Zone1 Will this War Prepare the Way for the Rebuilding of the Temple?

[ShahdagMountains]

100%

I’ve thought it through, and l posit that if there was absolute proof that God did not exist; scientifically, theological, or any other way one likes, there would be no need to be an atheist.

Atheism is a rejection of God. Therefore God would have to exist in order for one to reject him.

 

[rampart]

I’ve thought it through, and l posit that if there was absolute proof that God did not exist; scientifically, theological, or any other way one likes, there would be no need to be an atheist.

Atheism is a rejection of God. Therefore God would have to exist in order for one to reject him.

so if i do not believe in ufos or space aliens they must exist?

you may need to think again.

reality is independent of our beliefs.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

so if i do not believe in ufos or space aliens they must exist?

you may need to think again.

reality is independent of our beliefs.

Dismissed.

 

[rampart]

Dismissed.

beimg dismissed from from your delusions is irrelevant.

 

[Ace Nova]

This is not true.
Christians revere it but it's not "holy" as in touching it will kill you. Muslims don't as well. Only Jews are fearful about touching the mount. (With good reasons)

When deciding WHO ultimately is holding and controlling the Temple Mount one has to consider the entire result.

The "Palestinians" have been and the results have been disastrous to say the least about it. Most of the Muslim world never visits the place.
The Christians would have nonstop internal infighting worse than they do about the Tomb of the Holy Sepulcher. It would be open to the public between the bouts of fighting.

The Jews would also have infighting but also nonstop barbecues of sacrificial animals and grain.

There is only ONE place of worship for them.
However.....

If the Jews were to rebuild the Temple the Entire Muslim world would be in chaos. Because both Muslims and Jews alike share in the belief that a prophet must be 100% accurate or else is a false prophet. And if the Temple is rebuilt....Mohammed was a false prophet and the Koran is toilet paper.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre,[a]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre#cite_note-2 also known as the Church of the Resurrection,[c] is a fourth-century church in the Christian Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. The church is also the seat of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem.[1] Some consider it the holiest site in Christianity and it has been an important pilgrimage site for Christians since the fourth century.

According to traditions dating to the fourth century, the church contains both the site where Jesus was crucified[2] at Calvary, or Golgotha, and the location of Jesus's empty tomb, where he was buried and resurrected. Both locations are considered immensely holy sites by Christians.

Church of the Holy Sepulchre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Certain branches of Christianity, including the Eastern Orthodox Church,[citation needed] and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church continue to have a tradition of a Holy of Holies that they regard as a most sacred site. The ciborium, a permanent canopy over the altar in some churches, once surrounded by curtains at points in the liturgy, symbolizes the Holy of Holies. Some Christian churches, particularly the Catholic Church, consider the Church tabernacle, or its location (often at the rear of the sanctuary), as the symbolic equivalent of the Holy of Holies, due to the storage of consecrated hosts in that vessel.

Catholic Church​

[edit]
The Latin Vulgate Bible translates Qṓḏeš HaqQŏḏāšîm as Sanctum sanctorum (Ex 26:34). Reproducing in Latin the Hebrew construction, the expression is used as a superlative of the neuter adjective sanctum, to mean "a thing most holy". It is used by Roman Catholics to refer to the Eucharist in the tabernacle which represents the presence of Christ.

The Vulgate also refers to the Holy of Holies with the plural form Sancta sanctorum (A THING MOST HOLY) (2 Chr 5:7), Referring to the Holy of Holies and the Holy Artifacts It Hosts

Sanctum sanctorum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Latin phrase sanctum sanctorum is a translation of the Hebrew term קֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים (Qṓḏeš HaQŏḏāšîm), literally meaning Holy of Holies, which generally refers in Latin texts to the holiest place of the Ancient Israelites, inside the Tabernacle and later inside the Temple in Jerusalem, but the term also has some derivative use in application to imitations of the Tabernacle in church architecture.

The plural form sancta sanctorum is also used, arguably as a synecdoche, referring to the holy relics contained in the sanctuary. The Vulgate translation of the Bible uses sancta sanctorum for the Holy of Holies.[1] (MEANING A THING MOST HOLY)

Sanctum sanctorum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ShahdagMountains]

beimg dismissed from from your delusions is irrelevant.

No comment.

 

[rampart]

No comment.

go maway. ognore list.

 

[Ace Nova]

if you say so ace - it's a love fest for all three religions and why not they all three have the same preamble ...

- isn't aqsa the temple mount the to be holy roman empire burnt to the ground after the jews crucified jesus ... as predicted and the heavenly retribution so exacted - and the christians now lavish with the jews for its return. funny that.

No, the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD - approximately 300 years before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. At the time, there was no such thing as a "Holy Roman Empire".

 

[rampart]

No, the Temple of Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD - approximately 300 years before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. At the time, there was no such thing as a "Holy Roman Empire".

your history is better than BreezeWood 's but nothing that happened in in the first century or bc is relevant to the united states 2000 years later.

if ypiu want it, take it, but no god gave it to you or your ancestors no matter how loud you wail.

 

[ding]

that is Catholicism. ref baltimore catechism

16. What do we mean when that God Is all-present?
When we say that God is all-present we mean that He is everywhere.

Yes, God is everything is pantheism.

 

[ding]

I’ve thought it through, and l posit that if there was absolute proof that God did not exist; scientifically, theological, or any other way one likes, there would be no need to be an atheist.

Atheism is a rejection of God. Therefore God would have to exist in order for one to reject him.

Do you have absolute proof that God does not exist? Because otherwise this seems like a distinction without a difference.

But I was expecting to hear you explain something else. I thought you were going to tell me either why I was angry or militant atheists were angry. I'm not certain militant atheists are angry but they might be. I only know they look down upon people of faith and have no respect for them. Does one have to be angry to do that? I don't know.

 

[ding]

if ypiu want it, take it, but no god gave it to you or your ancestors no matter how loud you wail.

So no inalienable rights? No natural rights? No natural law?

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Do you have absolute proof that God does not exist

No, and l’m not an atheist.

I said if there was no God, there would be no need to be an atheist.

 

[Ace Nova]

if ypiu want it, take it, but no god gave it to you or your ancestors no matter how loud you wail.

Take what, exactly?

 

[ding]

No, and l’m not an atheist.

I said if there was no God, there would be no need to be an atheist.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say if there were no God there would be no need to be a believer?

 

[ding]

Take what, exactly?

I believe he is saying if you want something (anything), then just take it. As in the rule of might makes right. Seems rather anarcharistic to me.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Wouldn't it be more correct to say if there were no God there would be no need to be a believer?

That too.

 

[rampart]

So no inalienable rights? No natural rights? No natural law?

obviously there are no "inalienable rights."

every right must be won. most with plenty of blood. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

[rampart]

Take what, exactly?

jerusalem, the temple mount, gaza, the west bank. what do you want?

 

[ding]

obviously there are no "inalienable rights."

every right must be won. most with plenty of blood. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So the founding fathers were mistaken? Opposition of natural rights means natural rights don't exist?

If you do not believe in ufos or space aliens they must not exist, right?

Reality is independent of our beliefs, right?