Search results

That's probably because you're not considering the fact that it's not just a literal "last day," but a figure of speech that means, generally, the end times.

That is a completely different day than this: And is a completely different day than what is mentioned in John 11:24.

Addressed in my previous post. This is why you don't ignore what people say in their posts.

Reminder: 12 years ago or so, Bob Enyart and Doug McBurney were calling out Disney for hiring a convicted child molester (who had videotaped himself abusing a young boy) to direct a movie directed at children. https://kgov.com/earth-to-disney-kids-film-director-victor-salva-convicted-child-molester

Last day of what? You're missing one crucial detail: Paul is talking about the rapture when he says we will meet the Lord in the air at His return. That comes BEFORE the Time of Jacob's Trouble, the Great Tribulation... Which is seven years long, at a maximum, and then you have the...

3:08 long.

There is nothing inherently wrong with proof-texting. It's when you do so to the extent that you ignore verses that contradict your position that it becomes a problem. When one rightly divides scripture, the entire Bible becomes a proof-text, with no problem texts.

I do not. Please stop misrepresenting my position, Oatmeal. I have CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY stated that I am not against picking verses that fit a belief. I have also CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY stated that I am against doing so TO THE EXCLUSION OF VERSES THAT CONTRADICT OR SEEM TO CONTRADICT...

Yes, it does. They are the property of the Creator. There is no such thing. A computer doesn't know what a computer is. It doesn't "know." It's simply the movement of ones and zeros. Humans are FAR different (though not dissimilar) from computers. We are self-aware. We are more than just...

Jesus said if you keep the greater laws, you must also keep the lesser laws. You dishonor Him by breaking the lesser laws, just because you're keeping the greater.

On the contrary, it's a statement of fact. Rights were endowed to man by our Creator, an authority higher than man. They are not dependent on other men agreeing to not violate them. I'm sorry to hear that. The drunk driver should be tried for capital negligence, and upon conviction, executed...

I did. She deserves to be put on trial for the advocation of the murder of the innocent, be convicted based on her own words, and then executed.

About a thousand years. It literally says so in Revelation.

Isn't she past childbearing age now anyways?

If you end up watching deciding to watch it, use Vid-Angel. Too much vulgarity and sexual promiscuity to watch it normally. Edit: TO BE CLEAR, I recommend you don't watch it at all.

You're sadly deluded if you think that.

We lost quite a few threads when we updated to XenForo, since we also switched servers as well with the ownership change. It's highly likely that that was one of the threads that was cut to save space.

And.... your point is.... what, exactly?

Idolater: "But that's not what they do with that specific money!" As I just said: It doesn't matter whether it's intended for things that are not abortion. The fact that you give the money to them means they can use for abortions the money they were ORIGINALLY going to use for other things...

They kill babies with it. And before you argue, "but that's not what they do with that specific money!"... Money is fungible. If you give a man a check for $1000, and before cashing it, he goes to buy a computer for $1000, you've just paid for his new laptop, despite him not having cashed the...