Another law thread

[Esquilax]

My 'best shot' is to attempt a reset, because it is clear you missed a fundamental precept the first time around, bear with me and honestly read what is written.

God Does not provide Undeniable evidence, to his assistance because it would interfere with our ability to clearly choose Heaven or Hell. We have Historical evidence to point to this fact. For two times in human History two separate groups of people/two separate cultures were provided what was considered to be "undeniable proof" to those given people in the time that they lived. As direct result we have 2000 years (collectively) of recorded human history, that show the degradation perversion of God's expressed will, to suit our own need to justify our various 'moralities.'

In Short people think they are living according to God's laws, but in the end adopt a works based morality, that glorifies men and promotes the worship of the religion itself over God.

This in of itself is an undeniable fact. For Christ points out to the Pharisees over and over how far their understandings of the laws were from their original intent. Because of this their morality demanded that Christ be scourged and crucified because of it. In the second example most of you point to the crusades, the inquisition, the murder, and demand for allegiance to a given way of worship, in the Dark age of the church. None of which is supported by scripture. All of this points to the fact that man takes the power and authority given by what a given people acknowledge to be undeniable proof of God, and substitute God's will for their own. Now you have this Monster hybrid where man takes the authority God has left and applies it to the wickedness of his own desires... We have record of two 2000 years of this just in the worship of the God of the bible. Nothing more needs to be said.

Yeah, I kinda think we were at cross purposes from the beginning, here. I still stick by my arguments, but it's pretty clear now that we weren't having the same argument at all. You use words far more loosely than I do (in a debate setting, anyway. I get just as loose when writing prose ) which, well... results in this, I suppose.