正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

加载此视频时出现问题。这可能是由于临时网络问题，或视频可能不可用。

Only one side argued consistently from Scripture. Excellent work Ruslan GodLogic_GL. Two points I’d like to comment on, being that Joel’s “church” is confessional 1689: Joel & friends said there is no restriction for polygamy in the NT, appealing to natural law as the standard. The 1689 and Scripture... disagree: LBCF Chapter 25: Of Marriage, Section 1 Marriage is to be between one man and one woman; neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband at the same time.[1] [1] Gen 2:24, Mal 2:15, Matt 19:5-6 Joel also completely straw manned at the end, and he doubled down when pressed saying “it was not a strawman” that “it is permissible for a 5 year old boy who has made a credible profession and has been baptized to marry.” Is Joel a pedophile? Scripture and the Reformed faith disagree. It is not lawful, as a 5 year old boy is not able with judgement to give consent. They kept appealing to general revelation, except special revelation governs general revelation. LBCF Chapter 25: Of Marriage, Section 3 It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent;[1] yet it is the duty of Christians to marry in the Lord;[2] and therefore such as profess the true religion, should not marry with infidels, or idolaters; neither should such as are godly, be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresy.[3] [1] Heb 13:4, 1 Tim 4:3 [2] 1 Cor 7:39 [3] Neh. 13:25-27show more

Peter

1,070 subscribers

12,194 次观看 • 6 个月前 •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 条评论

暂无评论

原始帖子的评论将显示在这里

相关视频

Why is my book on The Lust of the Flesh necessary? Because of teachings like this from Sam Allberry. He has believed the lie from the devil that he is same-sex attracted and cannot get married and have children, though he would love to, and it breaks my heart for him. He says, "I would love to be...opposite-sex attracted rather than same-sex attracted. I would love to be a husband to a wife. I'd love to be a father to a child....I love family life. I'd love to have kids. But however much I might want those things, the great goal in my life is not that one day I'd become heterosexual. That is not the win for me. That is not the prize that excites me as a Christian. It'd be lovely if it happened but it's not what I spend every waking hour kind of trying to go towards. No. Far, far greater than becoming heterosexual is knowing Jesus better....We have found the One who provides real satisfaction." 1) Who told Allberry that he was "same-sex attracted" and could not marry a woman? The Bible didn't. God didn't. The Holy Spirit didn't. The world and Allberry's flesh did. But we are who God says we are, not who our flesh or the world says we are. You don't have to be a "heterosexual man" to marry a woman, you just have to be a man! Because all men are "heterosexuals" according to Scripture, meaning that God created them to be men, and entailed in being a man is finding a woman to marry (Gen 2:18-25). *This is the created order. This is the default. There are exceptions for not pursuing marriage given in Scripture, but "I'm same-sex attracted" is not one of them. 2) Biblically, since Allberry is a Christian man who desires marriage and children, he should pursue a godly Christian woman to marry. The only thing keeping him from doing so is believing the world and his flesh. Sexual desire is not a prerequisite for marriage, though he should desire to cut a sexual covenant with a Christian woman to become his wife. 3) Allberry is obviously lonely, obviously desiring marriage and kids but has rejected God's wonderful gifts because he has bought into the world's lie that his sexuality is separate from his biology. He is not a "same-sex attracted" man; rather, he is a man that God designed for marriage, based on his biology. God literally designed Allberry's body to fit together with a woman in the marriage bed. But his flesh has warped his desires to be contrary to God and His design. 4) Instead of rejecting God's good design, Allberry should turn from his same-sex desires, find the godliest single woman he can, and pursue her for marriage. Repentant men make the best husbands and fathers. And I believe a repentant Allberry would be a great husband and father! 5) To summarize, the only thing keeping Allberry from biblical marriage is Allberry. I pray he repents, because he's unnecessarily reaping loneliness. And he doesn't have to. And...if you have same-sex desires, you don't have to reap loneliness either. #marriage #bible #singleness You can buy my book here

Why is my book on The Lust of the Flesh necessary? Because of teachings like this from Sam Allberry. He has believed the lie from the devil that he is same-sex attracted and cannot get married and have children, though he would love to, and it breaks my heart for him. He says, "I would love to be...opposite-sex attracted rather than same-sex attracted. I would love to be a husband to a wife. I'd love to be a father to a child....I love family life. I'd love to have kids. But however much I might want those things, the great goal in my life is not that one day I'd become heterosexual. That is not the win for me. That is not the prize that excites me as a Christian. It'd be lovely if it happened but it's not what I spend every waking hour kind of trying to go towards. No. Far, far greater than becoming heterosexual is knowing Jesus better....We have found the One who provides real satisfaction." 1) Who told Allberry that he was "same-sex attracted" and could not marry a woman? The Bible didn't. God didn't. The Holy Spirit didn't. The world and Allberry's flesh did. But we are who God says we are, not who our flesh or the world says we are. You don't have to be a "heterosexual man" to marry a woman, you just have to be a man! Because all men are "heterosexuals" according to Scripture, meaning that God created them to be men, and entailed in being a man is finding a woman to marry (Gen 2:18-25). *This is the created order. This is the default. There are exceptions for not pursuing marriage given in Scripture, but "I'm same-sex attracted" is not one of them. 2) Biblically, since Allberry is a Christian man who desires marriage and children, he should pursue a godly Christian woman to marry. The only thing keeping him from doing so is believing the world and his flesh. Sexual desire is not a prerequisite for marriage, though he should desire to cut a sexual covenant with a Christian woman to become his wife. 3) Allberry is obviously lonely, obviously desiring marriage and kids but has rejected God's wonderful gifts because he has bought into the world's lie that his sexuality is separate from his biology. He is not a "same-sex attracted" man; rather, he is a man that God designed for marriage, based on his biology. God literally designed Allberry's body to fit together with a woman in the marriage bed. But his flesh has warped his desires to be contrary to God and His design. 4) Instead of rejecting God's good design, Allberry should turn from his same-sex desires, find the godliest single woman he can, and pursue her for marriage. Repentant men make the best husbands and fathers. And I believe a repentant Allberry would be a great husband and father! 5) To summarize, the only thing keeping Allberry from biblical marriage is Allberry. I pray he repents, because he's unnecessarily reaping loneliness. And he doesn't have to. And...if you have same-sex desires, you don't have to reap loneliness either. #marriage #bible #singleness You can buy my book here

Jared Moore

483,301 次观看 • 2 年前

“There are seven passages—SEVEN passages that have been used to say homosexuality is a sin. How many verses are there in the Bible? And for SEVEN PASSAGES to be made such a huge frickin deal…If homosexuality was such a big deal with God and Jesus, Jesus would’ve said a lot more about it.” The Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God. 2 Timothy tells us ALL Scripture is God-breathed. No passage is expendable. All of it essential, truthful, and of God. Also, homosexuality being sinful isn’t some archaic thing of the Old Testament. Again, the Old Testament is part of God’s inerrant, infallible word as well, but also in Matthew 19, Jesus explicitly reaffirmed marriage as the union of one man and one woman by appealing to God’s design in creation. Think of all the things Jesus said and did that God didn’t see for to include in Scripture. If it’s there, it’s essential and inerrant. This is a core doctrine of Christianity.

“There are seven passages—SEVEN passages that have been used to say homosexuality is a sin. How many verses are there in the Bible? And for SEVEN PASSAGES to be made such a huge frickin deal…If homosexuality was such a big deal with God and Jesus, Jesus would’ve said a lot more about it.” The Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God. 2 Timothy tells us ALL Scripture is God-breathed. No passage is expendable. All of it essential, truthful, and of God. Also, homosexuality being sinful isn’t some archaic thing of the Old Testament. Again, the Old Testament is part of God’s inerrant, infallible word as well, but also in Matthew 19, Jesus explicitly reaffirmed marriage as the union of one man and one woman by appealing to God’s design in creation. Think of all the things Jesus said and did that God didn’t see for to include in Scripture. If it’s there, it’s essential and inerrant. This is a core doctrine of Christianity.

Natalie Jean Beisner

49,886 次观看 • 1 个月前

There has been a misconception online that we have switched to a 4-2-3-1 in the last two games. That’s not true. It’s the same 4-3-3 and 4-5-1 we have played all season. Woltemade is playing LCM. My thinking as to why it seems we aren’t is because of the freedom Eddie offers our players within the structure. Woltemade is allowed to move and receive between the lines, just like Willock (when he plays LCM) is allowed to hold width and use his pace in wide areas.

There has been a misconception online that we have switched to a 4-2-3-1 in the last two games. That’s not true. It’s the same 4-3-3 and 4-5-1 we have played all season. Woltemade is playing LCM. My thinking as to why it seems we aren’t is because of the freedom Eddie offers our players within the structure. Woltemade is allowed to move and receive between the lines, just like Willock (when he plays LCM) is allowed to hold width and use his pace in wide areas.

Jake

97,533 次观看 • 5 个月前

Notice what David French never references in his willingness to treat Talarico as a true Christian brother. And that is what scripture says. Talarico says God is nonbinary and has denied the exclusivity of Christ as the only means to eternal life. French is in clear disobedience by treating Talarico as a Christian. —1 Corinthians 5:11–13, But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one…God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you.’ —2 Thessalonians 3:6, In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. —2 Thes 3:13-14, Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. (Also, this is a repost so that people can see the video).

Notice what David French never references in his willingness to treat Talarico as a true Christian brother. And that is what scripture says. Talarico says God is nonbinary and has denied the exclusivity of Christ as the only means to eternal life. French is in clear disobedience by treating Talarico as a Christian. —1 Corinthians 5:11–13, But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one…God judges those outside. ‘Purge the evil person from among you.’ —2 Thessalonians 3:6, In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. —2 Thes 3:13-14, Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. (Also, this is a repost so that people can see the video).

Megan Basham

95,697 次观看 • 3 个月前

I do not feel any pity for this Roby Ekpo guy for the simple reason that he did everything that you must not do as a man. 1. He married a divorcee. Every man in his right senses knows that you should never marry a divorced woman or a single mother. You should only sleep with them 3 to 5 times and discard them exactly the way their initial husband did. A man must start a family, not join one. 2. He married her after just five months of dating. A marriage proposal that a woman got on a platter will never be appreciated. If she had to wait for at least two years before getting the marriage proposal from him, she probably would have appreciated the marriage more. 3. He cried over a woman. The only reason you should cry over a woman is if she dies and was good to you when she was alive. 4. He couldn't satisfy her in bed. This is solely because the woman he married has been with multiple men and cannot be satisfied by one man anymore. This is why you should only marry a woman you met as a virgin and who is between the ages of 19 and 23 when you start dating her. 5. He sent her abroad while he remained in Nigeria. A woman that you send abroad will find your replacement in less than 3 months. And if she must go abroad, let her go with majorly her own money or with a loan from you (through proxies). Never fully foot the bill so that when she leaves, you will at least get your money back. 6. He is not polygamous. You can do everything right and a woman will still cheat on you, but when you have about three other women who will easily replace her, you will not go through so much heartbreak and definitely not cry on a podcast. 7. He said the Mayowa lady made him hate Nedu and other people who did not offend him. Once a woman can control who you can and cannot relate with, she has successfully made you her slave. As a man, you must be able to relate with whoever you want whether your woman likes it or not. She can either live with it or pack and leave. I wish him well but he is the perfect representation of a foolish man.

I do not feel any pity for this Roby Ekpo guy for the simple reason that he did everything that you must not do as a man. 1. He married a divorcee. Every man in his right senses knows that you should never marry a divorced woman or a single mother. You should only sleep with them 3 to 5 times and discard them exactly the way their initial husband did. A man must start a family, not join one. 2. He married her after just five months of dating. A marriage proposal that a woman got on a platter will never be appreciated. If she had to wait for at least two years before getting the marriage proposal from him, she probably would have appreciated the marriage more. 3. He cried over a woman. The only reason you should cry over a woman is if she dies and was good to you when she was alive. 4. He couldn't satisfy her in bed. This is solely because the woman he married has been with multiple men and cannot be satisfied by one man anymore. This is why you should only marry a woman you met as a virgin and who is between the ages of 19 and 23 when you start dating her. 5. He sent her abroad while he remained in Nigeria. A woman that you send abroad will find your replacement in less than 3 months. And if she must go abroad, let her go with majorly her own money or with a loan from you (through proxies). Never fully foot the bill so that when she leaves, you will at least get your money back. 6. He is not polygamous. You can do everything right and a woman will still cheat on you, but when you have about three other women who will easily replace her, you will not go through so much heartbreak and definitely not cry on a podcast. 7. He said the Mayowa lady made him hate Nedu and other people who did not offend him. Once a woman can control who you can and cannot relate with, she has successfully made you her slave. As a man, you must be able to relate with whoever you want whether your woman likes it or not. She can either live with it or pack and leave. I wish him well but he is the perfect representation of a foolish man.

Ayo-Elesho

15,301 次观看 • 3 个月前

Many Christians believe today that “it’s not Christlike to debate. It’s not Christlike to argue. it’s not Christlike to disagree with people. It’s not Godly to say that marriage cannot be between two men. It’s not Godly to call abortion murder… We must be known for what we are for, not against. We must keep the peace…” And this is why a lot of Christians are weak in apologetics. A lot of Christians are bad at arguing and defending the faith because they have believed that “we must always keep the peace and not voice any disagreements.” But whilst God commands us to not be quarrelsome - He also commands us to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). In 2 Timothy 1:13 Paul also says “Carefully guard the precious truth that has been entrusted to you.” In Acts 17, Paul ministered in Thessalonica and it says “he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead… And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul.” 📖 The word for “reasoned” in the Greek is ‘dialegomai’ and it means to ARGUE or to have discourse with one. And whilst arguing can be done in a sinful way, arguing itself is actually a virtue. Without debates and arguments, error abounds. Arguing is a virtue because it helps us hold to what is true - and discard what is false. Arguing is what separates truth from error and wheat from chaff. It’s time for Christians to get in some holy arguments. It’s time for Christians to get in some holy debates. It’s time to guard the precious truth entrusted to you.

Many Christians believe today that “it’s not Christlike to debate. It’s not Christlike to argue. it’s not Christlike to disagree with people. It’s not Godly to say that marriage cannot be between two men. It’s not Godly to call abortion murder… We must be known for what we are for, not against. We must keep the peace…” And this is why a lot of Christians are weak in apologetics. A lot of Christians are bad at arguing and defending the faith because they have believed that “we must always keep the peace and not voice any disagreements.” But whilst God commands us to not be quarrelsome - He also commands us to “destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). In 2 Timothy 1:13 Paul also says “Carefully guard the precious truth that has been entrusted to you.” In Acts 17, Paul ministered in Thessalonica and it says “he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead… And some of them were persuaded and joined Paul.” 📖 The word for “reasoned” in the Greek is ‘dialegomai’ and it means to ARGUE or to have discourse with one. And whilst arguing can be done in a sinful way, arguing itself is actually a virtue. Without debates and arguments, error abounds. Arguing is a virtue because it helps us hold to what is true - and discard what is false. Arguing is what separates truth from error and wheat from chaff. It’s time for Christians to get in some holy arguments. It’s time for Christians to get in some holy debates. It’s time to guard the precious truth entrusted to you.

Millicent Sedra

32,061 次观看 • 7 个月前

Who is the right person to be married to? Answer: the one to whom you said, “For better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; ’til death do us part.” That is the only person with whom you can demonstrate the covenant faithfulness of Christ to his church. In marriage, God creates a bond that is not to be broken by man, because it is a portrait, a drama, of the covenant commitment between Christ and the church. Message: “Did I Marry the Right Person?”

Who is the right person to be married to? Answer: the one to whom you said, “For better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; ’til death do us part.” That is the only person with whom you can demonstrate the covenant faithfulness of Christ to his church. In marriage, God creates a bond that is not to be broken by man, because it is a portrait, a drama, of the covenant commitment between Christ and the church. Message: “Did I Marry the Right Person?”

Desiring God

11,217 次观看 • 5 个月前

I sent out a post on Islamist Mohammed Hijab which has 1.5m views. Here he is at Speaker's Corner talking about the Quran & there is no age of consent. "The reason it is haram to have sex with a 5 year old is not found in the Quran at all". "You are allowed to have sexual intercourse with 5 year olds." "I am looking for one verse that you can say prepubescent marriage is not allowed."

I sent out a post on Islamist Mohammed Hijab which has 1.5m views. Here he is at Speaker's Corner talking about the Quran & there is no age of consent. "The reason it is haram to have sex with a 5 year old is not found in the Quran at all". "You are allowed to have sexual intercourse with 5 year olds." "I am looking for one verse that you can say prepubescent marriage is not allowed."

David Atherton

619,694 次观看 • 2 年前

“Your generosity conceals something dirtier and meaner.” A wife saying this to her husband is a reminder to men to treat marriage as one of your least, and highest-risk, investments. An investment which, if it collapses, leaves you unshaken; and if it does not collapse, remains sustainable. And therefore, prioritize investments in self-sufficiency. Amass enough value and resources that only a portion of it when committed to marriage, suffices - while the remainder, if the marriage fails, insulates you from ruin. Most marriages fail partly because men are too little sufficient for the amount of stake they make. Men risk failing. And When men fail, marriages fail. And when marriage fails, the man fails the woman. Because a woman, I Will tell you, is often with the man because of the marriage, not in the marriage because of the man. For women, marriage is often the goal, not the man. The man is a means. And when marriage fails, that means has, in her eyes, proven useless. She rages. And with that, the man’s peace is alienated. You must not fail. Because your failure can become the marriage’s failure. For in your incapacity, the security marriage guaranteed your wife is threatened. And women’s attraction plummets where security diminishes. Then it matters less how much you have sacrificed, how much security you once guaranteed, your dreams, or even your potential to recover. What matters is the impending doom your failure appears to announce - the threat to her security. And with that, her survival. And as a naturally and spiritually dependent species, which woman is, you, the man, lose utility when you are no longer dependable. And consequently, lose respect, grace and companion. The whole point I am belabouring is this: Men, do not delude yourselves with the “for better or worse” myth and invest excessively in marriage. Invest in it with only a minimal percentage of your value, as you would any other high-risk investment. Be so self-sufficient before marriage that you can run your home on a harmless and mildly percentage of your finances. Marry a woman who poses less threat to your finances, peace, and emotional stability. Make marriage one of the smallest running investments in your portfolio. Because when you invest too much of yourself in marriage, you relinquish more profitable parts of your existence for something as low-profit and uncertain as marriage. Again and for the last time, Invest little enough in marriage that its collapse cannot collapse you. For a man who places too much of himself in marriage does builds a vulnerability not a union.

“Your generosity conceals something dirtier and meaner.” A wife saying this to her husband is a reminder to men to treat marriage as one of your least, and highest-risk, investments. An investment which, if it collapses, leaves you unshaken; and if it does not collapse, remains sustainable. And therefore, prioritize investments in self-sufficiency. Amass enough value and resources that only a portion of it when committed to marriage, suffices - while the remainder, if the marriage fails, insulates you from ruin. Most marriages fail partly because men are too little sufficient for the amount of stake they make. Men risk failing. And When men fail, marriages fail. And when marriage fails, the man fails the woman. Because a woman, I Will tell you, is often with the man because of the marriage, not in the marriage because of the man. For women, marriage is often the goal, not the man. The man is a means. And when marriage fails, that means has, in her eyes, proven useless. She rages. And with that, the man’s peace is alienated. You must not fail. Because your failure can become the marriage’s failure. For in your incapacity, the security marriage guaranteed your wife is threatened. And women’s attraction plummets where security diminishes. Then it matters less how much you have sacrificed, how much security you once guaranteed, your dreams, or even your potential to recover. What matters is the impending doom your failure appears to announce - the threat to her security. And with that, her survival. And as a naturally and spiritually dependent species, which woman is, you, the man, lose utility when you are no longer dependable. And consequently, lose respect, grace and companion. The whole point I am belabouring is this: Men, do not delude yourselves with the “for better or worse” myth and invest excessively in marriage. Invest in it with only a minimal percentage of your value, as you would any other high-risk investment. Be so self-sufficient before marriage that you can run your home on a harmless and mildly percentage of your finances. Marry a woman who poses less threat to your finances, peace, and emotional stability. Make marriage one of the smallest running investments in your portfolio. Because when you invest too much of yourself in marriage, you relinquish more profitable parts of your existence for something as low-profit and uncertain as marriage. Again and for the last time, Invest little enough in marriage that its collapse cannot collapse you. For a man who places too much of himself in marriage does builds a vulnerability not a union.

Mr Sergio

13,014 次观看 • 3 个月前

It surprises me that BAP takes such a categorical position here, one based on the fallacy that a WOMAN could somehow also not be a CALCULATING WHORE. I thought he was Nietzschean. To me this looks like a Schopenhauerian error, the same one Michel Houellebecq often makes in his novels. It is the mistake of many incels and trads as well. It underlies the repulsive Christian TRAD discourse that BAP himself so often attacks. A WOMAN IS AT ALL TIMES A WHORE and at all times playing a role. She does not do this out of free will, but from archetypes that culture teaches her. It is the learned cultural role she performs that enables her to spread her legs, that makes her WANT and NEED to do so. And attached to those roles are different types of men, each neatly performing his own role as well. The Friends With Benefits man, or the man you marry and have children with. Some men are capable of playing several roles, either simultaneously or over time. This is the man's problem, not the woman's. The man in Jini's example feels insulted and castrated because he would rather be the conqueror than the man you marry, yet he never took responsibility for playing the male role that women want for a one night stand. He has it in his head that one role is more honorable than the other. The woman believed she was confiding something BEAUTIFUL to him. After all, it is her ACHIEVEMENT that she plays the role of married woman so well with her husband, fucking him, sucking him off, while occasionally still thinking back to experiences from earlier roles. Out of nostalgia, she shares those memories with her hubbie, her husband, her best friend, for whom she also spreads her legs. Does a man have any idea what psycho-biological-cultural gymnastics a libtard female brain has to perform to make that work in the free West, where rape is taboo and consent and desire occupy the highest place of honor? Jini-Jeanne Hamwi is right here. This woman does not know what she is talking about, and neither does the man. They should therefore not take each other too seriously. They are speaking to each other as symptoms. My own wife and whore explains all of this better than I do in this clip, in which she compares the Liberal Woman to the Victorian Woman and explains how we should TRAIN OUR WOMEN through Nietzschean Artist Metaphysics. I'm urging anyone who takes this fertility cult discourse seriously to study this clip, because it contains important clues about how such a fertility cult would actually have to be built. In the end, it has to be designed with the female mind in mind as well.

It surprises me that BAP takes such a categorical position here, one based on the fallacy that a WOMAN could somehow also not be a CALCULATING WHORE. I thought he was Nietzschean. To me this looks like a Schopenhauerian error, the same one Michel Houellebecq often makes in his novels. It is the mistake of many incels and trads as well. It underlies the repulsive Christian TRAD discourse that BAP himself so often attacks. A WOMAN IS AT ALL TIMES A WHORE and at all times playing a role. She does not do this out of free will, but from archetypes that culture teaches her. It is the learned cultural role she performs that enables her to spread her legs, that makes her WANT and NEED to do so. And attached to those roles are different types of men, each neatly performing his own role as well. The Friends With Benefits man, or the man you marry and have children with. Some men are capable of playing several roles, either simultaneously or over time. This is the man's problem, not the woman's. The man in Jini's example feels insulted and castrated because he would rather be the conqueror than the man you marry, yet he never took responsibility for playing the male role that women want for a one night stand. He has it in his head that one role is more honorable than the other. The woman believed she was confiding something BEAUTIFUL to him. After all, it is her ACHIEVEMENT that she plays the role of married woman so well with her husband, fucking him, sucking him off, while occasionally still thinking back to experiences from earlier roles. Out of nostalgia, she shares those memories with her hubbie, her husband, her best friend, for whom she also spreads her legs. Does a man have any idea what psycho-biological-cultural gymnastics a libtard female brain has to perform to make that work in the free West, where rape is taboo and consent and desire occupy the highest place of honor? Jini-Jeanne Hamwi is right here. This woman does not know what she is talking about, and neither does the man. They should therefore not take each other too seriously. They are speaking to each other as symptoms. My own wife and whore explains all of this better than I do in this clip, in which she compares the Liberal Woman to the Victorian Woman and explains how we should TRAIN OUR WOMEN through Nietzschean Artist Metaphysics. I'm urging anyone who takes this fertility cult discourse seriously to study this clip, because it contains important clues about how such a fertility cult would actually have to be built. In the end, it has to be designed with the female mind in mind as well.

KIRAC

135,630 次观看 • 2 个月前

SIGNS OF THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. (This event is 7 years after the Rapture of the Church) 1. THE PEACE ACCORD WITH ISRAEL 2. THE RAPTURE OF THE CHURCH 3. THE INVASION OF ISRAEL 4. THE GREAT TRIBULATION The first two that would take place almost immediately after each other; the peace accord with Israel and the Rapture of the Church. 1 Thessalonians 5:3-4 AMP [3] While they are saying, “Peace and safety [all is well and secure!]” then [in a moment unforeseen] destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains on a woman with child, and they will absolutely not escape [for there will be no way to escape the judgment of the Lord]. [4] But you, believers, [all you who believe in Christ as Savior and acknowledge Him as God’s Son] are not in spiritual darkness [nor held by its power], that the day [of judgment] would overtake you [by surprise] like a thief; We may, or may not be here when the peace accord is signed, (as it may not take effect immediately after it is signed), but we would be gone before it takes effect; the 7 year period of promised peace by the antichrist. 1 Corinthians 15 :52 NLT [52] It will happen in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, those who have died will be raised to live forever. And we who are living will also be transformed. Be #RaptureReady #RaptureModeActivated #FirstFlightGang

SIGNS OF THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. (This event is 7 years after the Rapture of the Church) 1. THE PEACE ACCORD WITH ISRAEL 2. THE RAPTURE OF THE CHURCH 3. THE INVASION OF ISRAEL 4. THE GREAT TRIBULATION The first two that would take place almost immediately after each other; the peace accord with Israel and the Rapture of the Church. 1 Thessalonians 5:3-4 AMP [3] While they are saying, “Peace and safety [all is well and secure!]” then [in a moment unforeseen] destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains on a woman with child, and they will absolutely not escape [for there will be no way to escape the judgment of the Lord]. [4] But you, believers, [all you who believe in Christ as Savior and acknowledge Him as God’s Son] are not in spiritual darkness [nor held by its power], that the day [of judgment] would overtake you [by surprise] like a thief; We may, or may not be here when the peace accord is signed, (as it may not take effect immediately after it is signed), but we would be gone before it takes effect; the 7 year period of promised peace by the antichrist. 1 Corinthians 15 :52 NLT [52] It will happen in a moment, in the blink of an eye, when the last trumpet is blown. For when the trumpet sounds, those who have died will be raised to live forever. And we who are living will also be transformed. Be #RaptureReady #RaptureModeActivated #FirstFlightGang

SeyiB

12,146 次观看 • 9 个月前

#WATCH | On the allegations against Adani Group in a US Court, former Attorney General and Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi says, "...I have gone through this indictment by the US court. My assessment is that there are 5 charges or 5 counts. Neither in count 1 nor in count 5 is Mr. Adani or his nephew charged. Count number 1 of the indictment is against certain other persons minus the two Adanis. It includes some of their officers and one foreign person...The first allegation is that there is a conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act framed by the US Parliament in that the Adanis are not named, their officers may be named. There are 2 or 3 other counts relating to securities and bonds. In those 3 counts, the Adanis and others are named...This is a chargesheet alleging that these people, including Adanis have bribed Indian officials in Indian entities relating to the supply and purchase of power, but I do not find a single name or a single detail in the chargesheet as to who has been bribed, in what manner has he been bribed and the official belongs to such and such department. This charge sheet is completely silent, so I don't know how one can respond to this kind of chargesheets..."

#WATCH | On the allegations against Adani Group in a US Court, former Attorney General and Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi says, "...I have gone through this indictment by the US court. My assessment is that there are 5 charges or 5 counts. Neither in count 1 nor in count 5 is Mr. Adani or his nephew charged. Count number 1 of the indictment is against certain other persons minus the two Adanis. It includes some of their officers and one foreign person...The first allegation is that there is a conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act framed by the US Parliament in that the Adanis are not named, their officers may be named. There are 2 or 3 other counts relating to securities and bonds. In those 3 counts, the Adanis and others are named...This is a chargesheet alleging that these people, including Adanis have bribed Indian officials in Indian entities relating to the supply and purchase of power, but I do not find a single name or a single detail in the chargesheet as to who has been bribed, in what manner has he been bribed and the official belongs to such and such department. This charge sheet is completely silent, so I don't know how one can respond to this kind of chargesheets..."

ANI

430,922 次观看 • 1 年前

What is the BEST FORMATION in EA FC 25? 🤔 We can’t deny it, the 4-4-1-1 and the 4-2-1-3 are the best formations in the game. Although it seems like they’re very similar, there are some differences. The 4-2-1-3 is destined to be used by players that are more defensive and like to play more counter football. The CDM’s are a lock on the door and the LW & RW that stay upfront give you the opportunity to counter fast! 🤫 On the other side for the more attacking players, the 4-4-1-1 offers you two CM’s that can help you out creating chances in the final third.

What is the BEST FORMATION in EA FC 25? 🤔 We can’t deny it, the 4-4-1-1 and the 4-2-1-3 are the best formations in the game. Although it seems like they’re very similar, there are some differences. The 4-2-1-3 is destined to be used by players that are more defensive and like to play more counter football. The CDM’s are a lock on the door and the LW & RW that stay upfront give you the opportunity to counter fast! 🤫 On the other side for the more attacking players, the 4-4-1-1 offers you two CM’s that can help you out creating chances in the final third.

Team Gullit

15,065 次观看 • 1 年前

AS A WOMAN, I AM DEEPLY OFFENDED WATCHING THIS CLIP. It is disturbing to see women being spoken about as though they are commodities to be acquired or exchanged. Lalit Modi once again reveals a side of himself that many people seem willing to overlook. What breaks me even more is that this conversation is happening on a platform owned by Karishma Mehta, and she's sitting right there moderating it. She could have at least said, "This deeply offends me," or "I would never marry a man who thinks this way," and made it clear that such views are unacceptable. Instead, she chooses to giggle and keep the conversation going for more podcast masala. Was the Pranit More case not enough to remind us of the social responsibility that comes with moderating public conversations? The platform is called Humans of Bombay, yet they are hosting such inhuman conversations without any challenge or pushback. I urge people to call this out. The message needs to be heard loud and clear. This is NOT RIGHT. Normalising such thinking under the guise of entertainment is dangerous, and those with a platform have a responsibility to do better.

AS A WOMAN, I AM DEEPLY OFFENDED WATCHING THIS CLIP. It is disturbing to see women being spoken about as though they are commodities to be acquired or exchanged. Lalit Modi once again reveals a side of himself that many people seem willing to overlook. What breaks me even more is that this conversation is happening on a platform owned by Karishma Mehta, and she's sitting right there moderating it. She could have at least said, "This deeply offends me," or "I would never marry a man who thinks this way," and made it clear that such views are unacceptable. Instead, she chooses to giggle and keep the conversation going for more podcast masala. Was the Pranit More case not enough to remind us of the social responsibility that comes with moderating public conversations? The platform is called Humans of Bombay, yet they are hosting such inhuman conversations without any challenge or pushback. I urge people to call this out. The message needs to be heard loud and clear. This is NOT RIGHT. Normalising such thinking under the guise of entertainment is dangerous, and those with a platform have a responsibility to do better.

Monica Verma

12,807 次观看 • 1 个月前

'My reaction is one of absolute fury' The National Gallery purchased a scanner for €124,805 in 2017. It still has not been used as they have not been able to locate a room in which to operate it. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste give their reaction.

'My reaction is one of absolute fury' The National Gallery purchased a scanner for €124,805 in 2017. It still has not been used as they have not been able to locate a room in which to operate it. The Taoiseach and the Tánaiste give their reaction.

NewstalkFM

135,451 次观看 • 1 年前

For many years I have been urging Christians to assume the center. Instead of remaining at your assigned spot on the periphery, a place of designated irrelevance, walk as though the inspiring words we read in Scripture were actually talking about something. “And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:10). If we call ourselves believers we should, of course, believe some things. What is it that overcomes the world? Is it not our faith (1 John 5:4)? There is a sociological aspect to this that even some insightful non-Christians have been able to see. Napoleon once said that imagination rules the world, for example. And Curtis Yarvin wrote this: “You gain power by acting with the confidence of the powerful before you have any power.” And yet, as he notes, “getting ‘thirsty’ for power is never the way to become powerful.” How it is possible to speak with authority—and not as the scribes—is a true mystery. The scribes have the certificates and the degrees and the awards. How is it possible for some seer to come roaring out of the wilderness, or out of the pages of a Flannery O’Connor story, and speak a word of authority? I don’t know, but it has happened many times. The Christian church has authority. It may be in a storage closet in the church basement or something, and so the elders should organize a search for it. When they find it, they should put it back in its rightful place, which is behind the pulpit. Assume the center, and speak to the princes of the earth. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry.

For many years I have been urging Christians to assume the center. Instead of remaining at your assigned spot on the periphery, a place of designated irrelevance, walk as though the inspiring words we read in Scripture were actually talking about something. “And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth” (Rev. 5:10). If we call ourselves believers we should, of course, believe some things. What is it that overcomes the world? Is it not our faith (1 John 5:4)? There is a sociological aspect to this that even some insightful non-Christians have been able to see. Napoleon once said that imagination rules the world, for example. And Curtis Yarvin wrote this: “You gain power by acting with the confidence of the powerful before you have any power.” And yet, as he notes, “getting ‘thirsty’ for power is never the way to become powerful.” How it is possible to speak with authority—and not as the scribes—is a true mystery. The scribes have the certificates and the degrees and the awards. How is it possible for some seer to come roaring out of the wilderness, or out of the pages of a Flannery O’Connor story, and speak a word of authority? I don’t know, but it has happened many times. The Christian church has authority. It may be in a storage closet in the church basement or something, and so the elders should organize a search for it. When they find it, they should put it back in its rightful place, which is behind the pulpit. Assume the center, and speak to the princes of the earth. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry.

Douglas Wilson

13,431 次观看 • 8 个月前

QUESTION: What is the relationship between section 91(2)—the term limit provision—and section 95(2)—the term length provision in the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013)? ANSWER: Section 91(2) is the term-limit provision. It regulates the President’s tenure by limiting the length of time that he or she may hold or occupy the Presidency as a public officer to a maximum of two terms—whether consecutive or not—where three or more years’ service is deemed a full term. By contrast, section 95(2) is the term-length provision. It regulates the electoral cycle of the Presidency as an office or institution by defining a single term as five years (now proposed to be seven years under Clause 4 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) H.B. 1 Bill, 2026). The relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2) is therefore as clear and straightforward as that between a truck driver and a 500 km highway: section 91(2) limits the driver, while section 95(2) defines the length of the highway. Section 91(2) caps the time any individual may occupy the Presidency; section 95(2) sets the institutional length or duration of each presidential term or electoral cycle. This distinction matters because a persistent misconception claims that section 91(2) is not the presidential term-limit provision but merely a qualification rule for election as President, asserts that section 95(2) is the actual term-limit clause. Many who advance this incorrect view rely on one sentence in the obiter dictum by Patel JCC at paragraph 50 of the precedent-setting judgment in Marx Mupungu v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & 6 Ors (CCZ 7/21, 2021) [see: which includes section 95(2) among examples of term-limit provisions. That misconception overlooks a fundamental constitutional imperative: a presidential term-limit provision is, by definition, a disqualifier for election as President. Term limits on presidents are necessarily about elections. They limit qualification for election. Where there is no presidential term limit, re-election is unlimited. In a recent discussion with D. Tinashé Hofisi on 23 April 2026 [ on the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) Bill hosted by The Southern African Times, I explained the relationship between the two sections. Below is the verbatim text of the attached clip extracted from the discussion addressing the import of section 91(2) and its relationship with section 95(2): ME: “It’s a clear term limit provision; is similar to term limit provisions in other jurisdictions that are comparable to Zimbabwe. And when you say it doesn’t have time, it doesn’t make reference to time, I’m at a loss as to what that means, and where that is coming from, with respect to Dr Hofisi, because it says a person is disqualified for election as President or appointment as Vice President if he or she has already held office as President under this constitution for two terms. This is the only section which tells us how many terms a President is limited to. Section 95 doesn’t even tell us that he’s limited to one term. There’s no limit. This one limits the President to two terms. And the two terms, the last time I checked, was a reference to time. And in this case, the section doesn’t leave us doubting or not knowing what a term is or what sort of time a term is. Because it continues to say these two terms are counted whether they follow each other or not. But most significantly, for the purpose of the limit on the President, the term limit on the President, which is provided in this section: three or more years. That’s time. You said there’s no time here. Three years is time. The length of time is three years minimum, and the maximum is more. It’s not defined here. It’s three or more years. It’s more because that is subject to what the relevant law about electoral cycles says is the electoral cycle of the institution that the President occupies”. [verbatim text of clip from The 500 km Highway Metaphor: Distinguishing Sections 91(2) and 95(2) of the Constitution To clearly understand the relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2), imagine the Presidency as a magnificent 500-kilometre highway built and maintained by section 95(2) of the Constitution. This provision creates the presidential highway itself: it defines the office of the President as a permanent public institution and sets the exact length of each single term — currently five years, now proposed under the Bill to be seven years. It establishes a structured, recurring electoral cycle that belongs to the people of Zimbabwe, ensuring regular, orderly renewal of leadership. Without section 95(2), there would be no defined road — only an open plain of indefinite power. Section 91(2) governs the individual truck driver on that highway. It imposes an absolute lifetime limit: no person may complete more than two full trips along this 500 km highway, whether those trips are taken back-to-back or years apart. Any segment of 300 kilometres or more — that is, three or more years in office — counts as one complete trip. There are no partial credits or exceptions. After two full trips, the driver is permanently disqualified from driving on that highway, again. The distinction is sharp and deliberate: Section 95(2) builds the highway and determines the length of each journey. Section 91(2) limits how many times any single individual is permitted to travel it. One structures the office; the other limits the person who occupies it. Together, they form the Constitution’s twin safeguards — working in perfect harmony to keep power temporary, accountable, and subordinate to the will of the people. To conflate their distinct roles is to weaken these vital safeguards and to invite the very tyranny the Constitution was written to prevent. The Profound and Protective Meaning of “Three or More Years” in Section 91(2) of the Constitution At the heart of section 91(2) lies one of the Constitution’s most brilliant safeguards: “for the purpose of this subsection, three or more years’ service is deemed to be a full term.” The word “more” is no mere drafting flourish—it is deliberate constitutional genius. It declares that section 91(2), as the personal lifetime term-limit provision, imposes no rigid numerical ceiling. Subject to what is reasonable and justifiable in a constitutional democracy under section 95(2), service of four years, five years, six years, seven years, or even longer—once it exceeds the three-year threshold—is unequivocally deemed a complete term for the purpose of lifetime disqualification. This flexibility is not a loophole; it is a wise design that refuses to let the term-limit clause under section 91(2) become brittle or easily evaded. This open-ended “more” is anchored in section 91(2)’s harmonious relationship with section 95(2)(b), which defines the official electoral cycle of the Presidency as a permanent public institution whose five-year lifespan is inextricably intertwined with that of Parliament. Section 91(2) places an iron-clad personal disqualification on the individual; section 95(2) defines the dimensions of the highway itself. Crucially, section 95(2) is not a term-limit provision under subsections (1) and (7) of section 328. Unlike the referendum-protected personal term limit in section 91(2), it may be amended by Parliament under section 328(5) without a national referendum. This distinction is no accident; it is constitutional wisdom. It allows the institutional framework of the Presidency to evolve with the nation’s needs while the unbreakable personal lifetime bar on any single individual remains forever sacrosanct. All told, sections 91(2) and 95(2) differ in character and purpose—one limits the President, the other structures the public office or institution of the Presidency—yet they stand together as the Constitution’s twin guardians. This elegant complementarity keeps presidential power temporary, accountable, and forever subordinate to the sovereign will of the people through the institution or office of the Presidency. To respect and defend this relationship is to honour the very soul of the Constitution: ensuring that no individual can ever turn the highway into their driveway—turning the public office into a personal fiefdom—and that the highway of governance remains open, regularly renewed, and eternally in faithful service to the people of Zimbabwe. This is the promise the Constitution makes!

QUESTION: What is the relationship between section 91(2)—the term limit provision—and section 95(2)—the term length provision in the Constitution of Zimbabwe (2013)? ANSWER: Section 91(2) is the term-limit provision. It regulates the President’s tenure by limiting the length of time that he or she may hold or occupy the Presidency as a public officer to a maximum of two terms—whether consecutive or not—where three or more years’ service is deemed a full term. By contrast, section 95(2) is the term-length provision. It regulates the electoral cycle of the Presidency as an office or institution by defining a single term as five years (now proposed to be seven years under Clause 4 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) H.B. 1 Bill, 2026). The relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2) is therefore as clear and straightforward as that between a truck driver and a 500 km highway: section 91(2) limits the driver, while section 95(2) defines the length of the highway. Section 91(2) caps the time any individual may occupy the Presidency; section 95(2) sets the institutional length or duration of each presidential term or electoral cycle. This distinction matters because a persistent misconception claims that section 91(2) is not the presidential term-limit provision but merely a qualification rule for election as President, asserts that section 95(2) is the actual term-limit clause. Many who advance this incorrect view rely on one sentence in the obiter dictum by Patel JCC at paragraph 50 of the precedent-setting judgment in Marx Mupungu v Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs & 6 Ors (CCZ 7/21, 2021) [see: which includes section 95(2) among examples of term-limit provisions. That misconception overlooks a fundamental constitutional imperative: a presidential term-limit provision is, by definition, a disqualifier for election as President. Term limits on presidents are necessarily about elections. They limit qualification for election. Where there is no presidential term limit, re-election is unlimited. In a recent discussion with D. Tinashé Hofisi on 23 April 2026 [ on the Constitution of Zimbabwe (Amendment No. 3) Bill hosted by The Southern African Times, I explained the relationship between the two sections. Below is the verbatim text of the attached clip extracted from the discussion addressing the import of section 91(2) and its relationship with section 95(2): ME: “It’s a clear term limit provision; is similar to term limit provisions in other jurisdictions that are comparable to Zimbabwe. And when you say it doesn’t have time, it doesn’t make reference to time, I’m at a loss as to what that means, and where that is coming from, with respect to Dr Hofisi, because it says a person is disqualified for election as President or appointment as Vice President if he or she has already held office as President under this constitution for two terms. This is the only section which tells us how many terms a President is limited to. Section 95 doesn’t even tell us that he’s limited to one term. There’s no limit. This one limits the President to two terms. And the two terms, the last time I checked, was a reference to time. And in this case, the section doesn’t leave us doubting or not knowing what a term is or what sort of time a term is. Because it continues to say these two terms are counted whether they follow each other or not. But most significantly, for the purpose of the limit on the President, the term limit on the President, which is provided in this section: three or more years. That’s time. You said there’s no time here. Three years is time. The length of time is three years minimum, and the maximum is more. It’s not defined here. It’s three or more years. It’s more because that is subject to what the relevant law about electoral cycles says is the electoral cycle of the institution that the President occupies”. [verbatim text of clip from The 500 km Highway Metaphor: Distinguishing Sections 91(2) and 95(2) of the Constitution To clearly understand the relationship between sections 91(2) and 95(2), imagine the Presidency as a magnificent 500-kilometre highway built and maintained by section 95(2) of the Constitution. This provision creates the presidential highway itself: it defines the office of the President as a permanent public institution and sets the exact length of each single term — currently five years, now proposed under the Bill to be seven years. It establishes a structured, recurring electoral cycle that belongs to the people of Zimbabwe, ensuring regular, orderly renewal of leadership. Without section 95(2), there would be no defined road — only an open plain of indefinite power. Section 91(2) governs the individual truck driver on that highway. It imposes an absolute lifetime limit: no person may complete more than two full trips along this 500 km highway, whether those trips are taken back-to-back or years apart. Any segment of 300 kilometres or more — that is, three or more years in office — counts as one complete trip. There are no partial credits or exceptions. After two full trips, the driver is permanently disqualified from driving on that highway, again. The distinction is sharp and deliberate: Section 95(2) builds the highway and determines the length of each journey. Section 91(2) limits how many times any single individual is permitted to travel it. One structures the office; the other limits the person who occupies it. Together, they form the Constitution’s twin safeguards — working in perfect harmony to keep power temporary, accountable, and subordinate to the will of the people. To conflate their distinct roles is to weaken these vital safeguards and to invite the very tyranny the Constitution was written to prevent. The Profound and Protective Meaning of “Three or More Years” in Section 91(2) of the Constitution At the heart of section 91(2) lies one of the Constitution’s most brilliant safeguards: “for the purpose of this subsection, three or more years’ service is deemed to be a full term.” The word “more” is no mere drafting flourish—it is deliberate constitutional genius. It declares that section 91(2), as the personal lifetime term-limit provision, imposes no rigid numerical ceiling. Subject to what is reasonable and justifiable in a constitutional democracy under section 95(2), service of four years, five years, six years, seven years, or even longer—once it exceeds the three-year threshold—is unequivocally deemed a complete term for the purpose of lifetime disqualification. This flexibility is not a loophole; it is a wise design that refuses to let the term-limit clause under section 91(2) become brittle or easily evaded. This open-ended “more” is anchored in section 91(2)’s harmonious relationship with section 95(2)(b), which defines the official electoral cycle of the Presidency as a permanent public institution whose five-year lifespan is inextricably intertwined with that of Parliament. Section 91(2) places an iron-clad personal disqualification on the individual; section 95(2) defines the dimensions of the highway itself. Crucially, section 95(2) is not a term-limit provision under subsections (1) and (7) of section 328. Unlike the referendum-protected personal term limit in section 91(2), it may be amended by Parliament under section 328(5) without a national referendum. This distinction is no accident; it is constitutional wisdom. It allows the institutional framework of the Presidency to evolve with the nation’s needs while the unbreakable personal lifetime bar on any single individual remains forever sacrosanct. All told, sections 91(2) and 95(2) differ in character and purpose—one limits the President, the other structures the public office or institution of the Presidency—yet they stand together as the Constitution’s twin guardians. This elegant complementarity keeps presidential power temporary, accountable, and forever subordinate to the sovereign will of the people through the institution or office of the Presidency. To respect and defend this relationship is to honour the very soul of the Constitution: ensuring that no individual can ever turn the highway into their driveway—turning the public office into a personal fiefdom—and that the highway of governance remains open, regularly renewed, and eternally in faithful service to the people of Zimbabwe. This is the promise the Constitution makes!

Prof Jonathan Moyo

12,825 次观看 • 3 个月前

#WATCH | Delhi: On his statement about girls' marriage, All India Imam Association President, Maulana Sajid Rashidi says, "..The reason I said that was because of the prevailing circumstances—where laws can be introduced allowing a woman to marry another woman or a man to marry another man, and where a married woman can choose to live with another man without facing legal consequences. In a country with such laws, if one suggests marrying off a girl early to prevent the risk of rape or untoward incidents, it is bound to become a political issue. People will misconstrue it and who are these people? My only point is: what is wrong with adopting a good practice found in Sharia or any other religion?...My statement is being politicized—and by whom? By the very people who frame laws but also possess the capacity to and do violate them. These people do not want to see social reform. I spoke in the interest of social reform; Islam itself prescribes that a girl should be married once she attains puberty. I can name six or seven states—such as Jharkhand, Assam, Bihar, Tripura, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan—where child marriage still occurs. Parents often marry off daughters who are uneducated at an early age. All of this is happening in society...Islam also advises that a girl should be married once she reaches puberty...What wrong did I say that has sparked such a political controversy—claiming that Rashidi Sahab advocated for marrying off girls under eighteen? I never said that..."

#WATCH | Delhi: On his statement about girls' marriage, All India Imam Association President, Maulana Sajid Rashidi says, "..The reason I said that was because of the prevailing circumstances—where laws can be introduced allowing a woman to marry another woman or a man to marry another man, and where a married woman can choose to live with another man without facing legal consequences. In a country with such laws, if one suggests marrying off a girl early to prevent the risk of rape or untoward incidents, it is bound to become a political issue. People will misconstrue it and who are these people? My only point is: what is wrong with adopting a good practice found in Sharia or any other religion?...My statement is being politicized—and by whom? By the very people who frame laws but also possess the capacity to and do violate them. These people do not want to see social reform. I spoke in the interest of social reform; Islam itself prescribes that a girl should be married once she attains puberty. I can name six or seven states—such as Jharkhand, Assam, Bihar, Tripura, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan—where child marriage still occurs. Parents often marry off daughters who are uneducated at an early age. All of this is happening in society...Islam also advises that a girl should be married once she reaches puberty...What wrong did I say that has sparked such a political controversy—claiming that Rashidi Sahab advocated for marrying off girls under eighteen? I never said that..."

ANI

75,555 次观看 • 21 天前

I upset the Orthobros on here when I posted that the Wilsons aren’t Christian. They said “how dare you declare whether or not someone is a Christian!” Here is my response (watch til the end for the most ironic part of all of this): Scripture itself tells us that it is OBVIOUS who is saved and that we can discern who is and who is not a child of God. “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are OBVIOUS: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother and sister.” 1 John 3:10 Yes, Christians will still continue to sin, as Romans 7 tell us. Sanctification is certainly messy, there’s no denying that. But someone who has been supernaturally made new by the Holy Spirit will have a real heart change. Regeneration is not an inconsequential experience. It will be obvious to people. The supernatural work of the Holy Spirit is a powerful one. Someone who is made a child of God will bear the family resemblance. No one can be born again and continue to comfortably stay in the mud with the pigs. They might occasionally still fall into the mud, they might still have dirt on their clothes even after they get up, but they will hate it when they do and will live in a humble manner before God crying “have mercy on me, a sinner.” They will pursue righteousness and have a deep deep love for others. And when they are confronted about their sin by others, they repent. So yes, we can look at someone living in a hateful unrighteous arrogant manner for years on end, even after being confronted about it, and determine that they are not of the Lord.

I upset the Orthobros on here when I posted that the Wilsons aren’t Christian. They said “how dare you declare whether or not someone is a Christian!” Here is my response (watch til the end for the most ironic part of all of this): Scripture itself tells us that it is OBVIOUS who is saved and that we can discern who is and who is not a child of God. “By this the children of God and the children of the devil are OBVIOUS: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother and sister.” 1 John 3:10 Yes, Christians will still continue to sin, as Romans 7 tell us. Sanctification is certainly messy, there’s no denying that. But someone who has been supernaturally made new by the Holy Spirit will have a real heart change. Regeneration is not an inconsequential experience. It will be obvious to people. The supernatural work of the Holy Spirit is a powerful one. Someone who is made a child of God will bear the family resemblance. No one can be born again and continue to comfortably stay in the mud with the pigs. They might occasionally still fall into the mud, they might still have dirt on their clothes even after they get up, but they will hate it when they do and will live in a humble manner before God crying “have mercy on me, a sinner.” They will pursue righteousness and have a deep deep love for others. And when they are confronted about their sin by others, they repent. So yes, we can look at someone living in a hateful unrighteous arrogant manner for years on end, even after being confronted about it, and determine that they are not of the Lord.

Lizzie Marbach

45,620 次观看 • 3 个月前