Another law thread

[Drich]

No counter argument to my pointing to a very specific instance of violence- by Jesus- in the scriptures?

why does their need to be one?

So me one example of a theocracy where the people living under theocratic rule did not believe they had proof of their God?

The file under theocratic rule one must be sure. This however does not mean what one culture deems as 'proof' will indeed hold up to another cultures scrutiny. This is not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is, their are two examples of two very different people worshiping the Same God who (for them) had absolute proof of that God. My work has been focoused on how these people lived and eventually fell into corruption even with what they thought to be 'proof.' I also pointed out that by your own admission you would have fallen in with the crowd.

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.

Your a fool. I gave you two legitmate well documented periods of Human History crossing two seperate cultures, centuries apart from one another, (Meaning the result was not curtural or nor a 'bronze age thing.') spanning nearly 2000 years, And what do you do with it? You trivialize it without addressing anything and move to dismiss. Your either not smart enough to make the connection or it is your hope that i am not smart enough to know a thousands years of documented human History trumps any foolish "what if" senerio you may have told yourself, and are trying to sell me.
Here's a little tip: If I am the one who brought the history of man and I am using it to dimiss what you have said, then you can safly assume that I am not the one who doesn't know what he is talking about.

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.

Now take a step back, and ask yourself why did Israel establish a theocracy? What event or series of events established the existance of God in their minds? (The end of Genesis and the whole book of exodus outlines these events. Starting with the plagues, the parting of the red sea, the destruction of Egypt's army, bread raining down from heaven 6 days a week for 40 years to sustain them in the desert, water from rocks, Pillars of fire to light their way by night, enemies being handed over to them, the walls of Jericho crumbling before them at the sounf of a trumpet blast, and on, and on, and on, and on... All the way up to Christ who ended this period.

Again you accepting this 'evidence' as absolute proof is not what is up for debate. For we are not speaking of your belief but the belief that established and sustained almost a 1400 year theocratic rule in OT Israel.