Dan56

I've been preaching this for years Cool, but if its not in an illusive 2000 year old history book, nonbelievers won't accept it.. Nearly all of the Apostles were persecuted, imprisoned, beaten and killed, which to me speaks volumes that they didn't suffer such fates to protect a lie. There was no earthly upside for professing Christ and human nature demonstrates that they would not hold to an untrue account in a life & death situation. Even if an unbiased nonreligious historian did record the events as accurately portrayed in the gospels, nonbelievers would not accept that as proof either.. jmo

There were 2 angels at the tomb. Matthew 28:5-6 quotes one angel who spoke to the women outside of the tomb, saying; "He is not here... come see". Mark 16:5 quotes another angel inside the sepulcher who told the women; "He is risen...go tell his disciples". But Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 both confirm there were 2 angels at the tomb. A partial report is not a false report. Just because each gospel author doesn’t report every detail of a story doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate. A divergent account is not a false account. For example, Matthew speaks of one angel at Christ’s tomb whereas John mentions two. A contradiction? Not at all. Simple math says if you have two, you also have one. Matthew did not say there was only one angel; if he had then we would have a true contradiction. Instead, he just records the words of the one who spoke. The same critics who try and point out contradictions in the gospels would no doubt cry 'collusion' if they found exact verbal parallelism and a singular account of the resurrection. The recordings of the resurrection found in the four gospels are found to harmonize quite well upon closer examination . An angel rolls away stone from tomb before sunrise (Matt. 28:2-4). The guards are seized with fear and eventually flee Women disciples visit the tomb and discover Christ missing (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1-4; Luke 24:1-3; John 20:1) Mary Magdalene leaves to tell Peter and John (John 20:1-2) Other women remain at tomb; they see two angels who tell them of Christ’s resurrection (Matt. 18:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-8) Peter and John run to the tomb and then leave (Luke 24:12; John 20:3-10) Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb; She see's 2 angels standing at the head and feet of where the body had lain (John 20:12). Christ appears to her (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18). Jesus appears to the other women (Mary, mother of James, Salome, and Joanna) (Matt. 28:8-10). The fact that John only mentions Mary Magdalene going to the tomb is not a contradiction, because its true. John chose to just focus on Mary Magdalene, but failing to mention the other women does not constitute a contradiction or even a discrepancy. Mark mentions 3 women, Luke just specifies women, and Matthew mentioned the 2 Mary's. Having something mentioned in one gospel but not another does not constitute a contradiction. Now if one gospel said that 'no' women went to the sepulcher while the others said they did, then you would have a contradiction. And in regard to the day of the crucifixion, I believe there were 2 separate Sabbaths during the week Jesus died, so no contradiction. WEDNESDAY CRUCIFIXION – SATURDAY RESURRECTION

Its futile because the evolutionary theory is just that, and is not scientific fact. . Who is it that always demands objective evidence to prove something? Now all of the sudden your willing to accept a subjective hypothesis as acceptable proof? While I admit that my belief is accepted by faith, your convinced that your belief in macro--evolution is substantiated by proof, but its not. Perhaps its you who dismisses creationism because it destroys your belief system? Facts matter, but you have no more facts than I do.

Factually tell (show) me the origin of bacterium, and then demonstrate how unicellular microorganisms evolved into every other type of life form on earth.... You can't, because the evidence isn't there. What's non-responsive is the absence of acceptable evidence, so I can't accept something that does not currently exist. And when I say "show me", I'm not referring to an artist rendition of a monkey to ape to man. Creatures with similar characteristics provides zero evidence that one evolved into the other.

Lots of conjecture, but no objective evidence that proves macro-evolution, which is evidence based on provable facts. Looking at fossilized creatures and comparing them to more advanced fossilized creatures, is not evidence that one evolved into the other.

There's no good reason not to believe its true either. If you've got a better explanation for a first cause, I'd like to hear it.. But until that day arrives, accepting that God is the uncaused cause of all that exist is as good of an explanation as anything else.. I simply believe in God because I don't know of any better answer, while you believe in nothing that's unknown (unproven). Some folks just need to have peace of mind and believe there's a meaning and purpose to life beyond what's physically apparent. Do we exist in a brief vacuum of time by remarkable accident or is there some higher power that arranged it all for a reason. Your content with the former, I choose the latter.

I don't see the proof of macro-evolution, let alone objective proof.. Its +99% speculative. And as far as proof of creation goes, I see a tree and it exist, so unless it sprung into existence out of nothing by itself, I'm more apt to believe it had a cause, and that cause was a Creator. So either way you swing it, macro-evolution or creationism requires faith, and I'm obviously as unpersuaded by 'science' as you are with God.

'Indirect' proof can be applicable to just about everything unknown. I obviously don't find the indirect proof of evolution nearly as convincing as you do. Why? Call it scientific curiosity. For the same reason science would want to prove that the moon was not made of blue cheese. You can't backward engineer a tree to learn how it originated, you can only discover as far back as the seed it sprang from. Then what? Science can study how things work, but draws a blank slate when it comes to the original cause of what made things work. Christ demonstrated that God exist, he was God manifested in the flesh and many witnesses detective it. He was relevant and meaningful. He mattered because he brought salvation, and not many people will be saying "So what" come judgement day.

No proof of either imo... Both require faith, and evolution still doesn't answer the origin (cause) of life.

Well of course, if you erase the narrative, then the rest would be senseless wouldn't it... But there was original sin, an initial fall, and a need for a Savior. Yes, viruses and bacteria mutate (micro-evolution), but neither evolve into anything other than a virus or bacteria. I don't believe everyone came from one couple, the Hebrew nation were descendants of A&E. All other races were created separately (Genesis 1:27). Or my counter point, perhaps we share many elements of our DNA with other life because of a "common Creator"... Seems a plausible theory. That was my point, a spiritual Being is not observable, so science can never prove God. If science provides answers that have been verified, then science has not proven macro-evolution because it hasn't been verified. Its nothing but wide-eyed speculation of examining the fossilized bones of extinct animals and imagining that they turned into something completely different (science fiction).

Most believe in common ancestry because humans share nearly 99% similar DNA with chimpanzee's, but we also share 50% with bananas. I believe in a common Creator for the same reason. God simply used the same process to create all life forms, with variations of course. If God had altered the formula, a life form would be alien to earth. Everything reproduces after its kind, there is no proof of any kind evolving into a completely different species, evolution is just scientific speculation. Perhaps the reason science has no definitive answers as to the origin of life is because they have no physical observable evidence to examine? In which case, a unobservable spiritual entity is a plausible answer even if it can't be confirmed.

The keyword is 'ex'... It would imply that they were once a gambler but have repented. Sins are forgiven once we repent of them.

You get irritated and angry by everything I post, so your provoked all the time. You know, if you don't believe in hell, you wouldn't feel threatened by those who expound upon it as some kind of harsh reality. I sense that your secretly frightened? I simply posted a link to an article, and it wasn't a response to anyone specific. Yes I voted for 45, but I don't support bailing out churches. They don't pay taxes and shouldn't benefit from our tax dollars. Admittedly, there was a bit of sarcasm, but nothing abusive or insulting. I'll step out and let the disgruntled complain about the attributes of Christianity in this 'no religion' thread. Nothing but anger and intolerance here, and that's a virus I should apply some social distancing from.. But no matter where I post, the hatred of Christianity will prevail.

There was nothing irritating about my post, you just choose to characterize everything you disagree with as 'irritating". And its funny how all these "no religion" topics are geared to slam Christianity, which of course is a religion... The "no religion" tag is really just a subliminal restriction of who can comment (atheist only).

I'm pretty sure the threatening sermons will stop now.. There was just some anxiety caused by the COVID19 pandemic, but Trump has taken some of the stress off the back of churches by including them in the Cares Act relief package. I guess the separation of church and state was suspended due to the economic hardships that religious organizations are having? Can't pass the collection plate around when the government won't let crowds gather together. Nothing to fear now, your tax dollars are hard at work The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the CARES Act), signed into law by President Donald Trump on March 27, 2020, provides $2.2 trillion of emergency appropriations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Religious Institutions and the CARES Act: A Closer Look Certain provisions are applicable to religious institutions - Loans for Religious Institutions - Assistance for Mid-Size Religious Institutions - Disaster Assistance Loans for Religious Institutions of Any Size - Unemployment Reimbursements

Jesus said, "The gospel must first be published among all nations" (Mark 13:10). And "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19). So Paul went all over, Thomas to India, etc, but most were martyred in Italy. Christ mission was to Judea as prophesied, but remember that the 12 lost tribes of Israel were scattered everywhere.

I don't see much knowledge being spread around here, so don't worry about it

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.