Who has a right to Jerusalem?

reply to post by FarArcher


You have no clue what you are talking about.

reply to post by dontreally


Why are you editing God for?

There is only one God and we are all his children regardless of our faith or skin colour.

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

No, it isn't the same entity.

The teachings of one at every opportunity and element are at exact opposite of the other.

The same God doesn't directly contradict Himself at EVERY single point.

Two Gods.

Two vastly different Gods.

Each text and faith is seperated by no more then 6 factors and these factors cause all the chaos. BTW, God does not stand for now and will never stand for ethnic genocide of any of his children. Each has way more in common then they'd like to admit.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


Editing G-d?

Are you serious? The very bible youre talking about uses two different names for G-d and does so for a reason.

Learn Hebrew, than come to talk to me.

Or type in Elohim, and YHVH is google.

G-d is absolutely one, but his two names refer to different levels of our relationship with Him.

Muslims, as we can see by their fear and severity are much more aware of Elohim, than they are of YHVH. The former represents law and order. In Hebrew numerology, the value of this name - 86 - is the same as the word for Nature, and also the words "vessel of YHVH", or the eternal, since YHVH connotes the eternal.

Jews and Christians are more connected to the higher name in that they pray to G-d and believe in his power to override the lower name, that is, Law and Order.

However, and quite unfortunately, most christians arent aware of the inner mystical Torah, so they dont appreciate the depth of whats being talked about, or why the Torah uses two different names of G-d. To them, im sure the question never occurs to them. It probably appars arbitary.

Also, both names are apart of G-d, as the Shema Yisrael says "Hear oh Israel, YHVH is Eloheinu, YHVH is one".

This basically means there needs to be love AND fear in ones relationship with G-d.

This is something muslims understand much easier than Christians do.

You could almost say that the bulk of christianity are tied to the higher name, yet are lacidaisical in their reverence for the lower name, while Muslims are more connected to the lower name, while neglecting the preeminence of the higher name.

Muslims should understand that G-d is a loving, compassionate and peaceful G-d.

Christians should also understand and appreciate that G-d demands exactitude and restraint in our actions.. It is by no means coincidence that liberalism blossomed forth out of Christianity. It has an antinomian current in it. G-d is a Master, and we are his slaves. This expresses the relationship with Elohim. But on an equally important level, G-d is a father, and we are his children....

Get used to looking at G-d this way. This is the truth.

This thread is completely rediculous. What relevance does "the word of God" have to do with politics and international law, which dicates how international affairs should be played out.

I guess whoever currently holds Jerusalem has the rights to it? Once it changes hands then whoever has it has it. I could really care less who has it. They could level the temple mount and the wailing wall and put up a McDonald's for all I care. The land is garbage and completely worthless beyond the Archeological significance and the ability to grow dates. I do not even like dates so what do I care? Egypt, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel who cares. All I know is that I pay tax money to each and every one of these idiots so they can spend it killing each other because they think that God is a real estate agent. Shine on you crazy diamonds.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Your pushing your own religion of secularism and "international law" which doesnt respect any religious argument. It pushes a different, religious mentality known as "hellenism". You have no more right to delegate than the Muslims do. Both are equally wrong. Albeit, this beautiful Tzaddik Sheik admits that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, and the Jews alone.

As for international law. I know exactly what you intend by that statement ie; breaking Jerusalem off from both Israel and Palestine and turning it into an "international city", controlled by the UN.

Over my dead body, and millions of other dead bodies. As much as i hate the mentality of the Muslims who distort history, and invent all sorts of lies, this attitude is even more contemptible.. It is the most manipulative, vile nonsense the world has ever seen. It is thoroughly tyrannical.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant
f

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

 

Your pushing your own religion of secularism and "international law" which doesnt respect any religious argument. It pushes a different, religious mentality known as "hellenism". You have no more right to delegate than the Muslims do. Both are equally wrong. Albeit, this beautiful Tzaddik Sheik admits that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, and the Jews alone.

As for international law. I know exactly what you intend by that statement ie; breaking Jerusalem off from both Israel and Palestine and turning it into an "international city", controlled by the UN.

Over my dead body, and millions of other dead bodies. As much as i hate the mentality of the Muslims who distort history, and invent all sorts of lies, this attitude is even more contemptible.. It is the most manipulative, vile nonsense the world has ever seen. It is thoroughly tyrannical.

In that case sir you are arguing that your religion reigns supreme over every other decision, wether it be from another religous authority, international or legal administration. Ok, in that case you argue that an ancient scripture should be not only our primary, but our only document in order to come to a resoloution of this dispute. We now have that fact established.

Here is my proposition to you. Politics accorging to Gandhi is acting on a majority public consensus. Here is an example. Gandhi fought against alcholism in India but did not do so against cinema which he also claimed was immoral. The reason for this said Gandhi, was becuase there was no majority consensus that cinema was immoral. It was his own belief, wether it is right or wrong, but the majority of the public did not come to the consensus that they should oppose cinema. The point I am trying to get across, is that for an ancient scripture to be the document which decides who Jerusalem is allocated to- there must be a majority local, regional and global consensus that the scripture is supreme in deciding the outcome of this affair and that this scripture is true. In other words there must be a majority consensus where people believe in this scripture. Well... Is there a "majority" consensus. NO.

Therefor, it is my opinion that in the realm of politics using religion as an argument is null and void as there is not global agreement.

Originally posted by dontreally
Also, both names are apart of G-d, as the Shema Yisrael says "Hear oh Israel, YHVH is Eloheinu, YHVH is one".

And your point ?
. . . not to be disrespectful, but who really gives a dam.

As for "Who has a right to Jerusalem?" : The people who were
born there have ownership, regardless if they believe in
the spaghetti monster, regardless of their skin color, or if they
have been circumcised or any other bull .
If you can not grasp this fact then you do not support democracy,
justice, or 'G_d's' laws.

. . . for those that disagree, get off your high-horse and get over yourselves.


__________________

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by SpeachM1litant

 

Your pushing your own religion of secularism and "international law" which doesnt respect any religious argument. It pushes a different, religious mentality known as "hellenism". You have no more right to delegate than the Muslims do. Both are equally wrong. Albeit, this beautiful Tzaddik Sheik admits that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, and the Jews alone.

As for international law. I know exactly what you intend by that statement ie; breaking Jerusalem off from both Israel and Palestine and turning it into an "international city", controlled by the UN.

Over my dead body, and millions of other dead bodies. As much as i hate the mentality of the Muslims who distort history, and invent all sorts of lies, this attitude is even more contemptible.. It is the most manipulative, vile nonsense the world has ever seen. It is thoroughly tyrannical.

God law allows man to create, enforce and carryout Man's law and it is Man's law you are subjectable to while on Earth. Hence why there is little confliction. Jesus Christ is quoted during the 20's as saying "Give unto God that of which is God's and give unto Ceaser that of which belongs to Ceasar". This is when Jesus was asked about God's stance regarding Governmnetal taxation.

reply to post by dontreally


good post, my recent thread will answer a lot

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Allah is Arabic for God the same way Yaweh is God in Hebrew. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, neither "Allah" or "Yaweh" are words that translate to "God" Both words are the name OF God.

reply to post by idonotcollectstamps


Actually, the money that the US "gives" Israel has to be spent IN the US... which means, it creates jobs for Americans... so in essence, some Americans get job security from that...

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Editing G-d?

Are you serious? The very bible youre talking about uses two different names for G-d and does so for a reason.

Learn Hebrew, than come to talk to me.

Or type in Elohim, and YHVH is google.

G-d is absolutely one, but his two names refer to different levels of our relationship with Him.

Muslims, as we can see by their fear and severity are much more aware of Elohim, than they are of YHVH. The former represents law and order. In Hebrew numerology, the value of this name - 86 - is the same as the word for Nature, and also the words "vessel of YHVH", or the eternal, since YHVH connotes the eternal.

Jews and Christians are more connected to the higher name in that they pray to G-d and believe in his power to override the lower name, that is, Law and Order.

However, and quite unfortunately, most christians arent aware of the inner mystical Torah, so they dont appreciate the depth of whats being talked about, or why the Torah uses two different names of G-d. To them, im sure the question never occurs to them. It probably appars arbitary.

Why the "G-d" deal for? This is what I mean you are editing the word. You are not taking the name in vain nor are attacking him.

Originally posted by gem_man

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Allah is Arabic for God the same way Yaweh is God in Hebrew. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, neither "Allah" or "Yaweh" are words that translate to "God" Both words are the name OF God.

In two different languages further proving and reiteraiting the existance of only 1 God.

Islam has no valid claim to Jerusalem at all - Mohammed never went there!

He claimed in a dream/vision that he ascended to heaven in at a spot identified only as the 'furthest mosque' - a spot subsequently claimed hundreds of yrs later by the ruler of jersulam as the temple mount in order to draw the tourist hajj trade there.

Who has a right to Jerusalem?,


everyone...the city is World Heritage Site

3 major religions act unrightiously over the control of this speck of dirt,
administer the City & environs the same as the land of Antarctica

Who has the right to Jerusalem.... My feeling is that if God wants it, he should take it. Has anyone seen the SA film "The Gods Must Be Crazy"? Jerusalem is kind of like the Coke bottle. Good riddance, says I.