• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Satanic Temple Unveils Baphomet Statue at Arkansas Capitol

He didn't need to...His son was speaking for Him...that is why Jesus is called The Word...1 John 1:1; John 7:16,17; John 12:50; 18:37

So if that god isn't in the NT, how do we know that the Jewish god is the same as the Christian god?
 
Here's the skinny on this church-state business.
The Constitution proscribes establishment and restriction.
The Supreme Court found preferentiality in the establishment clause, and so preferential treatment of religion by the state is also proscribed.
Establishment, restriction, preferentiality.
The imagination required to allow a generic recognition of God, non-denominational and divorced from particular doctrinal conceptions of God, has been made impossible by the mediocrity of democratic imagination and the strident lobbying of secularists, a group entirely devoid of imagination.

Freedom of religion and Fear of religion -- that's the parlay here in America.

Your view of secularists is extremely wrong. No one is pushing for the abolishment of religion nor do they fear religion. But they correctly and zealously push to keep undue religious influence from our lawmaking process.
 
Your view of secularists is extremely wrong. No one is pushing for the abolishment of religion nor do they fear religion. But they correctly and zealously push to keep undue religious influence from our lawmaking process.
And your view of my post is wrong -- it has nothing, I repeat -- nothing, to do with "abolishment. Reread it. And the fear of religion I mention is implied in the last bit of rubbish in your post. Rethink it.
 
So if that god isn't in the NT, how do we know that the Jewish god is the same as the Christian god?

But He is in the Greek Scriptures, He's merely not talking to humans directly because He is using His son as His spokesperson...
 
And your view of my post is wrong -- it has nothing, I repeat -- nothing, to do with "abolishment. Reread it. And the fear of religion I mention is implied in the last bit of rubbish in your post. Rethink it.

No, that is not the fear of religion. That is the fear of the divisivenes and violence that comes with trying to impose religious law in a secular state.
 
But He is in the Greek Scriptures, He's merely not talking to humans directly because He is using His son as His spokesperson...

So he really doesn't appear at all. At least not as the same character from the OT.
 
No, that is not the fear of religion. That is the fear of the divisivenes and violence that comes with trying to impose religious law in a secular state.
Suffer much from split ends?
 
So he really doesn't appear at all. At least not as the same character from the OT.

Jehovah has never appeared directly to any human...

"But he added: “You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live.” Exodus 33:20

Only the angels, spirit creatures, have vision that can behold his face in a literal sense...Matthew 18:10; Luke 1:19

In loving-kindness Jehovah enables men to see his fine qualities through his Word, including the revelation of himself by means of his Son, Christ Jesus.​..Matthew 11:27; John 1:18; 14:9

The first of three instances in the Gospel accounts where Jehovah is reported as speaking audibly to humans.​..Matthew 17:5; John 12:28

"Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” Matthew 3:17
 
Christianity is not the only religion that values the 10 Commandments. The government does not only observe Christian holidays, let alone exclude others.

Didnt say any of that.


Altho the promotion of only certain religions thru monuments, signs, holidays, does exclude non-practioners. Many now have historical meaning that supersedes religion and I dont believe in removing 'traditional' acknowledgements.

I just think it's wrong, and unConstitutional to do so going forward. It is indeed exclusionary and should not use taxpayer $.
 
Jehovah has never appeared directly to any human...

"But he added: “You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live.” Exodus 33:20

Only the angels, spirit creatures, have vision that can behold his face in a literal sense...Matthew 18:10; Luke 1:19

In loving-kindness Jehovah enables men to see his fine qualities through his Word, including the revelation of himself by means of his Son, Christ Jesus.​..Matthew 11:27; John 1:18; 14:9

The first of three instances in the Gospel accounts where Jehovah is reported as speaking audibly to humans.​..Matthew 17:5; John 12:28

"Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said: “This is my Son, the beloved, whom I have approved.” Matthew 3:17

There was only one god in the OT. It communicated directly with certain men, gave a lot of orders, and used man to exact its vengeance. This character doesn't seem to be in the NT. What happened to this character?
 
There was only one god in the OT. It communicated directly with certain men, gave a lot of orders, and used man to exact its vengeance. This character doesn't seem to be in the NT. What happened to this character?

Therapy?
 
There was only one god in the OT. It communicated directly with certain men, gave a lot of orders, and used man to exact its vengeance. This character doesn't seem to be in the NT. What happened to this character?

I can't dumb it down for ya any more than I already have...
 
Didnt say any of that.


Altho the promotion of only certain religions thru monuments, signs, holidays, does exclude non-practioners. Many now have historical meaning that supersedes religion and I dont believe in removing 'traditional' acknowledgements.

I just think it's wrong, and unConstitutional to do so going forward. It is indeed exclusionary and should not use taxpayer $.

The courts disagree. Your side needs a better legal argument.
 
The courts disagree. Your side needs a better legal argument.

Love to see the proof of that. Please?

However my objections are only to current usage, going forward, not historic references.
 
I know that. But he was relating the Word of Jesus. He was there...with Jesus. An apostle. :doh

Just point out , Paul never met Jesus 'in the flesh' so to speak. The stories relayed showed he had 'visions'. So, he wasn't 'there' with Jesus..
 
ok a web site by right wing people

https://www.aim.org/about/who-we-are/

hear a left wing site saying that his praise for harry hay was over his pioneering gay rights activism not his nambla support

https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...-campaign-continues-fox-nation-washing/155300



Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job | Fox News

fox admits the student who talked to him was of the age of consent

i can agree that men going after kids is harmful to children and wrong and that hays support of nabla is wrong but i don't think

jennings or obama wear ever pushing for sex wiht minors under the age of consent

It does not matter how sex perverts try to soft sell their perversion. God condemns sexual promiscuity and perversion and that should settle the matter.
 
It does not matter how sex perverts try to soft sell their perversion. God condemns sexual promiscuity and perversion and that should settle the matter.

Only if you believe in a specific god that condemns those things. Not everyone does.
 
If there is only one god, YWHW, why then does that god order his people to worship no other gods? Why is his name given as Elohim in some Genesis passages, when Elohim is a plural word with El as the singular god?

Why are there artefacts with the inscription, "Worship YWHW and his Asherah"?, yet there are passages in the OT where the Jews are told to take down the asherah?
 
If there is only one god, YWHW, why then does that god order his people to worship no other gods? Why is his name given as Elohim in some Genesis passages, when Elohim is a plural word with El as the singular god?

Why are there artefacts with the inscription, "Worship YWHW and his Asherah"?, yet there are passages in the OT where the Jews are told to take down the asherah?

Elohim is not a name but another word for Gods...a title, not a name...

Hebrew Terms. Among the Hebrew words that are translated “God” is ʼEl, probably meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” (Ge 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning “God Is Salvation”) and Michael (“Who Is Like God?”). In some places ʼEl appears with the definite article (ha·ʼElʹ, literally, “the God”) with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.​—Ge 46:3; 2Sa 22:31; see NW appendix, p. 1567.

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, “Mighty God” (not ʼEl Shad·daiʹ [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1).

The plural form, ʼe·limʹ, is used when referring to other gods, such as at Exodus 15:11 (“gods”). It is also used as the plural of majesty and excellence, as in Psalm 89:6: “Who can resemble Jehovah among the sons of God [bi·venehʹ ʼE·limʹ]?” That the plural form is used to denote a single individual here and in a number of other places is supported by the translation of ʼE·limʹ by the singular form The·osʹ in the Greek Septuagint; likewise by Deus in the Latin Vulgate.

The Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ʼElo·himʹ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”​—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

The title ʼElo·himʹ draws attention to Jehovah’s strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (Ge 1:1–2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces.

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·himʹ, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called benehʹ ha·ʼElo·himʹ, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ʼelo·himʹ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

The word ʼelo·himʹ is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply “gods.” (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.​—1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (“goddess” Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.​—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

In many places in the Scriptures ʼElo·himʹ is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·ʼElo·himʹ, F. Zorell says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.”​—Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001729
 
If there is only one god, YWHW, why then does that god order his people to worship no other gods? Why is his name given as Elohim in some Genesis passages, when Elohim is a plural word with El as the singular god?

Why are there artefacts with the inscription, "Worship YWHW and his Asherah"?, yet there are passages in the OT where the Jews are told to take down the asherah?
The Hebrew word ʼashe·rahʹ (pl., ʼashe·rimʹ) is thought to refer to (1) a sacred pole representing Asherah, a Canaanite goddess of fertility (Jg 6:25, 26), and (2) the goddess Asherah herself. (2Ki 13:6, ftn) However, it is not always possible to determine whether a particular scripture is to be understood as referring to the idolatrous object or to the goddess. A number of modern Bible translations, though, have rendered the original-language word as “sacred pole(s) [or post]” but transliterated it when the reference is apparently to the goddess. (AT, JB) Others have not endeavored to make a distinction but have simply transliterated the Hebrew word (RS) or have consistently translated it “sacred pole(s).” (NW) In the older translations of the Bible, the Hebrew word has usually been rendered as “grove(s).” (KJ, Le) But this rendering is inappropriate in such texts as Judges 3:7 and 2 Kings 23:6 (KJ), which speak of serving “groves” and bringing out the “grove” from the temple at Jerusalem.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003789
 
If there is only one god, YWHW, why then does that god order his people to worship no other gods? Why is his name given as Elohim in some Genesis passages, when Elohim is a plural word with El as the singular god?

Why are there artefacts with the inscription, "Worship YWHW and his Asherah"?, yet there are passages in the OT where the Jews are told to take down the asherah?

Well, when it comes to the term 'Elohim' , you also have to look at the following verb, to see if it is singular or plural. If the following verb is singular, it is a magnification. For example, Moses was described as 'Elohim' over Aaron (basically lord). That does not mean there was more than one Moses.

Now, when it comes to Yahweh,many of the names of God were actually from the Phoenician pantheon , and they were combined into one God. In the Urgartic bible (remember, Abraham was supposed to have come from the city of Ur), the god yahweh had a consort Ashererah, and it took a number of centuries for the Hebrew priests to eliminate that from what the common folk believed. I believe there were remnants of Asherah worship right up to the 4th or 5th century bc.

Now, the explanation of the 'worship no other gods' is because they were false God. After all, they could not deny that other tribes and groups worshiped other deities .. such a baal, etc etc etc.
 
It does not matter how sex perverts try to soft sell their perversion. God condemns sexual promiscuity and perversion and that should settle the matter.

ya being gay sems natural more importantly it dosent seem to be harmful just to like the same sex this god you have invented can go **** itself until it comes out with good reasons to condemn things


and you will not be persuasive until you do the same

but you highlight why we should keep are government and laws apart from your faith its based on fantasy and you use that fantasy to try and control the lives of other people for no ones benefit but your peace of mind


hey leme invite your imaginary friend to anser

hey god of marke you mind if people are gay ................hello god gays do you mind them helo?


nope your god seems to not exist or be fine with homosesexuality
 
ya being gay sems natural more importantly it dosent seem to be harmful just to like the same sex this god you have invented can go **** itself until it comes out with good reasons to condemn things


and you will not be persuasive until you do the same

but you highlight why we should keep are government and laws apart from your faith its based on fantasy and you use that fantasy to try and control the lives of other people for no ones benefit but your peace of mind


hey leme invite your imaginary friend to anser

hey god of marke you mind if people are gay ................hello god gays do you mind them helo?


nope your god seems to not exist or be fine with homosesexuality

Gender confusion belongs to those who lack wisdom and understanding.

homo new gay scout code.jpg

homo kid draws man, woman and other.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom