther King goes further to explain the difference between a just and an unjust law:
“Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”

In the Roman empire they lived, mostly, by the Ius Gentium: Although they recognized that Ius Gentium was in breach, now and then, with Ius Naturalis.

Dr. Martin Luther King jr. however thinks different. He wrote in his letter:
“One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”

He is using the example of certain Nazi laws. The Nazis occupied my country (The Netherlands) as well as many other countries. They made and enforced terrible laws here. For instance: It was illegal to hide Jews in one’s home from the Nazis. But, if one hid a Jew dispite it being illegal, one saved a life: Jews that would get caught would be send to and imprisoned in camps. Mostly, of course, death camps.

So what about certain laws/divine orders in the old testament?
Would people have the right to resist them?
Examples:

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him.
If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master.

Would said slave be right if he were to disobey his master and take his wife and children with him? (as I have no doubt that staying in slavery degrades ones personality rather then uplifting it)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Does it uplift a womans personality to be forced to marry a man who raped her?

And, even more interesting...
would it be correct to resist god as gives orders to commit mass slaughter on civilians:

Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.

[Kidlicious]

Pro, why would they resist? They weren't Christians, but ancient hebrews.

[Proteus_MST]

Same god ...
and Christianity started as some kind of Judaism 1.2 ( a jewish sect)
which later, thanks to further modifications by some preachers became Judaism 2.0, with a new name, a new shiny user interface and greater accessability (including the all new "gentile religion access module" )

Therefore I would assume that among other core rules (like the 10 commmandments) also things like resisting against unjust laws would carry over from one version number of the religion to the other
(after all half of the instruction manual for version 2.0 (called bible) consists of the instruction manual for version 1.0 (i.e. the old testament))

[Kidlicious]

But it was against divine law to resist earthly authority in those times. They would have no authority to rebel, neither would they be successfull. King lived in a Christian society, not ancient Hebrew.

[loinburger]

But it was against divine law to resist earthly authority in those times.

I would have thought that divine law is immutable. What other changes to divine law has God issued in the past few thousand years?