Search results

Here, I found it, 23:00, starting at 21:40:

By definition, it would not be rape. That's my point. Disobeying the doctor's orders isn't a sin. Stupidity itself is not a sin. He would have grounds to do so. But that shouldn't be the solution. If it got to that point, there is nothing wrong with finding someone else to marry. The...

The wife gave her consent when she married the man. Therefore it IS NOT RAPE, by definition. And married women. Their marriage contract wasn't just between them, it was with God, and every other person on the planet, saying that the two belong to each other, and no one else can violate their...

The Bible has a better hold on ACTUAL morality than any modern legal system. People like you complain when Christians say that two men shouldn't do abominable things with each other, saying the government should stay out of what happens in the bedroom, but then say the government should...

Who said they died? The fountains themselves were ice cold, subzero, the only thing keeping them from freezing was the level of mineral content, which would have drastically lowered its freezing point. Consider listening to this RSR series...

I would hope they seek counseling before seeking divorce. Stolen concept fallacy. Again, they are "one flesh." They belong to each other. Each spouse has a right to their partner's body. You cannot rape your own flesh, and you cannot violate what is yours, and both spouses gave consent the...

Miracles are supernatural events, yes. Supra. Except that it does. It says it's not possible, naturally. That's why a SUPERnatural Creator is required. See, science DOES agree with the Bible. You should do it more often. Supra. There's a difference between science lining up with...

My wife (assuming I was married) does in fact "belong" to me. She is, in fact, my wife. She is not someone else's wife. She is not an unmarried woman. No one ever suggested it was as such. If a man, who is designed to be more sexually active than women, marries a woman, who then refuses to...

Not really that funny...

If you support the HPT, then why do you still cling to a canopy? Yes, that's my point. The firmament of the heavens has no water above it. Sure it is. See below. Genesis 1:6-19. On day 2 God created a firmament in the midst of the waters, dividing waters above from waters below, called it...

Not when none exists, none was mentioned in scripture before that, and the phrasing fits a different theory better than it fits the idea of a canopy.

A virgin birth is perfectly rational given that God exists and can perform such a thing. Without God, it IS irrational.

Except that it contradicts their a priori belief in millions of years. Therefore it must be wrong, "because otherwise I've spent my entire career and possibly life believing in something that's wrong." And People don't like being shown to be wrong, especially when it comes to God. That's the...

You'd think that miracles would convince people that God is real, but they largely had the opposite effect. Evidence that God exists will more often than not turn people's hearts away from Him, sadly. That's just human nature.

Wrong. As stated above, we are not exactly in the center. Close to it, but not exactly, and it's because we're NOT that we can tell that we're close to it. See the following links which answers these ideas.

As opposed to the entire Bible, the geological, historical, cultural, evidences, and physics, that support the HPT. The firmament of the heavens is the sky (and space, because apparently I need to mention that too). The crux of the matter lies in determining what the firmament of day 2 is. If...

It really does not. Yes, you can interpret some passages to say that there was, but they don't actually say that unless you interpret it that way. That's called confirmation bias, by the way. There is PLENTY of data to go on. It doesn't help when one side ignores it. There's a lot we don't...

I thought that the universe was still expanding, but there's a point made on https://kgov.com/stretch that honestly makes more sense in my mind, and that's that God created the universe at it's current size, and then pulled the light from the stars like he caused the plants to grow, stretching...

I'm not saying that it's not based on scripture. I'm saying it's not defensible with scripture. Yes, scripture could be interpreted (key word) to argue that the earth is flat, but A) such an interpretation falls into conflict with other scripture, and B) such an interpretation doesn't fit...

The earth is central, but it is not the center, nor is it the center of the solar system, galaxy, etc. The sun and planets and moons do not orbit the earth, nor do the stars. That is what is meant by geocentrism, which was disproven by Copernicus and Galileo. In fact, we're not even in the...