I don’t know. On my Pinnacle Studio 26 I don’t have any “Apply.” I delete a file from my movie line by clicking on it to highlight it and then pressing the computer “Delete” key. (Or, you can right-click a file and click “Delete.”) To delete a file from my work station at upper left (under Library, Latest Collection), I right-click it, Delete Selected, Remove from Library Only, OK. Just make sure you do NOT click on the second choice there (“Remove from library and delete media and/or projects and auxiliary files from my hard drive”) because it will do just that and you will have sent your clips and files into your computer Recycle Bin. If what you are doing works for you and files do get deleted from your Library, then I guess you are doing it right. The thing to be careful of, when deleting a clip from just your movie line, is to make sure you have ONLY that clip highlighted and not accidentally a whole bunch of them highlighted, or you’ll end up having to do that whole bunch all over, unless you catch your mistake right away and do an immediate Ctrl+Z. Also, once I am fully done with a project, I try to clear out all the files in my Library, so I don’t get so many unneeded files clogging up my Library. Hope that helps. I keep telling myself I cannot afford the time to be an ongoing help site, which is true, but once in a while, like here, I’ll respond. Good luck.
Thanks. Ironically, I’ve had to move away from iPods since Apple no longer supports them. See “How to Transfer Music to your iPod 2024!” ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gTUBz4RuYyk.html
We agree on the possibility of general theism, but we're both skeptical of personal deities. We seem to share similar views, including the moral argument, which relies on moral intuitions. Christians argue that stronger moral intuitions and consensus increase the likelihood of objective morals. However, I see no connection between the intensity of emotions towards immoral actions and whether those morals are objective or subjective. I believe intuitions, including moral intuitions, are most reliable when related to our ancestors' survival needs, as explained by Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Our genetic intuitions are more reliable at the base of the pyramid (basic needs) and less reliable as we move up the pyramid. One might check out the Liv Boeree ted talk where she talks about the failures of intuition when it comes to the subject of professional poker tournaments. While a personal God could explain morality, it's not a necessary explanation unless natural explanations are proven impossible or highly improbable. Here are some arguments for morality being a product of psychological evolution rather than supernatural explanation: 1. Empathy is strongest towards those closely related to us, as seen in the Radiolab podcast "Nazi Summer Camp." Within that podcast. The Nazis that were brought over to American Camps were treated much better than the Asians, who had nothing to do with the war during the late 40s. It was explained in the show that people who look like us were treated with much more empathy. This seems to score a point for evolutionary psychology under the umbrella of naturalism rather than a supernatural moral intuition, which presumably would be more universally applied to all ethnicities. 2. Some people can feel can feel objectively wrong to engage in actions not considered wrong by a personal God, such as consuming meat. I'm sure there are other examples of strong moral feelings of guilt that are not related to biblical "sins." 3. We can apply the same arguments for objective morality to aesthetic beauty, which is widely considered subjective, even by Christians. Our intuition seems to scream out that someone such as Margot Robbie is objectively more beautiful than Madeleine Albright. Of course, age and health is a factor in aesthetic beauty. Anyway, couldn't we use the same arguments that Christians use for objective morality and use them equally well when we're speaking of the possibility of objective aesthetic beauty? We all seem to agree, including Christians, that beauty is not objective. This example might help people use logic for the moral argument by comparing it to other examples that are somewhat analogous. 4. Our intuitions can be easily tricked into empathizing with non-conscious entities, like robots or stuffed animals. There is a video on RU-vid showing a robot that looks like a four-legged animal being kicked to demonstrate the stability of this robot. The videos comments seem to indicate that most people feel strong empathy for the robot and anger for those who are kicking the robot. Should empathy be so easily tricked if it's an objective standard that is written on our hearts or souls? 5. All animals seem to display some degree of moral behavior. For example, animals are groups of animals that risk their lives to save other individuals in their group. Do we believe that it's more likely that God instilled these objective morals into non-human animals, too, or is it more likely that the behavior is necessary for cooperation in order to gain a survival advantage. I have other arguments, but they're even less well formulated than the ones that I've tried to articulate here. All of these arguments seem to support naturalism over supernaturalism with regard to morality. Obviously, there's no way to disprove some sort of transcendent Supernatural moral code, but why appeal to the supernatural when the natural is a perfectly sufficient explanation. I do also agree that the brutality of Mother Nature seems to go against the concept of an all powerful, all-knowing, and kind personal deity
Great questions for a debate! It's utterly untenable for believers to maintain that God promoted equality of the sexes. The biblical passages you cite amount to a book that promotes the cultural mores of the period, which leads to the conclusion that man, and not a god, was the inspiration and author.
Love to see you try George Anderson - I’m very skeptical but he seems legit- van praagh is such a phony - spends all that time spewing BS - I guess heaven has an Arby’s to get a roast beef sandwich 🤦♂️
I just discovered your videos, and they are fantastic. As the grandmother of a 3-year-old girl, I am even more disturbed now that the Christian Bible is being taught in public schools and our children are being indoctrinated with this work of fiction. Our current government simply wants to control the masses.
I don’t understand why you have a problem with biblical order regarding male and female… but ignore the harsh abuse women was under in Islam… random satanic cults… communism… nazi… Egyptian kingdoms… Roman Empire…. $3x trafficking… $3x industry.. all of this is mostly under the atheistic umbrella but biblical order is somehow diabolical 🤔🤨
Why in the world would you think I do not detest all those other things you listed? Of course I do. That is not a fair argument. You’re doing exactly what I mentioned in the video: Avoiding the issue by deflecting to something else. You avoided the Leviticus 12:2+5 passage. And yes, I consider biblical “order” diabolical. I consider male chauvinism a source of great harm. I have a cousin, a very educated woman, who was married to a Muslim for a time, and she was reduced to staying in the house and serving tea.
After struggling with Pinnacle 26 Zoom and Pan for far too long, discovering this video was a real tonic. Excellent speed and pitch, clear, unrushed directions, time to make notes as a quick go to when I need it. Thank you Miklos, you really are the best at what Pinnacle itself should be providing, but doesn`t.
Thanks Lesley. The ironic thing is that I don’t use pan and zoom that much, and if I did, I’d have to review my own video to refresh my memory, and I know things would still go wrong. Hah.
Generally speaking, I don't think Apple is supporting iPods anymore. I've had to switch to an MP3 player myself. Here's the whole story, as I experienced it. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-gTUBz4RuYyk.html
@@2994485 i'd rather use amazon music but i don't have a smart phone plus smart phones don't even use earphones unless you bluetooth it and i heard the wireless pods aren't good for your health is their a way to listen to amazon music using mp3 player?
got a iPod for school last year, its awesome! and the teachers kept saying how it was rare to see a teen with a iPod instead of a phone and how they used to have one when they were younger and or in highscool,!!!!
Father Ralph Anthony diorio canonization process will be opened when he enters eternal life and the five years waiting time is up you will hear the Miracles pronounced by the Vatican and his soul elevated to the high altar 🇻🇦
To me, whether DiOrio is canonized or not, or if the Church pronounces miracles through him or not, that in no way legitimizes him. I hope you understand my viewpoint on the Catholic Church: Any organization that runs the Inquisition, or allows child molestation to flourish, cannot be God’s organization.
The word of knowledge father Ralph Anthony diorio calling out the man who happened to have left earlier doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit didn't heal that man
I don’t think it has anything to do with translations. The biblical God’s plan itself is not rational or moral. Blame everybody for one man’s sin, drown virtually everybody and virtually all animals. Then claim a human sacrifice reconciles us to God. It is such primitive stuff. I believe in the probability of a far more rational general God, whose only theology is that you be a kind person.
10. Hell is a place, or state, of being absent from God. There will be company for anyone who wishes to be absent from God. In fact, most non-believers would choose to not believe, or follow God, presented with irrefutable evidence. “He deserves it.” So, YOU are the one capable of determining punishment? God is just, and we will all get exactly what we deserve.
10. Hell is a place, or state, of being absent from God. There will be company for anyone who wishes to be absent from God. In fact, most non-believers would choose to not believe, or follow God, presented with irrefutable evidence. “He deserves it.” So, YOU are the one capable of determining punishment? God is just, and we will all get exactly what we deserve.
9. God can see, and know the entirety of creation. The tribes who were wiped out did the child sacrifices, and other things, you mentioned earlier as “immoral.” He could see that there was nothing which could be done to redeem them. You also seem to be ascribing some sort of divinity to animals. They are part of creation, and can be dealt with by the creator as-such. Slavery: A human institution. God set forth rules for dealing with slaves to ensure their safety, and Christ set forth rules to limit the terms people could be in slavery. If an individual sold themself into slavery to pay debts, He set forth rules to limit the time that could be for..no matter what the debt.
It would be a waste of time to engage with you. You are far too indoctrinated to be reasonable. It would take me hours to point out all the things wrong with what you wrote, and I know you wouldn’t get it anyway. I’ll just say three things. 1) Hitler - “So, YOU are the one capable of determining punishment?” I don’t have to be an ethical genius to know that a person who murdered 6 million people deserves serious punishment. As Christians so often do, you are missing the point, and making an ad hominem statement instead of addressing the issue. You’re OK with 6 million Holocaust victims being in Hell because they did not believe in Jesus? Not me. 2) Slavery - Did you not read Lev 25:44-46? It says “permanent slaves”! It says, “property”! You are being so dishonest here. Exactly like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek are, in glossing over this passage. 3) Hell - You would send my atheist friends to Hell. Along with my deceased sister, 6 million Jews, and me. That makes you a religious extremist in my judgement, who has lost the ability to distinguish good from evil.
@@2994485 I’m talking with you as if I were uncle Mark. I’m not saying I have all the answers, or perfect understanding. I’m not angry, I do not indict you, I do not condemn you. I noticed some things in your assertions and arguments I didn’t agree with, or have the same perspective on. I’ll address one more thing in your reply, specifically hell, the idea of hell, and who inhabits it. I am not “ok” with anyone going to hell. Given my druthers, I would wish an eternity of bliss, peace, and satisfaction for everyone. But it isn’t my place to decide eternity for anyone. I tried to address in my earlier comments, as well, most unbelievers say that “given irrefutable evidence” they still would not follow God. So, how on earth could someone like that be in bliss or peace or contentment while being bathed in Gods presence for eternity? I am not an extremist, I don’t wish any ill for anyone…I do understand that there are such things as “lost causes.” Speaking of which, you seem to be really willing to study, and really hungry for truth and answers about “why?” I pray the best for you. I pray that you will find the satisfaction and contentment you are longing for. I would suggest you check out the writings and teachings of the late Michael Heiser. Very informative and beautiful work to a believer. Perhaps some interesting things to kick around in your head for anyone else who cared to look/listen.
8. With regards to the different denominations…you can’t really conflate the decisions and establishments of men with the directives of God. We are imperfect, He is not. The denominations (which I am also not a fan of) come about because people fight and disagree. Ultimately, however, whatever the denomination; if a follower can say “I trust in Christ, I believe He was God - come to earth, I believe His sacrifice is my only claim to salvation” that follower is in.
7. Jesus chose to allow himself to be killed to atone for our sins. We do have a choice of justice, by rejecting Christ. We can choose justice (standing on our own merit), or grace (by accepting the sacrifice of Christ.
6. All of our deeds, our works, fall short of the glory of God. The only way into Heaven is faith. God exists, and thus perceives, outside of time and space. Trying to ascribe our finite perception of time to one who exists outside it is a fools errand. The James Webb telescope illustrates that the universe had a beginning. If it had a beginning, there was a time before the universe. If there was no space, and no matter, how could there have been time? An entity, let’s call “it” God, existed before “then” in a realm outside of our comprehension; let’s call that place Heaven, and He chose to create. And we are the result. We rebellious, self-righteous people…and all the rest.
4. Homosexuality is a sin against God. It is no more a sin than murder, theft, adultery, and so-on. It is also no less a sin. There ARE decent homosexual people, just as there are decent alcoholics. All fall short of the glory of God. Homosexuality is a self-defeating paradigm. Using a non-regenerative lifestyle as some sort of yardstick to hold up against the world is illogical, beyond what ANY religion might say.
3. The flood event is backed up by science more and more as science makes more discovery. The number of enormous animals that were actually fossilized is the biggest proof. When animals die, they rot, they decompose, they become part of soil, etc. The only way to actually explain the fossilization of creatures (mid-meal, etc) is that they were inundated with mass amounts of water, sand, etc. The ark only needed house seed species. Intra-special evolution (eg: Darwins finches) fills out the diversity of species. Trans-special evolution is beyond the scope of Darwinian evolution evolutionary theory. As well as life springing from primordial pools when mixed with lighting, etc. Scientific laws such as conservation of energy, conservation of matter, and others are unmade if single-cell beginning to all life is proposed as the explanation. The foundational cell is far-more complex than Darwin and his contemporaries surmised. As-such, his theory does not stand-up.
1. The head of woman is man. That is defining the household relationship. The man guides the household, and his decisions are subject to judgement. The wife supports the husband. The Christian man is also charged with “loving his wife as Christ loved the church,” which is to say: be willing to die for her. The wife is called to “respect her husband.” Seems like a bit lesser (easier) requirement? But not really. Christianity recognizes that we are all fallen, and then lays out a way to redemption. There are also many examples in scripture of women receiving preferential treatment. The resurrected Christ presented himself to women first. Mary was miraculously impregnated, and her husband was expected to have faith and believe her.
Miklos has had an incredibly unusual life! His relationships, coming to America with a pet monkey, his brother who rented a house for $50 a month for 20 years, his dad who spent hours in the countryside doing "something", the unresolved tennis incident with his sister! I could spend hours talking to him! 😂
This actually helped me! I'm on a mac, so I used the app VOX rather than Windows Media legacy, but now I can easily create playlists for my AGPtEK Rocker just by creating .m3u playlists. For mp3 players/DAPs I have 3 AGPtEK rockers and 3 Sansa Clip Zips (all with rockbox installed on them). I have a large collection of mp3s, as well as some FLAC and hi-res FLAC. In the Rockbox firmware I'm able to easily create playlists on the fly right in the device, but with my hi-res music, I like to keep one AGPtEK rocker on the stock firmware, which is higher quality (and also has bluetooth capability not available in Rockbox) but the playlist creation is much slower (can only do one song at a time, and is more time consuming). Now I'll be able to just quickly create the playlists on my computer and save them on the player for later.
Hi Dommi. I have a couple of serious questions: 1) Given that iPhones are becoming obsolete, what device do YOU listen to music on, that works better than an MP3? (I hate phones, and streaming music. I don’t want to lug my phone everywhere I go, and I don’t want to pay a monthly fee to have someone else control my music life.) I listen to music 99% of the time in my car. 2) Are you fine listening to your music in random order? If so, great. But I prefer my songs ordered by time period and by artist. Automatic alphabetizing is no better than random play to me.
You'll be surprised how many still use MP3 players, it's slightly increasing too. For me i like to use my MP3 player for my car and on walks, some times leaving my phone at home. It's nice to get away from being connected 24/7. Personally being autistic it really helps my brain to relax and feel calm for that moment. You should try 'disconnecting' one time, it's nice!
@@2994485 well iPhones arent becoming obsolete. Everyone uses those. There is no need to pay a subscription to listen to music on your phone, it's just a few extra steps on an iPhone. I get it though if you don't like to carry your phone everywhere with you.
Your P+Z explanation is a godsend! For linear Ken-Burns moves, I find it's easiest to start with the "animated slow zoom in", then modify the green and white frames to suit my pix. I initially thought the "On the Fly" mode would do this, but it took off with a mind of its own. An update on this would be appreciated. As crazy as PS is, I plan to stick with it vs learning another platform at age 87. If one can endure the personal research it takes to do stuff, the results are worth it to me.
It's pointless to argue against a religious fanatic. You might as well argue vs a believer in Harry Potter or Lord of the rings. The bible is no different from these fables.
I certainly understand what you are saying, but I do not think it is entirely pointless. Let me repeat what I wrote to another commenter: There’s a large element of truth to what you say. I’ve heard that from several people, including a longtime friend from college. However, for me, it’s worth the effort. 1) People do leave Christianity, and hearing certain arguments may well have an effect on those who are having doubts about their religion. 2) Many people present an intractable front in public but may be less convinced of their beliefs in private. 3) Somebody has to publicly express objections to their belief system, otherwise, they get even more comfortable in their bubble, unopposed. 4) Change is glacial. 5) Youngsters may still be trying to make up their mind. And lastly 6. Depending on the circumstances, I tend to agree with Edmund Burke who once said: “Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little.”
I find Turek's point that it's not a theocracy anymore ironic when the political right are trying to make it a theocracy again, and christian nationalism is on the rise, whether sincere or merely political.
I thought this was gonna be a serious and good faith discussion about what can actually be done about the huge number and prevelance of girls and women my age who explicitly call themselves witches in a faux-spiritual sense that bleeds completely into their politics. If you look into it, all the people who willingly and publicly take on the identity of the witch are the same people pushing for abortion on demand up till the moment of birth and after, pushing the insane inversion of humans' sexed reality AKA "gender theory" onto kids which unavoidably touches on sexualities well before standard sex ed and ends up making students feel like their parents aren't giving them the "whole truth" about the wide spectrum of human existence, when these fringe personalities present their own caged existences that actually limit personal freedom and increase dependency on the medical system, etc. One of these self professed witches was on the Whatever Podcast, and she said, and I quote "Words are spells." When considering the faux-argumentation and rationalization that props up the political positions I just laid out, ei "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" or "fetuses don't have personhood and are therefore beneath human dignity or rights", and the actual harm that befalls your fellow humans because of such debunked/illogical argumentation, can we really say that witches don't exist, considering they call themselves that and have no qualms exposing the sorcery by which they affect this physical realm? Watch the new star wars acolyte show with the witch coven and how they (the self-inserty feminist show writers) feel about good vs. evil and the ability to wield power over others.
The issue that Frank is missing is that the law was given to the Nation of Israel as they were coming out of Egyptian slavery. The law was a teacher to explain and help to introduce who God is. It was a measuring stick to show the perfection and holiness of God in comparison to the fallen state of man. It was given to illuminate and identify what sin is and what the just penalty of sin is. The law was given as the foundation of the theocracy the Israelites were called to live under as a holy people who belonged to a holy God. Witchcraft and other pagan practices were forbidden within the Nation of Israel and within the boundaries of Israel to the very point of falling under the penalty of death. Sin itself required the sacrifice of animals as a symbolic covering of the blood that would be perfected through the sacrifice of Christ who fulfilled ALL the Law and the prophets. God's "severe" punishment was also not limited to just witches.
Frank Turek might as well have been the snake in Genesis. But that was the OT, so... In the NT he certainly could have been. Today he undeniably is. I remember when Christofer Hitchens kicked his sorry behind to the curb and he looked like a little kid just finding out Santa Claus does not exist. Did he learn anything back then? Of course not. People like him only learn what they desire to learn and for Frank Turek, it can only be found in an old mythology from anno dazumal. Great unmasking. Thanks!
We Catholics have an adage about one's scope of Bible reading, study, and comprehension: "Weak Catholics become Evangelicals; Strong Evangelicals become Catholics." Calling on those former weak Catholics and now rabid anti-Catholics, check out the multi media platforms of The Coming Home Network or take up and read Scott and Kimberly Hahn's conversion book, Rome Sweet Home.
No such thing as witches? You're not very well travelled are you? Let's go to Haiti or Vanuatu and ask the witchdoctors/kustom men how they perform their "magic" and what the most powerful magic requires. Whether one believes the magic is real or not is beside the point. They believe it's real and they'll tell you an infant sacrifice is the most powerful magic. Whether you believe in magic or not, I'm sure we'd agree we shouldn't let people kill babies for it.
Exactly. I've noted that. Others have noted that. Christians talk about eternal values, but when a bad passage in the Bible is pointed out, they appeal to "cultural context" to justify a bad value. Talk about moving the goalposts.
That was shocking to hear a Christian apologist not know the Bible commands witches be killed, and that there was a massive witch hysteria in Europe and America, especially since it's part of Christian history. But even scarier is every time they justify any of the murder, slavery, etc. in the Bible they say, "God can do whatever he wants," when we have no way of confirming God wants anyone enslaved or dead, we just know some people wrote down that God said it, so all it can ever fundamentally mean is "I can do whatever I want and say it's what God wants, and that makes it OK."
Witches were killed in the Old Testament because they were known to kidnap children and sacrifice them. They would often bring infiltration into God's camp and destroy it from the inside out. Having a witch/warlock walk your camp was like having Richard Ramirez walk your neighborhood. As for the Salem witch trails, those were perpetuated and done by people who did actual witchcraft. The ones who were accused and blamed however were Christians. Originally a slave inhabited the town and practiced voodoo. (And yes voodoo exists. Go to Liberia where practitioners mutilate and cannibalize people. Haiti is another place. Plenty of musical artists do it too.) The females that were accusing people of witchcraft, were practicing forms of witchcraft themselves. It was utter insanity. They pointed to whoever they wanted, accused them of witchcraft, and the innocent parties got executed for it. Meanwhiles these girls doing accusations were the actual ones who practiced witchcraft. Today there are satanic circles who do practice ritual murder and ritual abuse. Ted Gunderson, former head of the FBI mind you on the west coast, attested to this. It's more prevalent than you think. It makes no sense to be a skeptic and for some reason accuse Christians of being the badguy when we literally live in the day and age of Epstien's island, MS 13 gangs practicing satanic witchcraft, and cartels doing it.
im not sure that being a liar is catching Frank in anything??? Many witches during the witch trials and hysteria were actually midwives performing abortions - and thus were murderers. We’ve revised that bit out of history to be as anti-patriarchy and anti-christian as possible. Also Exodus and Leviticus were specifically for the Jews while wandering in the desert, and Deuteronomy was specifically for the Jews while they lived in the promised land. It lists many moral laws with a consequence of death. The New Testament says the wages of sin is…. death. That superstitious people called people witches and executed them is an issue beyond the Bible. Its a problem of investigation and proof of a crime. Just as doctors used to saw peoples limbs off without washed blades and without pain killers was a product of not understanding germs and not having ether yet. Doctors used to have giant arms to hold down their patients - and their assistants often lost fingers. You’re conflating a few things just to be a smug mocker. Better to just debate head on. Lying and being deceitful is typical of the atheist… all while pretending they’ve got the strong moral sense. lol.
"Allah just decides what he wants to do"...wait, and what did you say about your god Frank? And it is so sad and troubling he uses moral relativism to defend k1lling witches in the OT while claiming morality is objective and god is the source and standard. But when it comes to sl4very he forgets to use it because he is programmed to downplay it by calling it indentured servitude (which it isn't). And in comes Turek's favorite excuse; "well, we are running out of time" while going on about the resurrection... Terrible.
I will say that I think it is nice how you "went undercover" to get answers, but the arguments in your commentary are just so bad. I'm about 10 min in and I almost can't take it
I don't really think that is true and I will try to briefly explain why. 1. Frank answered the witch question by mentioning "WE take it as true" you took issue with this and critiqued him without considering he might have answered differently if he knew it was actually YOU making the objection. 2. You back up his point by pointing out the "internal consistency" stance, but you simply reject it with faulty logic. As an example, Frank didn't say "witches are real because the Bible says witches are real" he is saying "if the Bible is consistent with believing witches are evil tools of the devil, of course it follows there must be a punishment" 3. Most of your commentary was just bemoaning the fact God has a different moral standard than you
@@sammysam601 1. I was clear I was asking for a response TO A SKEPTIC (that witches exist and deserved capital punishment). To say “We take it as true” is no answer at all to a skeptic. Just an assertion of a Christian belief. Do you believe real witches exist? I don’t. 2. You say Frank is saying “the Bible is consistent with believing witches are evil tools of the devil; of course it follows there must be a punishment." Again, that is circular reasoning. That is ASSUMING the premise. The skeptic is asking how do you justify the PREMISE that witches are evil tools of the devil. Frank didn’t answer the question, but only asserted the biblical belief. Which is why I said that he is essentially just saying “because the Bible says so.” 3. Yeah, I bemoan the fact that people believe in any God who condones slavery. That is not a God worthy of worship.
@2994485 1. I can be unclear sometimes so I will try to be as clear as I can because you obviously misunderstood the point of #1. In the context of the conversation, it is irrelevant what your question was. From his perspective, he was trying to make YOU understand something and so it was not out of place to say WE. In my view, you are simply taking any shot you can at someone regardless of how important the point is(which is why I am saying I find it unlikely you are actually trying to figure out the fault in your reasons). 2. No, the original question was actually why aren't you killing witches RIGHT NOW....this is bas8cally the title of your video and that was definitely what your question was. This is another reason I believe Frank may have responded differently if he understood what exactly and why exactly you were asking the question. 3. There is no reason to even address your slavery comment because you are conceding my point in that you just personally find it icky. So I'll take that W
The header: "Social Responsibility" (sounds like moral law to me) “Do not allow a sorceress/witch to live". Sorry Frank, no context (only a list of d3ath penalties)...just do it. Now that's what I call a d3ath sentence...
How ironic when an Old Testament law is brought up that does not conform to these people's modern morals and ethics they dismiss it but when you bring up something like homosexuality, suddenly the Old testament, or Covenant becomes relevant again. It just seems like it's whatever a person was brought up to believe or however they were indoctrinated is how they go about picking and choosing what is relevant to them and what is not. Cafeteria Christianity at its finest.
