• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dan56

  1. Just in addendum, my first post on page 1 just stated that I support the death penalty and why.. Nothing religious and no bible quotes.. In fact, it was others who quoted the bible in response. And of course I think my belief is right, otherwise it would not be my faith and I'd choose another. So you would kill to defend your family, while simultaneously opposing the death penalty..... I see I'll leave now and let you all discuss why mass killers should be coddled and given a second chance, all while proclaiming & explaining why your not extreme pacifist .. Excuse me for thinking that a first degree murder conviction is worthy of a death sentence, while an innocent near new born infant deserves life.
  2. Most of the opinions here are anti-death penalty, so I don't see how the discussion is being bogged down by a single Christian point of view? Remember the opening post; "I have met Christians who believe in the death penalty and others who feel in an advanced civil society it is morally wrong. I am asking all viewpoints". I would not have posted if I had known this was another anti-Christian thread. You need not agree, but its senseless to denigrate a belief that you detest, it kind of removes the "Universal" from ULC.. Its fine with me if your convinced that pacifism is the best way to combat violent murderers, but I am allowed to decent from popular opinion. Its true that ancient goat herders didn't kiss a person who murdered their family or hug a person who raped their wives. But consider that it wasn't so much an 'intellectual disability', but rather that things like that just upset them and they wanted to stop it from happening. Your desire to shower killers with kindness, compassion, and understanding is as illogical to me as my point of view is to you, mainly because it omits any concern for the victims of violent crimes. I will now tap-out of this thread too, as it seems only one opinion is acceptable. Just a wild guess, but I'd assume you have no problem killing a baby 2 minutes prior to birth? And you think my line of reasoning is inconsistent!
  3. I believe you guys are the cherry pickers? Its true, everyone is worthy of death, but believers are saved in Christ (spiritually speaking). I am not judging others to be worthy of death, because from a biblical perspective, anyone outside of Christ is already dead (Revelation 20: 12-13). Its also true that the Pope and I are rarely on the same page . Without penalties, lawlessness would abound. Much of the 613 Mosaic Laws were only intended to govern the Hebrew nation, they were fulfilled or satisfied in Christ. We are now to submit to the laws of the governing authorities (Romans 13: 1-10). I simply believe that the eye for an eye and a life for a life penalties are the most effective as a deterrent against violent crimes. Christians still have the commandments and the 2 greatest ones recited by Christ (Matthew 22: 35-40). Jesus removed the curse of the law, whereby the moral standards required of the Israelites are no longer punishable by death (physically or spiritually). This doesn't exclude punishment for harmful crimes against other people though. Jesus taught not to avenge, but never suggested that no laws needed to be enforced. But in regards to judgement, we are not to hypocritically judge or spiritually condemn others. But obviously, bad behavior requires common sense judgement, law & order can't exist without it.
  4. You need to keep reading for context, when Jesus says, “Judge not”, he’s not really issuing a prohibition on judging others, but is referring to hypocritical judgement or spiritual condemnation. Matthew 7:3-5 explains that a hypocrite judges a person wrongly when they are guilty of the same thing;. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." So the passage warns of the human tendency to condemn others for flaws that we are likewise at fault of. Paul warned of the same thing, "And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?" (Romans 2:3). Another passage in John 7:24 says, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment". So this commands us to judge.. Everyone must judge right from wrong, good from bad, etc. "Judge not" does not mean we cannot show discernment, because its necessary, but spiritually condemning a person is God's domain. Luke 17:3 says; "If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him". This certainly requires a person to exercise some judgement, every decision and choice we make requires judgement, but the emphases is on righteous judgement. Realistically, people make judgments all the time. If a person commits murder, should a Christian look at that action and say, “That was wrong because God’s Word says not to murder,” or should he say, “I’m not supposed to make a judgment”? And what if someone steals from you, would you say, “That was wrong because God’s Word says not to steal,” or would you say, “I’m not supposed to make a judgment”? If someone tells us that we need to stop judging others, they have actually just judged us, so they are guilty of doing the very thing they tell us not to do.
  5. The law judges a person to death, a jury only determines guilt. The bible doesn't say not to judge, it just instills that you will be judge by the same measure that you judge others. I wouldn't expect to be 'let off' if I murdered someone. Loving your neighbor is also applying a proper penalty upon the person who kills your neighbor. It doesn't matter to me if a rich & smart or a poor & stupid person commits murder, the law should be applied equally to both. That's just how I look at it.
  6. I know you don't like bible quotes but "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled" (Matthew 5: 17-18). All but one sin is forgivable, but laws have penalties in the here & now. Praying for ones soul does not exempt them of paying for their crime. Jesus did away with the curse of the law (sin=death), but that just has a spiritual application, it doesn't absolve a person from paying their dues for law breaking in the flesh.
  7. Personal vengeance is negated in place of the law, “But if anyone hates his neighbor, lies in wait for him, rises against him and strikes him mortally, so that he dies, and he flees to one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send and bring him from there, and deliver him over to the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. Your eye shall not pity him, but you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with you" (Deuteronomy 19: 11-13).
  8. No surprise, I'm all for the death penalty, a life for a life is fair and just.. But only in the case of premeditated 1st degree murder. I don't believe a killer should get a second chance, after-all, his victim doesn't have one.
  9. Yes, I left and won't post in this section again... I honestly didn't notice the "no religion" category attached to this section, or I wouldn't have posted in the first place. I generally don't check or browse the forum sections, I just respond to Notifications or recent Activity. So I accidentally chimed into the Topic "Do They Really Believe That?" without observing the "no religion" specification. I'll be more careful to observe those type of clarifications in the future. Sorry to have rained on your parade It does seem a bit strange that a 'no religion' disclaimer is attached to a thread about believing religion though? But I reckon it was meant to be exclusively intended and restricted for those who enjoy trashing religion?
  10. That's true, I do accept by faith and with some decent documentation that the bible does consist of accurate copies of the original manuscripts. I don't believe they are someone else's interpretation though. The real proof to me is in the pudding, what's written makes sense and relay's the authentic truth.. I'm fully cognizant that you don't share that view, and wouldn't believe it even if the original manuscripts existed. Call me gullible, but I do accept the authorship and take their word for it.. Just as I'm stupid enough to believe that you wrote the comment above, and even trust that its not someone else's interpretation of what you wrote.
  11. Pete is not engaging like a human being. He is an automatic atheist machine. Thought is not being engaged.. blah blah Not everyone is going to share your opinion, sorry if I ruffled your feathers. Then don't.... No one is twisting your arm. Just skip over my post. Just ignore my post if they bother you, you don't need a button to do that.. No reason to cry like babies about it.
  12. Pattern of gene resemblances proves creationism false? Please.... One common designer using the same pattern to create various kinds of life is more likely and very logical.
  13. The difference is that your silver tablets are not visible and thereby unknown ( I can't show anyone).. If you had found a bible in the woods, you could show everyone (the Gospel must be published among all nations) See how smart that sounds? You don't have an argument... Remember, you believe nothing and don't care.
  14. That's pretty much what I've said 100 times. And I agree, people who believe in nothing aren't complicated at all. All you can do is attack what others believe because you have no answers of your own. You can't prove false what you demand I prove is true. You have no answers to life's most challenging questions, while my belief answers all of those questions. That's why your always saying "I'm done".. And your right, you have nothing further to offer, your science is a dead-end street, and you don't care because you have nothing to care about. You think what i believe is hideous, but what you believe is an enigma.. "I don't care" is the end argument of a frustrated person. You know, I've also listened to many of your boring arguments too, and they have given me more faith than ever. I find your views empty in substance and void of meaning. I've never seen people who know absolutely nothing, while simultaneously proclaiming to be absolutely right, i.e; you have no idea how you got here, but your certain you weren't created? I have an argument, you don't, and that's what your really tired of.. No one made you Agnostic, an atheist, or whatever you'll be tomorrow, its always an individual choice. What's sad is that your incapable of believing in anything, your only faith is in yourself, and I'm guessing that's got to be a pretty depressing state of mind? Neither of you need to respond. There's really nothing to debate, I simply state what I believe and you get upset. Its puzzling why that is so?
  15. Yes I believe it, but you go on believing that your distant ancestors magically evolved from a pile of rocks, it seems just as credulous & gullible for anyone to believe that unfounded and unproven load of crap. As Apatheist, you've accepted that you know nothing, so of course you have nothing to argue about. No hope, no purpose, no meaning, no knowledge, no destiny, no answers, or even the slightest desire to know anything. Kind of a sad way to go through life, I can't imagine your content with it. That's the sad part. The bible instructs people to search (study) the scriptures, if you earnestly knock, it will be opened-up to you. But knocking requires a little effort. No, God does not have dementia, people are just too lazy to try and understand, or they just don't care. I could explain the 'days' in Genesis 1&2, but it would likely be a waste of time. It makes sense to me because I understand it, but a person has got to have a serious desire to comprehend it.
  16. Dismissing something as an impossibility because you can't find observable evidence to prove it is biased. But I understand that science & spirituality don't mix. "The basis of Creationism is a hypothesis which, because of its supernatural nature, cannot be disproved at all. It is an unrefutable hypothesis. The supernatural explanation cannot be tested. This also places Creationism outside of science, as science is based on testable hypotheses". Yes, but the difference is that Man did not become a living soul until God breathed life into him (Genesis 2:7). That's what science has no answer for, and science cannot replicate. No, I'm not making it up, I just interpret it differently than most Christian novice. The bible doesn't say how old the earth is. Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,". It doesn't say when the beginning was, and note that verse one ends with a period, not a comma. Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form and void" "Was" is the wrong English word here, there is no 'was' in Hebrew. The Massorah renders it "hayah" (Strong's Concordance ref #1961). Hayah means; "to become or came to pass". So verse 2 should read that "The earth became void and without form". So millions or billions of years could have passed between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis. Some believe (myself included) that there are 3 earth ages. The first age is past, we are in the second age, and the third is yet to come. God completely annihilated and destroyed the first earth age, dinosaurs and all after Satan's rebellion (2 Peter 3:5-7 and Jeremiah 4:19-28). Note that in Genesis 1:28, God told them to "Replenish the earth", suggesting that it was inhabited before. So imo, God did not create the world void and empty, it became that way after the katabole. Then God formed it to be inhabited by mankind (Isaiah 45:18), but only after Satan got 1/3 of the angels to rebel in that first earth age (Rev 12) Many Christians don't accept this interpretation, but the time gap between the first and second verses in Genesis answers a lot of questions and makes sense to me... jmo
  17. The professor had a very closed mind in my opinion. He refused to hear common sense. Creationism could be the real answer, the problem is that science can't study a spiritual being. As was stated, common ancestry could also equate to common design. Your right, science doesn't know, but its also not interested in real answers. You believe that you descended from rocks and you think I'd be an interesting psychiatric study? Wow! Faith is biblical, its not wrapped-up in culture. I agree that science looks at whats visible, that's precisely why they have no answers to the origin of life, and they never will. I've stated many times that I don't believe in the young earth theory myself, nor does the bible date the age of the earth. I believe Genesis is a description of re-establishing an earth that existed +millions of year before. That's the gap between verse 1 & 2.
  18. That's was a good debate, Kent Hovind clearly humiliated the young professor Dave and articulately explained everything that I've been trying to pound through your heads forever. The good professor thinks we all came from rocks, but admitted that he's absolutely clueless as to how that first living cell magically came to life.. But it certainly couldn't have been Intelligent Design because you all have concluded that without evidence, creationism is garbage..
  19. These are the type of responses that generally come from someone who's stumped.. No answers, just criticism. But that's okay, I understand that its impossible to prove something that's true to be false.
  20. Well, with all the scientific advancements over thousands of years, what's more telling to me is that nothing in that bronze age book of 'nonsense' can or has been proven false. Holding to a position that creationism is false while having no alternative answer for all that exist is not an attempt to reason with anyone. Its saying that; 'I know nothing, but what you've concluded is false'. And you tout it as though you had evidence that creationism is false.. Its impossible to reason with that! Your essentially stating something as fact with no evidence to support it. Its good that you know what stars are, now lets move on to what purpose they serve the earth? Here's a clue; "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" (Genesis 1:14).
  21. An atheist is not convinced by anything nonphysical, if they can't perceive of it, they won't accept it. But God is not an intellectual quest, He is not just recognized because we can rationalize His existence. So the reality of nonbelievers ends with miracles, what they can't fathom happening, makes God unreal to them. Ultimately, Atheists have neither evidence nor proof that God does not exist. I personally think that deep down everyone knows that God exists, some have just trusted science and have convinced themselves otherwise. Christians roll the other way, we are convinced God exist and have made a choice of faith. Some are certain, so positive that they would give their life for Christ sake. Others lean towards Christ, but waver, doubts weigh in, kind of like when Peter began to sink when walking on water. Whats the truth, whats a lie? Can you name something Jesus did that was a lie or unrighteous? Christians don't believe God was a liar from the beginning, Atheist do. Faith is just trust, if something is true, its easy to trust. 'Nothing so trivial as facts?' My point has been that you have no facts and no definitive answers to how it all began. Your reality is limited to what you can see and test, all else is unknown. Genesis speaks to what people could understand (all ages of time). Stars are seen as lights, their purpose is what's stated (Genesis 1:14). You seem to demand a step by step instructional manual to explain how it was done?
  22. There are only two possible solutions to the riddle of origins. Either Someone made the world, or the world made itself. Something originating from nothing is an unexplained concept that's hard to swallow. Do you really expect me to take that riddle on faith? If something coming from nothing were true, its truth would have been verified by now. You see, when the shoe is on the other foot, your reality has fewer answers than mine. So where did this wave of energy come from? Could God have been the cause? The Big Bang theory is not a theory of the creation of the universe, it just traces the evolution of the cosmos to its earliest moments. The moon (reflective light) is still light, Genesis doesn't claim it produces light. God told Abraham that the stars in the heavens could not be numbered (Genesis 15:5), so its in agreement with you regarding the expanse of space., but you claim Genesis is nonsense? Hubert Spencer gave the world five scientific principles by which man may study the unknown. They are time, force, energy, space, and matter.. Moses, by inspiration, gave us those scientific principles in Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning" --time; "God"-- force; "created" -- energy; "the heavens" --space; "and the earth" -- matter.
  23. I'm really just stating why it makes sense to me, and of course its received by faith.. What 's puzzling is that you all rule out creation, but have no better answers of how everything magically came into being. You just can't scientifically prove a Supreme Spiritual Being via physical measurements, so science will always be a dead end street on that topic. Perhaps 'belief' has always been a remedy for the unknown, science says that from nothing, nothing comes, and yet here we all are? And I'll repeat, "When you can't prove an answer wrong, its ignorant to refer to it as crap.." You've reached a conclusion based on absolutely nothing. When you have some facts, I'll rethink your reality. In the meantime, consider that there may be more to life than what you can see, touch, and hear. I suspect that if there were absolutely no miracles mentioned in the bible, you might actually find it more credible? But probably not. The facts and reality you mention have always been observable, so of course throwing out all current science books would eventually be replaced with new books stating the same facts. Its confusing history with observable facts. Yes its true that trees grow and trees have leaves. Facts. Reality. These things can be confirmed. But the recorded past must be taken with a degree of faith. Did Christ live, die, and resurrect? If so, I believe the bible would be unchanged if history could repeat itself. Unfortunately, that's not an experiment that can ever be conducted. With the inability to go back in time, the past is not repeatable, but I suspect if we could, we would still know WW2 happened, Lincoln was our 16th president, and Christ was crucified. But I'll agree that fabricated myths would likely dissipate or radically change.
  24. Anyone who believes the bible would disagree, "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Hebrews 13:8). If it were an uninspired book of fables, you would be correct. No answer is good for nothing.. When you can't prove an answer wrong, its ignorant to refer to it as crap.. Yes, back to what I believe... And yes, back to your believing nothing.. Being content living in a void hole of nothingness doesn't appeal to most folks,
  25. So your saying that if we throw out the book that tells us all about God, we would have no information about God? Without the book that gives us a working definition of God and the details that let us discern God, we would know nothing about God... I agree...What amazes me is that the same could be said for all the science books.. Y'all don't know how you got here, but your convince you weren't created, with absolutely no facts to back it up. You have faith too, but its faith in what you think. The problem with that is that you don't know anything. People of faith simply believe that your consciousness (spiritual energy) was transferred into your body at birth, death just sends it home. Its not so far fetched. Thoughts are energy and energy never dies. Even science recognizes that; "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another.” (Einstein). Albert was half right, energy could not self-create, everything has a cause... And that's where science hits a dead end street and faith begins. God created our energy, our spirit is the intellect of our soul, and that spiritual energy continues to exist after our physical body dies. Your body is energy, your mind is energy, your soul is energy, your consciousness is pure energy, and even an idea or thought is a packet of energy. The only question is; Is this energy that encapsulates your physical body & brain transformed or transferred after death? I believe consciousness is a non-physical form of energy to begin with, so upon physical death, it simply returns from where it came. Only the source of energy (Creator) can permanently destroy energy (souls)... Wait a minute, I guess that makes Einstein 100% wrong