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

[BULLDOG]

Remember the rest: The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Founding Fathers weren't suggesting the nation do away with jails, or arresting thieves who were only engaged in pursuit of their happiness. The Founding Fathers were also thinking broader terms. A nation has a right to life, to liberty, to pursuit of happiness. Whether addressing rights of individuals or rights of nations, there remain responsibilities when one is given life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It is not an anything goes proposition with any of the three.

All that is true, but the actual words used do not agree. Unalienable today means exactly what it meant back then. Consider it a glitch in the matrix if you want, It is a discrepancy. The forefathers weren't perfect. They made a little boo boo. Admit it Doesn't make sense to deny what is written in black and white.

 

[SaxonJackson]

I don't know, but I think it is possible. These events may lead to the destruction of the Dome of the Rock and allow Israel to begin construction of the Third Temple where the Dome now stands

View attachment 855495


Everything seems to be falling into place.

Jesus Christ is the Temple.

Revelation 21:22, "And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it."

Matthew 12:6, "But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple."

Hebrews 9:11, "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;"

Acts 7:48, "Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet,"

 

[Meriweather]

All that is true, but the actual words used do not agree. Unalienable today means exactly what it meant back then. Consider it a glitch in the matrix if you want, It is a discrepancy. The forefathers weren't perfect. They made a little boo boo. Admit it Doesn't make sense to deny what is written in black and white.

Perhaps it can be seen as nitpicking, but while another cannot take life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness from someone, the 'owner' of that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness can give up any of the three through the consequences of his own decisions and behaviors.

This returns us to an also Unalienable right of communities (beginning with family) that authority is also bestowed by God on the human condition.

 

[sparky]

Your belief is not required

my belief in what?

~S~

 

[ding]

I read the first several pages which proclaimed, and reproclaimed our rights were bestowed on us by God, and no government, and no law could preclude those rights. That is the point of my remarks. According to Jefferson, and many others, those rights were not subject to any law. Absolute, unquestionable, and unalienable. Full stop. There were no exceptions. My current point is not whether we rightfully can make laws requiring execution of heinous criminals. Obviously, we can. My point is our right to impose execution is diametrically opposed to the claim that the right to life is unalienable. If a crime is horrendous enough that the culprit forfeits his right to life, then that right isn't absolute. All the "Given by God" rhetoric is immaterial in relation to that one point. I'm not concerned with where the right supposedly came from. Just how it is recognized today.

You didn't read far enough. It's there. Need for me to copy and paste it for you? Or maybe cite the page number?

 

[BULLDOG]

Perhaps it can be seen as nitpicking, but while another cannot take life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness from someone, the 'owner' of that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness can give up any of the three through the consequences of his own decisions and behaviors.

This returns us to an also Unalienable right of communities (beginning with family) that authority is also bestowed by God on the human condition.

Actually, the definition precludes giving up that right. Webster defines unalienable as impossible to take away or give up

 

[Meriweather]

Actually, the definition precludes giving up that right. Webster defines unalienable as impossible to take away or give up

Then why aren't our Founding Fathers still alive if it is impossible to give up life?

 

[BULLDOG]

Then why aren't our Founding Fathers still alive if it is impossible to give up life?

That's grabbing at straws. People die every day without someone taking their life, or them giving it up. Death is a consequence of life.

 

[Meriweather]

That's grabbing at straws. People die every day without someone taking their life, or them giving it up. Death is a consequence of life.

My point is that life can be taken or given up even though it also fits the definition of 'unalienable'.

 

[BULLDOG]

My point is that life can be taken or given up even though it also fits the definition of 'unalienable'.

Not if you strictly adhere to the definition. I'm not trying to rationalize or find a logical solution to the issue. I'm just pointing out the odd incongruity that nobody notices.