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

[BULLDOG]

No. I didn't make up that term. Maybe try googling it.

This is pretty straightforward. If you condemn respect for people of faith for no other reason than they are people of faith, you meet the definition of militant atheism. You would basically be the Westboro Baptists of atheism. Now do you understand? Was that an example you could relate to?

Having the nerve to publicly question religious beliefs hardly fits the definition of militant. Perhaps you might see it as militant if you are already prone to paranoia, but normally sane people just see that as discussion. I understand how having your beliefs questioned might seem disruptive to you. Responding to questions must be hard for you when you have no logical reason to justify your beliefs.

 

[JohnDB]

Having the nerve to publicly question religious beliefs hardly fits the definition of militant. Perhaps you might see it as militant if you are already prone to paranoia, but normally sane people just see that as discussion. I understand how having your beliefs questioned might seem disruptive to you. Responding to questions must be hard for you when you have no logical reason to justify your beliefs.

If you were ONLY questioning.

 

[BULLDOG]

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?

Inalienable is defined as
adjective

unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor:

You might be hard pressed to get agreement that the first part of Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of happiness are inalienable from a prisoner on death row, or perhaps a soldier who sacrifices his life for his fellow soldiers. Neither case is inalienable.

 

[BULLDOG]

If you were ONLY questioning.

Not sure what that is supposed to mean. Have you had your right to practice your religion unduly curtailed? Even the really wild religions that practice animal sacrifice are allowed by the Supreme Court.

 

[ding]

Having the nerve to publicly question religious beliefs hardly fits the definition of militant. Perhaps you might see it as militant if you are already prone to paranoia, but normally sane people just see that as discussion. I understand how having your beliefs questioned might seem disruptive to you. Responding to questions must be hard for you when you have no logical reason to justify your beliefs.

That's different than what I said. Let's say you look down on blacks or Jews or gays. Is that right? So why would it be right to look down on people of faith?

 

[JohnDB]

Not sure what that is supposed to mean. Have you had your right to practice your religion unduly curtailed? Even the really wild religions that practice animal sacrifice are allowed by the Supreme Court.

I'm so very sorry. My apologies.
I hit the wrong post I was replying to.
I was trying to say that to ding who claimed he was only questioning instead of being a militant atheist and extremely antichristian.

He regularly attacks Christians, anything they believe, and anything Christian posted on this website.

You are not the one I was replying to.

Respectful questions to Christians are just fine. I never mind answering those if I'm able. But ding is not respectful or seeks answers. He is here to insult and humiliate those who believe in mercy, grace, forgiveness and unconditional love.

 

[ding]

Inalienable is defined as
adjective

unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor:

You might be hard pressed to get agreement that the first part of Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of happiness are inalienable from a prisoner on death row, or perhaps a soldier who sacrifices his life for his fellow soldiers. Neither case is inalienable.

The rights are granted for no other reason than we are God's creatures. That doesn't mean they can't be surrendered as we all have a duty or obligation to God. When one fails to meet those duties and obligations they surrender their rights. The rights are not taken from them.

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr#:~:text=He%20once%20wrote%3A%20%22The%20true,be%20limited%20without%20being%20lost.%22

 

[ding]

I'm so very sorry. My apologies.
I hit the wrong post I was replying to.
I was trying to say that to ding who claimed he was only questioning instead of being a militant atheist and extremely antichristian.

He regularly attacks Christians, anything they believe, and anything Christian posted on this website.

You are not the one I was replying to.

Respectful questions to Christians are just fine. I never mind answering those if I'm able. But ding is not respectful or seeks answers. He is here to insult and humiliate those who believe in mercy, grace, forgiveness and unconditional love.

No. I defend religion from those attacking it.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's different than what I said. Let's say you look down on blacks or Jews or gays. Is that right? So why would it be right to look down on people of faith?

You can look down on anyone you choose. You can't deny their rights. You might feel there is a place for thought police in our country. I disagree.

 

[Ace Nova]

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

When Jesus fasted for 40 days in the desert, he was offered "All the Kingdoms of the World".

In Matthew 4:8

8 Finally, the devil took him to an exceedingly high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their splendor. 9 Then he said to him, “All these will I give you if you kneel down and worship me.” 10 Jesus said to him in reply, “Depart from me, Satan! It is written:

‘You shall worship the Lord your God,
and him alone shall you serve.’ ”[f]


If the people of the world would "Serve the Lord" by simply listening (and understanding) to what he spoke through his prophets, we likely wouldn't have a need for wars and disputes over Holy Lands and "Whether or not a third Temple should be built".

Isaiah 66:

Thus says the Lord:

The heavens are my throne
and the earth is my footstool.
What house could you build for me?

What is to be my resting place?
All these things were made by me,
and so all these things are mine,
says the Lord.

The one for whom I have regard
is humble and contrite in spirit
and trembles at my word.

 

[BULLDOG]

The rights are granted for no other reason than we are God's creatures. That doesn't mean they can't be surrendered as we all have a duty or obligation to God. When one fails to meet those duties and obligations they surrender their rights. The rights are not taken from them.

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr#:~:text=He%20once%20wrote%3A%20%22The%20true,be%20limited%20without%20being%20lost.%22

So now you want to re-define unalienable. Makes it a lot easier for you to maintain your beliefs when you can just re-define the words defining them as needed, doesn't it?

 

[BreezeWood]

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.

those that were in flight from europe and established the free state in the new world were those same people that gave their lives in the 1st century for liberation theology, self determination set from the beginning by the heavens as established by the journey of remission to the everlasting made by a&e.

- as is the struggle the same today against all three desert religions their false idolatry's of servitude and denial.

 

[rampart]

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?

the founders were far from infallible.

have you read the constitution?

 

[Arlette]

And that is especially true for the religion of militant atheism.

Atheism isn't a religion. But you know that. Why are you such a dishonest person?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

nfbw 241116 wtept00415

I defend religion from those attacking it.

NotfooledbyW cdcv: Ding defends the medieval church state authoritative order that kept atheists and humanists at bay so well until that freaking atheist Tom Paine stirred up the riffraff and rabble in the British New World Colonies to opt out of Christendom’s European tyrannical world order thus bringing in that messy human self rule that Jenna, Don and Vladimir seek to undo.

His hero must be Jenna Ellis: a very devout and convicted Christian in more ways than one.

i. NotfooledbyW cii,Dccclxxxix to 12803: The face of the death of democracy looks so “Christian” doesn’t she.

ii. NotfooledbyW xi,dciv posted info:

The ultimate answer to why Donald Trump won: White Christians

"The biggest thing mainstream analysis (of the 2024 election results) refuses to comprehend is the continued power of a politics of racial grievance and religious nostalgia among white Christian Americans."

nfbw 241116 wtept00415

 

[ding]

Atheism isn't a religion. But you know that. Why are you such a dishonest person?

It is when their adherents behave like it is.

 

[ding]

the founders were far from infallible.

have you read the constitution?

Sure. Does that mean you conceded my point?

 

[ding]

So now you want to re-define unalienable. Makes it a lot easier for you to maintain your beliefs when you can just re-define the words defining them as needed, doesn't it?

Maybe actually read what the founders said about duties and obligations. You do realize they made it so rights could be removed for certain acts, right?

 

[ding]

You can look down on anyone you choose.

Correct. You most certainly can and do. It's a horrible look and a mistake but your mistake to make.

 

[Arlette]

It is when their adherents behave like it is.

No it isn't.