Another law thread

[Drich]

Because you started talking about how nonviolent the scriptures were.

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?

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

Despite what you might think, somebody dismissing your arguments doesn't always mean they're somehow not getting it.

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

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.

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.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fool
-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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

---

Could, should, would, ought... Those are not for me to decide?
I see people starving around the world, should you not feed them? Should not the POTUS feed them?

Do your part and worry not what others do. We're on our own here...
.

POTUS= President Of The United States
http://www.potus.com/

So Because Obama has not implimented a world wide feed the hungry program, thier is no God?

---

That Jews throughout the old testament denounced prior generations is no revelation. The Jews were like American politicians, blaming everything bad on the previous administration. These prophets who denounced prophecy weren't denouncing all prophecy, just the obviously false prophets whose activity preceded God reaching out his hand and blotting the Israelites into the landscape in prior years. None of these "denouncers" were denouncing their own prophecy, or even prophecy in general; they were skeptics, not of prophecy, but of the prophecies of other people. Since political regimes, like many diseases, have erratic and unpredictable courses, there is almost no point in old testament history when one Jew wasn't blaming another Jew for his or her collective misfortune. Some might say this is a trait they have yet to collectively outgrow.

Is it time to bring out the fact that there is no evidence the Exodus ever actually happened, so one half of Drich's entire argument is simply composed of "shit the Jews made up" ?

Again content or validity of what a people believe is not what is being discussed. We could have used Muslims beliefs in what I am trying to illustrate here. It not about what they believe but what they do with their belief that is being outlined. It's about how absolute belief eventually degrades into a shadow of what it orginally was.

The other half being the supposed dark ages, which weren't as dark as supposed, include both the Muslim flowering and the Carolingean renaissance, and have considerably more complex causal histories than church = darkness.

Which isn't what is being discussed. We are not speaking of this whole period. Only the absolute power that the Church had and ruled with along with all the perversions that spawn from the church under the name of "god." This was a truly Dark age of the church.

---

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?

We can look at this two ways. Christ's only physical act recorded in all for gospels is that He over turned a few tables that theives were using to cheat people who were trying to make an offering to God.

Or we can point to the whip Christ fashioned and ask, is it not up to God to punish? i would like to think Christ used that whip and a few of them were cut alittle past the quick as Christ ran them out.

But that is just me, as I said before None of the gospels record this. The say He used the whip to run them out. (Like one would do with live stock) Whips were NOT used to break the skin back then when herding animals. (because that could have been a death sentence, with no knoweledge of antibiotics, and the animals were far too valuable to lose to a means of herding them) Whips were used to make noise and scare stupid animals in the oppsite direction. Most say this is what Christ used the whip for, but i am still holding out for smack'em up Jesus.

There needs to be one because Jesus is on trial as is god, in my eyes. Anything else you said in your post is muted because you refuse to acknowledge this very question, in my humble opinion. If my children are doing the most horrific of things, it still doesn't mean I'm going to fabricate a barbed whip and whip them with it. And I certainly couldn't justify that even for murderers.

That's just it. "we" (Meaning all of us) Are not all Christ's/God's kids. Now ask yourself what if your kids were being subject to all manner of terriable things by people who were in the process of profiting off of your kids pain? What would you do to these people/theives if your kids cried out to you in desperate pain?

Would you non violently protest outside of the temple till the had thier fill of the money they were making from your childrens pain? would you write a strongly worded letter in hopes your appeal to their 'morality' would strike a cord? Or would your response look alittle more like what is written in the gospel accounts?

---

[quote='Esquilax' pid='394081' dateline='1359605298']
[quote='Drich' pid='394068' dateline='1359603116']
duh.. He commanded all of the death and destruction caused in the OT.

I know you think that. But if you look, I was responding to catfish's post where he was arguing that the Old Testament is fraudulent and written by men, not historically accurate to your god.

Sorry i was on a role. Now look who the foolish one is.

[catfish]

Could, should, would, ought... Those are not for me to decide?
I see people starving around the world, should you not feed them? Should not the POTUS feed them?

Do your part and worry not what others do. We're on our own here...
.

POTUS= President Of The United States
http://www.potus.com/

So Because Obama has not implimented a world wide feed the hungry program, thier is no God?

That's not what I said and the fact that you think it is (and laugh about it) is pretty telling.
.

[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.

[Drich]

If you believe me to be wrong on little more than what you think, then truly there is nothing more to discuss. If however you are basing this belief you have on something more than your word then please as I have provide some sort of reference material. Anything other than you opinion based on popular opinion will do. Give me something of Merritt to discuss, otherwise know I will not yeah-huh/nut-huh with you any further than I already have.

[catfish]

[Esquilax]

If you believe me to be wrong on little more than what you think, then truly there is nothing more to discuss. If however you are basing this belief you have on something more than your word then please as I have provide some sort of reference material. Anything other than you opinion based on popular opinion will do. Give me something of Merritt to discuss, otherwise know I will not yeah-huh/nut-huh with you any further than I already have.

Alright, since you're apparently incapable of reading my arguments at all, I'll make this literally as simple as possible:

un·de·ni·able adjective \ˌən-di-ˈnī-ə-bəl\

Definition of UNDENIABLE

1
: plainly true : incontestable <an undeniable fact>
2
: unquestionably excellent or genuine <an applicant with undeniable references>

There is a difference, Drich, between things that one believes and things that are true. People can believe things that are not true, and they can often do it with great conviction and in large numbers. Numerous theocracies, in all manner of religions, believed in the truth of their religion over all else, and sacrificed individual freedom to that end. This does not mean that they had proof enough to be called undeniable. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if a theocracy is anything other than christian, you too would say they didn't have undeniable proof to justify their actions.

You started this conversation by saying that undeniable proof of god would deny free will, because one would have no choice but to accept the existence of said god. And then to support this, you produce these examples of Israeli theocracies: my contention to you is that the proofs they had were not undeniable, because people denied them. Because they didn't meet the standards of evidence let alone unquestionable evidence. Or are you actually trying to tell me that this Israeli theocracy spanned the entire globe, every man, woman and child on the face of the earth, and continues to do so. By your own logic- that undeniable proof would zap free will into nonexistence- then either we live in a biblical theocracy founded by Israel, or the proof this now defunct theocracy had was not undeniable because we have denied it, or your definition of undeniable proof is wrong.

Read that paragraph again. Let it sink in. You're claiming three premises that cannot coexist: you claim that undeniable proof of god would remove our free will to not worship god as a society, that an old school Israeli theocratic regime had undeniable proof of god, and yet somehow, we have the free will to move on from that. One of your premises is untrue. Which one is it?

Because the thing is, Drich: proof has a very solid definition, and so does the word undeniable. The standard for undeniable proof can't change: if there's any room for doubt, it's not undeniable. This isn't a subjective thing: either it meets the criteria or it doesn't.

Drich, I hope, I really do, that before you hasten to ignore what I've written again, that you'll actually read it. That you'll look at the logic I've presented, consider it on its own terms, and then come up with the best rebuttal you can. I hope that you actually engage me in this, that you return with something that makes me think. I actually don't enjoy the pissing contest of trying to make you listen to what I have to say. I'd like to debate you, not just argue about the argument.

So, in the spirit of this: Hit me with your best shot.

[Drich]

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.

[pocaracas]

We have Historical evidence to point to this fact.

What if a person just chooses to ignore "historical" records concerning all gods (includes your christian god)?
What if a person has no access to said "historical" records?
Why do all gods rely on people to present the "historical" record's content to other people?

It's almost like it's all man-made and needs to get passed on to the next generations, so they pass it on as well... and repeat ad nauseum.

[Drich]

What if a person just chooses to ignore "historical" records concerning all gods (includes your christian god)?

Then he is doomed to repeat history.

What if a person has no access to said "historical" records?

The historical record as being discussed only point to the reason 'we' have not been given absolute proof of God. the only thing that would happen here if history did not record man's misdeeds under 'poof' of God, would be that we would be left with the question why does not leave absolute proof?

Why do all gods rely on people to present the "historical" record's content to other people?

I do not know what you are asking here

[pocaracas]

What if a person just chooses to ignore "historical" records concerning all gods (includes your christian god)?

Then he is doomed to repeat history.

I used quotes around "historical" on purpose.... meaning your special holy "historical record" book.

What if a person has no access to said "historical" records?

The historical record as being discussed only point to the reason 'we' have not been given absolute proof of God. the only thing that would happen here if history did not record man's misdeeds under 'poof' of God, would be that we would be left with the question why does not leave absolute proof?

why indeed.... I know your answer... we'd lose free will.
Then why do you try to take over from your god and convince us that it exists? We should get there by our selves, not by your (nor anyone else's) account.
Hence, the next question:

Why do all gods rely on people to present the "historical" record's content to other people?

I do not know what you are asking here

Why must your god rely on you (and people like you) to pass on the notion that it exists?
" 'historical' record's content" = stories in the holy book of your choosing

Do note that, while I am fully aware that you are a christian and your holy book is the bible, the same question may be asked of all other religions and their holy books/"'historical' accounts". If I was talking to a muslim, I could ask him this very same question... heck, even you could ask him... but you probably wouldn't, because he could then deflect the question back at you.