Another law thread

[Esquilax]

why does their need to be one?

Because you started talking about how nonviolent the scriptures were.

I also pointed out that by your own admission you would have fallen in with the crowd.

I did no such thing. In fact, I spent numerous posts explaining to you the nonviolent means by which I don't follow the crowd currently. I know I said I wouldn't go so far as violence, but that's hardly the same thing as blithely accepting the situation. Remember, peaceful means can bring about results, no matter what the bible may have to say on the matter.

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.

Okay, please listen to me, very carefully: I fully accept that theocracies exist. But, crucially, there is a difference between theocracies existing, and absolute, untarnished proof of god existing. You bring up these real world examples, but they don't match with the theoretical channel to heaven that you use elsewhere. And by the way, the fact that none of these theocracies became worldwide phenomena sort of indicates that people fucking disagreed with their proofs for god and therefore that their proof was hardly absolute in the way you're claiming. If it's proof that someone can deny and debunk, it's no more proof than the ad hoc apologist fripperies that christians employ today.

No, you specifically mentioned jesus opening up a direct line between earth and heaven, which would class as the "undeniable proof" that you started off this discussion mentioning. Now, would that- aka, the thing you were actually arguing- deny free will? I have already voiced my disagreement.

Despite what you might think, somebody dismissing your arguments doesn't always mean they're somehow not getting it. Mostly it just means you aren't arguing effectively, or addressing the point you think you are. But please, keep calling me a fool. I'm sure I could find that post you made earlier about insults meaning one has no further arguments, if you like.

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.

You're right, it's not up to debate, but not for the reasons you're thinking of. It's not up for debate because absolute proof is something very nicely defined, and your examples simply don't measure up.

And that's assuming I'm willing to take your talk of the Genesis account at face value, and I'm not. Verifiable historical facts only, please! Let's not start devolving into fiction.