Recent content by Noscentia

One of the best resources I've come across that helped me understand the meaning of sexual immorality in this verse is Daniel Jenning's "Except for Fornication". This PDF of the material is from his website After studying this subject, I firmly believe that there is no divorce and remarriage...

Thanks for everyone who responded, and God bless!

I don't necessarily have a problem with images in general, but when skimming over the 7th ecumenical council these were some of the things I had issues with (note: the 'etc.' at the end of the lists means 'let them be anathema'): "(15) If anyone shall not confess the holy ever-virgin Mary...

Thanks so much for your reply! If I might follow up with another: must all Anglicans accept the 39 Articles? And are the 39 Articles the only statements of required beliefs for Anglicans, or is there anything more than that?

So, I'm no expert as to the Anglican view on ecumenical councils. From what I understand, they at least accept the first four. So my question is two-fold: do Anglicans believe ecumenical councils to be infallible/inspired? And are Anglicans required to accept the 7th ecumenical council as also...

I'm a big fan of this talk on the subject of Daniel's prophecy, Antiochus, and the future Antichrist. I pray it helps.

I wouldn't consider it cause for doubt about either one of those things. Or anything, really.

And as I said, we can wonder till the kangaroos come home. I've certainly considered issues of this sort. You might even find an answer you're comfortable with. What I don't believe is that such things are cause for doubt.

God would never want you to sin, even if you believe it's for a just cause. If you're going to use logic like that, it only perpetuates greater sin. Why not simply kill as many people as possible? For every individual you kill, you prevent entire generations of potential progeny from being born...

You're left with a couple of possibilities. Either it just plain didn't happen as described in the Bible, or if it did (and I believe it did), we can't know how with any proper certainty. There are honestly no limits to the ways God could have seen to it, and we're not given the answer. You're...

It would certainly simplify things if there were an omnipotent, omniscient deity involved in all this Bible business somewhere. I suspect a being like that might just make seemingly improbable things perfectly possible. But I can't fathom where you might find one.

Microevolution is an assigned name for observed minor changes within species over time. When most people say 'evolution' they're usually referring to an entirely different concept which involves multi-million year processes which result in one kind of animal becoming something else entirely...

Under that theory there would either have to have been such a creature living in or around that area at that time, or God would have to have moved it from wherever it lived to the Ark in order to survive the flood.

I wasn't really talking about clean vs unclean, I'm aware of that. I was talking about what specific animals. For example: yes, camels are unclean, and there were unclean animals on the Ark, but that doesn't preclude the theory that rather than modern camels on the Ark, it was a dromedary or...

No, I am a young earth creationist. I believe change can occur within a given kind. Microevolution, as it's been dubbed. I don't believe in macroevolution, which is the idea that one kind can become another kind.