Another law thread

[Esquilax]

The following are a condensed version of your pervious "answers." Show me where you left anything that merrits the effort of a legitmate response.

No counter argument to my pointing to a very specific instance of violence- by Jesus- in the scriptures? Or to my contention that no theocracy has had verifiable proof of god, and that your example only shows that a credulous people followed a man with stone tablets?

Just... No response at all to my disagreeing with your idea that true proof of god would deny free will? If your evidence doesn't pass muster, then my dismissing it isn't illegitimate. Improve the quality of your arguments, then maybe we'll be getting somewhere.

this is what you said when challenged by The Israeli account of their period theocratic rule, and the secular account of the Dark ages. If you can not yield your 'arguements' to established History then what is there for me to say?

You could start by explaining to me what, in these established historical events, classes as undeniable proof of god. All you've given is the accouterments of a theocracy, nothing more. Stone tablets are proof of nothing but stone tablets. A theocracy is proof of nothing but a theocracy.

your ad hoc dismissal of established history is the beginning to a "yeah huh/nut huh" arguement that maybe the next logical step for you, but know I do not want to be apart of it.

I find it pretty rich that the guy who mocked me for listing personal examples of nonviolent protest I've been a part of then turns around and whimpers about poor argumentation from someone at least trying to meet you at some logical middle point.

You can man up do a google search to support what you have stated (Or change what you said to support what you found), allowing us to continue the discussion.

Maybe you missed it. It's all up there, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and see what you can do in round two.