Recent content by JudgeRightly

I'm not sure. The main point of quoting this passage was the "outer darkness" bit, that being darkness so complete (and everlasting) that you will never see anyone ever again. Specifically this part, but the verses immediately surrounding it as well. Therefore Sheol has enlarged itself And...

This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that, as per the HPT estimates, it would have to travel vertically through a 60 mile deep crack in the crust. And as has been pointed out multiple times, directed energy DOES NOT easily change direction, and boundary conditions, rather than...

🫳 🎤

Sermon yesterday was on Hell's existence. Just a few passages that were brought up, that make it clear that it does, in fact, exist: The Rich Man and Lazarus “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar...

Then press him on yours. That does not excuse you from dodging his. No. Nick’s question tests your argument, not God. You claimed Abraham’s obedience was necessary for God’s prophecy of Christ’s sacrifice. Nick asked what would have happened if Abraham refused. That is a fair question...

You didn't answer Nick’s question. He asked what would have happened if Abraham refused. Instead, you cited passages where God asks questions or says He will investigate, then simply asserted that He already knew. That's not an argument. That's the very point in dispute. And Genesis 13:13...

Realistically according to which model? Based on what it said below, it seems to be critical of the arguments from within the framework of a naturalistic theory of origins, and not from a biblical one. Questionable, how? Sneaky naturalistic theory lense here. And most, if not all, of those...

He had posted an image with aliens, saucer-shaped ships, angels, demons, etc., and was probably looking for an echo chamber where he wouldn't be ridiculed for it.

You seem to be looking for an echo chamber. You will not find one here.

You came to a mainline Christian board. Of course that's going to be considered controversial.

This isn't the right section for this. Try: https://theologyonline.com/forums/controversial-theories.258/

@Clete https://www.creationscience.com/online-book/in-the-beginning-9th-edition/ See pages 580-583, 589-590, 595-596. Does this help at all?

We are our own forum. TOL has been around since at least the year 2000. The site belongs to the same people who run https://kgov.com.

That's just your subjective opinion. Not a definition. So whose standard is the best? Not just ideally. God said to "be fruitful and multiply." He created man and woman to have sex, yes, but within a committed relationship. It was never supposed to be this casual thing for random people to...

Links to old rules: 2002: https://theologyonline.com/threads/archive-the-16-commandments-at-theologyonline-old.33/ 2009: https://theologyonline.com/threads/the-new-updated-10-tol-commandments.9648/