I wasted my time and poisoned my internet search history but here.

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

The ancient prophet Isaiah foretold the coming of the Messiah and revealed much about His roles.


Basically the dude said it about Jesus coming.  Painting Trumps picture with that quote is akin to calling Trump Jesus...

Your conclusion is incorrect.

The Joint Heirs refers to a biblical reference.  If we are all God's children, then we are also all heirs to His Kingdom.  That means we are also all sons and daughters of God -- the same as Jesus.  The rewards Jesus inherited in God's kingdom are NO DIFFERENT than the inheritance waiting for all of us.

They are not equating Trump with Jesus.  They are simply using his former position in government to support the passage that mentions government.  They could have placed Bush, Obama or Biden on the billboard, and the message would not change.

What they did do is confuse the anti-religion people like you thinking they know everything they need to know about the Bible.  You basically fell for a troll -- using your TDS to trigger you.

Romans 8:17
King James Version
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Why use that text on the billboard ?
Doesn’t match the cite.
Makes like they’re quoting Romans 8:17.
I don’t know enough about it though.

Could they be deceptively leading the religious who don’t read the Bible ?
Making them think it’s a Bible quote ?

And if it’s a quote of Isiah 9:6 wouldn’t that be blasphemy? And wouldn’t they cite it ?
Isaiah 9:6
King James Version
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

They used that language. Wouldn’t that be clear reference to Jesus? And Trump’s picture next to it.
Church of Trump?
Trumpianity ?

This not directed at you Flapp. Just anyone that can an post intelligible response.
Of course you can take a shot at an intelligible response.

Romans 8:17
King James Version
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Why use that text on the billboard ?
Doesn’t match the cite.
Makes like they’re quoting Romans 8:17.
I don’t know enough about it though.

Could they be deceptively leading the religious who don’t read the Bible ?
Making them think it’s a Bible quote ?

And if it’s a quote of Isiah 9:6 wouldn’t that be blasphemy? And wouldn’t they cite it ?
Isaiah 9:6
King James Version
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

They used that language. Wouldn’t that be clear reference to Jesus? And Trump’s picture next to it.
Church of Trump?
Trumpianity ?

This not directed at you Flapp. Just anyone that can an post intelligible response.
Of course you can take a shot at an intelligible response.

You assumed the citation (Bible reference) applies to the large text.  It took a few minutes, but you figured it out.

BTW, there's no such noun as "cite." "Cite" is a verb.

The billboard is not about Trump.  It's about the "Joint Heirs".

I think the billboard did exactly what they wanted.  They got people's attention, made you think/research, and maybe try to find out more about the group.

I would not be surprised if Trump's people have the billboard removed or changed assuming Trump did not approve the use of his likeness.  It has happened before.

https://www.jhkm.org/

#jesusblood

 

https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2021/09/16/survey-90-of-atheists-have-been-vaccinated-but-only-57-of-white-evangelicals/

Speaking of blind faith....

IMO, one main reason many people have become hateful of anyone with religious beliefs is it's too difficult to control someone using mere words if that someone has deeply held values based on a moral compass.

It's much easier to mold someone's thinking if they have no preexisting, deeply held personal convictions.

If the only thing that guides you is "whatever the law says," you're following one belief:  that the people running government are smarter than the rest of us, and our obedience is required.

So Omni,
What if science said that rape was beneficial to society?

So Omni,
What if science said that rape was beneficial to society?

I'm assumimg that science has thoroughly proven that fact.   Then it should be allowed. 

So Omni,
What if science said that rape was beneficial to society?

That's what happens when you don't have values or morals to keep you in check.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

That's what happens when you have values or morals to keep you in check.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Science doesnt instill values/ethics/morals.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Science doesnt instill values/ethics/morals.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Edited! Oops

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

I'm assumimg that science has thoroughly proven that fact.   Then it should be allowed.

I remember in the 1970s, science told us by the year 2000 we'd have more people on the planet than we could feed, and that people would be in constant war over food and other resources.

They also said we only had enough oil to meet rising demand until the mid-1990s.  Then we'd all be cooking over flames and reading by candle light.

What was the scientific solution for these problems?  Cut down on the population -- birth control, abortions, forced sterilizations, .....

It never occurred to the scientists and the people who believe whatever they are told that these predictions could be WRONG.

What if someone took it upon themselves to kill off 100 million people or more to make life sustainable for the rest?  Given those dire predictions, science would have agreed with that plan.

These are the problems encountered when playing God.  Unless you have perfect information and perfect predictive insight into the future, any actions you take may not fix the problem -- and it'll be too late to undo the moral atrocities committed in the name of "science."

Sometimes the very thing you did to avert a crisis could be what ushers in an even worse crisis.

The Old Lady and the Fly should be required reading for everyone.  It's a lesson for all, that sometimes the cure is worse than the illness.

Science doesnt instill values/ethics/morals.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

That's if sociopaths appreciated what those are. . .

I remember in the 1970s, science told us by the year 2000 we'd have more people on the planet than we could feed, and that people would be in constant war over food and other resources.

They also said we only had enough oil to meet rising demand until the mid-1990s.  Then we'd all be cooking over flames and reading by candle light.

What was the scientific solution for these problems?  Cut down on the population -- birth control, abortions, forced sterilizations, .....

There were varying estimations, but generally speaking they are turning out to be correct give or take a few decades. It's just that people like Al Gore and Elon Musk got involved and turned everyone off by running a giant climate scam. What we are witnessing now is that process playing out, except instead of wiping out large chunks of humanity the enacted solution was financialization.  This made it appear as if fracking was somehow going to save us even though it was always a giant money pit, and converted the productive economy into a casino economy of funny money that is rapidly losing value due to the fact that there is way too much cash and not enough resources that is supposedly represents.

They turned to Mammon to solve our problems, and now we all have to pay the price for following the economist cult. 

There were varying estimations, but generally speaking they are turning out to be correct give or take a few decades. It's just that people like Al Gore and Elon Musk got involved and turned everyone off by running a giant climate scam. What we are witnessing now is that process playing out, except instead of wiping out large chunks of humanity the enacted solution was financialization.  This made it appear as if fracking was somehow going to save us even though it was always a giant money pit, and converted the productive economy into a casino economy of funny money that is rapidly losing value due to the fact that there is way too much cash and not enough resources that is supposedly represents.

They turned to Mammon to solve our problems, and now we all have to pay the price for following the economist cult. 

The alarmists did then what they continue to do now.  They take the worst case scenario, and try to create a crisis.  It's done out of some sense of fear, graft or need to control.

What they continue to forget is that the information they are using may not be accurate.  in the case of food supplies, new technologies increased harvests multiple times over.  Genetically modified seeds grow in the harshest climates.  Irrigation has grown with the use of solar and wind turbine power sources. 

In the case of oil, new reserves have been discovered.  The vast oil supply under the US has been once again allowed to be tapped.  Fracking retrieved oil that was before left within the rock layers.  Uses for natural gas, once viewed as a waste product of drilling and refining, can be used to power vehicles and generators.

These dire predictions always have the caveat "using current estimates" or something similar, meaning "if what we know now doesn't change."  In practice, there always seems to be something major that we didn't know then.

I trust science to the point where the data can be empirically verified.  When it comes to predictions of weather systems, technologies and so on, I always leave the door open to new information.

So how bout them corn prices?

The apocalyptic predictions did a lot of damage by covering up the rolling disaster kludging along right before our eyes.

I remember in the 1970s, science told us by the year 2000 we'd have more people on the planet than we could feed, and that people would be in constant war over food and other resources.

They also said we only had enough oil to meet rising demand until the mid-1990s.  Then we'd all be cooking over flames and reading by candle light.

What was the scientific solution for these problems?  Cut down on the population -- birth control, abortions, forced sterilizations, .....

It never occurred to the scientists and the people who believe whatever they are told that these predictions could be WRONG.

What if someone took it upon themselves to kill off 100 million people or more to make life sustainable for the rest?  Given those dire predictions, science would have agreed with that plan.

These are the problems encountered when playing God.  Unless you have perfect information and perfect predictive insight into the future, any actions you take may not fix the problem -- and it'll be too late to undo the moral atrocities committed in the name of "science."

Sometimes the very thing you did to avert a crisis could be what ushers in an even worse crisis.

The Old Lady and the Fly should be required reading for everyone.  It's a lesson for all, that sometimes the cure is worse than the illness.

That's true, but in the end science is correct.  The thing about science is you can make whatever claims you want.  You have to prove them.  Those people did not prove it.  Theories do not make science.

That's why I said if it could be proven then it should be allowed.  Key word proven.

I'm assumimg that science has thoroughly proven that fact.   Then it should be allowed.

So rape is potentially not wrong?

I think you will have a hard time convincing atheists to admit that. There are many times I have heard that atheists can be good without god. The want to claim the morality of religion without god.

So rape is potentially not wrong?

I think you will have a hard time convincing atheists to admit that. There are many times I have heard that atheists can be good without god. The want to claim the morality of religion without god.

If its proven yeah.  I doubt you can do that.  Morals come and go but science lasts forever.  Back in the old days they did rape and pillage.  Now its considered wrong.  What's to say there won't be a change of morals later?  But science if proven will be the same regardless of morals.  Whether we follow science is another story...

Science justified what hitler did. Science justified treatment of blacks (Tuskegee airmen, segregation, etc...). And now in hindsight, we know science was wrong.

If only people who participated in each had good morals and followed it.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk