Another law thread

[Esquilax]

Actually, no I did not. I said Christ commanded that WE turn the Other Cheek. That it was this philosphy that carried him to the cross and saw Him die there, this philosphy also saw nearly all of the apstoles to simliar fates.

So I ask again why in your estimation does their need to be anything said here?

Because that entire outlook is rendered false by Jesus' actions in that example?

And again, simply 'protesting' is not a sin. Sin equals death. If you are not willing to sin/commit a death penality crime then you would sheep along like the rest in your soceity would. -or- Make an attempt to lower the bar so your sins could be accepted.. Maybe you would do this through non violent protests..

I'm willing to commit many sins, because the majority of sins in your bible are petty things (before you even say so, I don't count the injunction against murder to be petty or anything, come on.) Given that your bible takes great pains to show that one of the deadlier sins is mocking god, or failing to provide the proper respect to god, or just all around acting as though god were not the most wonderfullest, most lovely thing there is... I think I'm pretty safe in the sin department.

Because remember: existence is not enough to make me worship him.

you see it don't you? You see where your arguement fails that why you are talking around my point.

Just incase you missed it: In order for a theocracy to exist the people who submit themselves to them have to completely believe. Now whether or not this is enough for others to believe is not an issue. For the millions who live, and die under the rule of their understanding of God they either believe or leave. the fact that these two examples span nearly 2000 years collectivly would tell any reasonable person that more people believed during these periods in these two soceities than left them.

Except you're mistaking belief for proof. I get what you're saying, I do... I just still think it's wrong. Because there's no subjective qualifier for undeniable proof. For proof to be undeniable... you can't deny it. The simple fact that some did hints at the ineffectiveness of your argument, but it's more than that: yes, I accept that the folks running this theocracy believed one hundred percent. I accept that christians today believe one hundred percent too, and I believe that both groups are doing so for the same bad reasons.

Neither you nor these theocracies had undeniable proof, and yet they believed anyway, and we all know why: because faith is the shortcut one takes when one has no proof.

]Because that is what it would take for this wicked generantion to have undenyable proof. The Jews did not need this For the Jews it was what they saw and experienced, for the church of the dark ages it was a collection of miricals, saints, artifacts, and leadership/power given to the church.

Once again, there's no subjective means to determine what undeniable proof is, because subjectivity would render each individual word in that sentence meaningless. Think about it, what kind of proof would be uniformly undeniable, if the threshold for that changes from person to person? All you would need is one guy like me to wreck the definition for everyone.

And also, what the Jews saw and experienced carries the same weight of evidence as the personal experiences of any other: very little, objectively speaking.

Then it should be easy for someone to point by point, line by line teardown what has been built

See above.

]Not an insult an observation. Calling someone a fool now adays is often time considered an insult which has little meaning other than to lash out at someone. I call you a fool because your actions matched the actual defination. Your work lack any descernable judgment and makes little sense. You ignore established history in favor of a "because this is what I want to believe, because I said so." one can say that person is lacking in common powers of understanding. which by defination makes Him a fool.

The irony just missed you entirely, didn't it?

-Or- are you now saying your being intentionally obstinate? You know better but decided to go with the 'i said so' arguement for someother reason?

I dunno, try reading my arguments sometime.

]LOL Again this is what makes you a fool. If the Isrealites did not believe God lead them out of Egypt, feed them protected them and cared for them, and delivered them to the promise land as He indeed promised, then why would they submit themselves to theocratic rule?

Belief does not equal evidence.

You don't even know how to argue this do you? The Jews worshiped God for the reasons i stated under the pen of recorded History. Which MAKES Everything I Said a legitmate arguement. YOU Do not have to believe in God to acknoweledge that they Believe in God and submitted to Theocratic Rule for over 1400 years because they completely believed.

Belief does not equal evidence. All you're proving is that the Jews were once masochistic, credulous people who put themselves through hell in service to an idea.