youtube.com/user/arwoodco1 This is his Youtube Video Channel.
I would be interested to know what others think of his work. He is a near-universalist believing that some will be eventually annihilated. Yet he seems to have a lot of strange beliefs with Conspiracy Theories and some odd conclusions on Bible teachings about Sex.
To be honest, Joe, I did visit the site Godrules.net. My **major **red flag is I couldn’t find an **About **link anywhere. If a blogger, video artist, etc., wants me to read their material, hear their audio, watch their videos - guess what? I need to know something about them and their background first. And their Facebook link only has about 700 views (Not a popular site).
Now there are some things that would provoke a strong interest for me:
They have a PhD or equivalent degree, in their field of expertise - from a university with approval, by recognized accreditation bodies (i.e. usually accreditation bodies, approved by the countries’ government bodies)
They are a best selling author
Their YouTube videos have millions of hits (i.e. Good Mythical Morning YouTube series)
Etc.
But if I can’t find an;ything about them on their website (at least, where it is easy to do so), I’m not really that interested. In fact, i wold prefer to read the articles of someone from this forum first.
My two cents worth 
I follow two of his YouTube channels. Yeah I also noticed he gets into some fringe conspiracy theories, flat vs concave earth is one that comes to mind. all in all I like a few of his videos. He’s neat to me, I like the way he talks and thinks. I like learning about ideas about aliens are fallen demons, I think think that’s how I found his channels
Did you see any of his videos about Sex? It seems like some of his views are kind of strange. For example, he thinks Porn is okay, cant say I agree there.
I have seen one where he talks about the dark side of the industry, I didn’t gather that he endorses it and on his forum it appears he’s against it godrules.net/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=595
However I didn’t view all his videos and links on the subject so I don’t know if he’s speaking out of both sides of the mouth on that issue.
I agree with you, porn is isn’t okay.
This is “Godrules” here. My name is actually Tony. My website Godrules.net has an about page… Its at the bottom of the front page “About Godrules.net”. Not that I agree with the assumption that it is even relevant to declare who I am.
I don’t believe in Flat Earth or Concave Earth, though I definitely do not believe we live on a spinning ball either… Most are too indoctrinated to even start to question anything from a scientific basis. But I can easily prove scientifically with already well known experiments that we are not on a “spinning” ball. Try looking up the Sagnac Experiment which debunks Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and his claim there is no aether. There is a reason why they do not teach the Sagnac Experiment in the classroom. Also look up Airey’s failure and Michelson Morley’s experiment. Look at the actual real data from the experiments and you will know conclusively that the surface you stand on does not spin.
My background is Mechanical Engineering, so I believe I have room to speak. I have an actual science degree, not that it is terribly relevant. Anyone who uses logic and looks into those experiments will know they are explaining away the results, rather than using the results to come to conclusions.
Regarding the afterlife, I don’t try to be dogmatic, but rather look at it scientifically. It could be universal restoration. It could be a combination of it and annihilationism. Its hard to say without doing some serious research beyond the cursory, or even regular in depth research.
Regarding sex, I have a simple thing to show you here. Most think they know it all, but I will likely be bursting a few bubbles here. Simply look at the first English translation ever made. The William Tyndale version. Look at Matthew 5:27-28. Note it says “wife” and not “woman”. Actually, it is written “wyfe” in old English.
There is a reason he translated it wife. It really is pretty simple once you do some research. The fact of the matter is the same term in greek for woman and wife and Jesus clearly is paraphrasing the 10th Commandment of the 10 Commandments (do not covet they neighbor’s wife). Note the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, he said he did not come to “destroy the Law”. He did not come to change it.
Then note the term “lust” is the same as the term “desire” where it is used to refer to good things in scripture. Such as “he that desires the office of a bishop desires a good work”. Very same term as “lust” in greek. Because it has nothing to do with “sexual lust” but rather a covet act of stealing.
Note the breakdown of the 10 Commandments. Do not steal is the main theme. Do not steal another man’s life, do not steal his money, his wife(adultery), etc.
Jesus was not saying you can not lust after a woman, he was saying you can not desire to take your neighbor’s wife. Of course, due to Gnosticism, this has been changed. Gnosticism shapes a lot of Christian theology on sex.
Then note that Sampson did not lose the power of the Holy Spirit when he slept with Delilah. Yet, he did when his hair was cut.
I could go on and on and on… I could prove that most of the common modern day theology sex is about as anti-biblical as some of these “pornos” you speak of.
What Paul opposes is πορνεια (“porneia”— from which we derive the English word “pornography”). This word has been translated as “fornication.” The idea that this merely means “non-marital sex” is pure speculation.
The feminine Greek word πορνη (“pornā”) means “prostitute.” The masculine Greek word πορνος (“pornos”) means “a man who consorts with prostitutes.”
So πορνεια (“porneia”) means either the practice of “prostitution” or the practice of “consorting with prostitutes.”
I think it is correct to translate the word “γυνη” as “wife” in Jesus’ statement, “whoever looks at a wife to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” For how would an unmarried man looking at an unmarried woman with desire be adultery in his heart?
What do you mean by “pre-marital”? What is the essence of marriage? A legal piece of paper?
If no single man never had any desire for any single woman, how would there ever be any motive for marriage?
So a single man having such desire for a single woman is in no way “committing adultery in his heart.” It’s not adultery in ANY sense.
The very meaning of “marry” at one time meant “to copulate with.” I’ll give evidence of this in a later post.
The wedding at Cana that Jesus attended was not the occasion of marriage, but a celebration of a marriage that had already taken place.
As I see it, the essence of marriage is mutual life-long commitment. Those who obtain a marriage certificate and undergo a legal marriage are not married at all if they intend to separate or divorce. I remember congratulating one of my former pupils on his upcoming “marriage.” I wished him much happiness. His response, “Thank you. But if it doesn’t work out, we can always get divorced.” The fellow had divorce in mind even before he became legally married. So I wouldn’t call his union a marriage at all.
I think that sex between to individuals is sin (“sin” meaning “that which harms others or oneself”) if the couple have not made a life-long commitment to each other (whether they have legal document affirming that they are “married” or not). As I said in my last post, life-long commitment is the essence of marriage.
Let me give you an example of a missionary couple who married without a legal document. Each had gone to a foreign Catholic county as a missionary, and met each other in that country and wished to be married. They committed to each other for life, and sought to be legally married as well. Then they discovered that to get legally married in that country, they had to become Catholics. This they were unwilling to do. So they declared their mutual commitment to God in prayer, and considered themselves married in His eyes. Doubtless they were NOT considered married in the eyes of the law in that country.
Don said
I appreciate this Don, but you also will have to agree that this is social/religious opinion. Not disagreeing, but pointing it out. You’ve already paved the way for life long unions without governmental recognition… So if the life long union with governmental recognition is dissolved by what is called a divorce, what would a life long commitment without the legal ties be considered if at some point the parties drift apart? 
Don said
I would also like to know your view of same sex couple who are committed to a life long commitment to each other. 
“Separation.” But it seems that God still regards them as married. Thus Jesus says that if anyone “marries” (copulates with) one of them, he/she commits adultery.
Like the apostle Paul, I view sexual acts between same sex people as sin.
Today, the usual meaning of the word “marry” is to undergo a ceremony followed by a legal contract. In the first few centuries after Christ, it seems that the most usual meaning of “marry” was “copulate”. Consider this passage from Clement of Alexandria [153 – 217 A.D.] Clement used the word “marry” (Latin “nubere”) in the sense of copulation:
Nicolaus, they say, had a lovely wife. When after the Saviour’s ascension he was accused before the apostles of jealousy, he brought his wife into the concourse and allowed anyone who so desired to marry her. For, they say, this action was appropriate to the saying: “One must abuse the flesh.” Those who share his heresy follow both his action and his words simply and without qualification by indulging in the gravest enormity. Stromata Bk 3 Ch 4
Nicolaus could hardly have allowed other men to marry her in the modern sense of the word. Did he not, (according to the report) allow the other men to copulate with her?
Now consider this passage from Mark:
Mark calls Herodias “his brother Philip’s wife”. So it seems she was neither separated nor divorced from him. So how could Herod have “married” her in the modern sense?
It was unknown at that time for a woman to have two husbands. Of course, one could assume that Herodias was divorced or separated from Philip, though there is no contextual evidence of this. If that had been the case, why would John have rebuked Herod? For divorce and remarriage was socially acceptable in that day.