Search results

No, the first death is not eternal, all are resurrected from it. At that time death is swallowed up in victory, and itself destroyed in the lake of fire. After that, the alternative for not being in the Lamb's book of life is the second death--something different than the first death, since...

I thought that was Minnie Pearl.

I didn't think "online" existed in 1947. 😉

God can't murder, agreed, but Dominic's reasoning made it out to be because God has made man immortal from the beginning, and He just moves man from one box to another. If that is true, then not only is it impossible for God to murder someone, it is also impossible for God to kill someone.

That's so funny and awful at the same time. At first I was thinking some of the people might be nervous getting asked these questions on camera, but when they started figuring the math problems, it showed exactly what was happening. These children have been made idiots by our public school system.

Do you think belief in God helps you after you are dead?

Do you think there might be a more immediate advantage, rather than just an evolutionary one, as evolutionary advantages seem to be designed to benefit only those that come after you?

What about the cloud by day and fire by night?

That sounds harder to fathom imo.

Why do you think it's easier to fathom the burning bush than others?

Such is killing the Republican Party. Not that they weren't already culpable for the abortion deaths due to wicked judges that legalized it nationally in the first place. But Trump showed a bit of repentance, which might actually slow down God's impending acts of justice. The wording is odd...

Were you ever a "child of disobedience", beloved57?

Eh? Please select which definition you are intending with your usage: Pantheon 1. A circular temple in Rome, completed around AD 125 and dedicated to all the gods. 2. A temple dedicated to all gods. 3. All the gods of a people considered as a group.

War with science? Rattled by science? I have no animosity toward science. As long as "science" is the study of creation and not just proposed hypotheses. But let's replace the word "science" with "the Bible" and ask you the same questions. I don't see much difference between your wanting to...

I'm glad you're willing to read about it. Yes, I'm sure there will be dissenting views, but the fact is that sedimentary rock HAS formed less than 3500 (or 5300 or 4350 or whatever) years ago. And if it can form that quickly (in a few decades), it could have formed that quickly the last time...

That's somewhat debatable, shown in your posts to me.

That wasn't what I was talking about, which you will see if you read my post to blueboy. He specifically says there has been no sedimentary rock laid down in the last 3500 years. whether that's the date of the flood or not is immaterial. Here's his post excerpt I quoted, where he said nothing...

Are you saying no sedimentary rock has formed in the last 3500 years? "3500" has no truth value.

Of course. But 3500 is the more stringent standard, while easily met with a volcano eruption only 1% of that time ago.

You should read more widely. Sedimentary rock has indeed formed in the last 3500 years Here's a place to start: https://www.icr.org/article/a-30-years-later-lessons-mount-st-helens/ An interesting excerpt from it: "Because of the Mount St. Helens eruption, scientists know that sedimentary rock...