How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[babslovesherdaddy]

When I die and they lay me to rest
Gonna go to the place that's the best

When I lay me down to die
Goin' up to the spirit in the sky

 

[Christobal]

No, only 4 guys' interpretation of it. Not sure who the 4 guys are.

Obviously the only four right guys that ever looked at it. Noor..... Come to my office right now for heretic discipline.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Obviously the only four right guys that ever looked at it. Noor..... Come to my office right now for heretic discipline.

You're the heretic. Give him what's for Noor!

 

[wistfall1]

xfrodobagginsx

If you are going to get rude, I will stop responding to you so watch it.

Those same charges come up a lot and there are others so I am just going to provide you with a blanket for 101 of the most common charges of Contradiction explained. Enjoy looking Enjoy looking th[r]ough it. As for the other questions, I will answer them later. Not gonna devote all my time to someone who is just out to argue and be rude.[/Qupte]

Wow!Since you forget, the above is your words to me. They seem strange since it was you in an earlier post to me, who told me that:

I am not pushing lies, but you obviously are. Your essays are likely full of the same liberal, unbelieving, ignorant theology.

A couple of things though:

1. Karen Armstrong, a researcher of note said: "When fundamentalists movements are attacked they usually become more extreme." (The Bible, Atlantic Monthly Press, 2007).

2. I thought at first that you were one of these fundamentalists, but I went through your 101 items. That's not what I had asked you for, and you were too whatever to look it up though I gave you the post #. I'm glad I didn't ask you for the time of day though. By your supposed answer to my queries on Noah, you sent this morass of gobbledegook. Had I asked for the time of day, I get the feeling that you would have told me how to make a replica of Big Ben. Sheesh!

3. However, I did go through all that you sent, eliminating all that had nothing to do with my query. It looks as if you sent opinions by several men, but none your own, and unlike me, you don't seem to have any views of your own, just what you've read others say/write. That's too bad.

In going through what you sent, though, it seems that those whom you quote admit to one very important thing, and often, which is that there are no originals, and we are using copies which seem to have been edited, or mistranslated. Thank you for making one of the points that I have constantly tried to stress.

Therefore, as is said in those writings you've sent, you rely on interpretations by later men, some recently (I take it Smith, Chowdhry, Jepson, Shaeffer, along with a couple of others quoted in what you sent (like Haley, etc.)

So, what you're therefore doing is telling us that though no one really knows what was originally known or written, we are to trust you and those that you say we s;hold trust. Hmm!

Though I don't really believe much that Paul wrote, he does say one thing with regard to this that should be strongly considered:

"Who has known the mind of God."

Well, that seems to be you and those you say we should listen to.

l have no idea what was written originally either, so I can definitely say that I don't know anything about the bible for sure, but the one thing that I do know is how to read the bible and make my own decisions about its veracity. Yep, they're a collectioin of books, and yes, I haveread most of them word for word, and have noticed that there are many contradictions, just as your itmeized points admit to also.

So, do I believe your interpretation of what God said, or the bible's?

No contest. Neither!

I have no idea now if you are a fundamentalist or not, but I think that I surmise correctly that you are what I consider a more than fairly deluded man, and maybe an aged one (which is okay as I have a few years on me too).

I had thought to go over a few of those items you listed, but it'd be a waste, and I would belabor this whole exercise that few would read, so never mind. Anyway, there were only a few things I would have commented on (actually, considering that you had 101 of them, including a lenghthy preamble, as it were) they're not worth going over.

I give therefore give you permission to consider me rude and not have anything further to do with me, or even try to respond. I shall, for my part, put you on my "ignoare" list.

Peace.

w

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

I think the Gideon's version of the Bible is shorter than that post.

Gideon doesn't have a version of the Bible. It is an organization that hands out Bibles. KJV is the Standard.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Oh, please. Only misguided people would give their lives to Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ never gave his life to them.

Whatever sacrifice you may think Jesus Christ made was wiped out when he got up and walked out of his tomb.

He was beaten mercilessly, spit on, mocked, punched, nails in His hands and feet, hung on a cross, dying of thirst, hunger, exhaustion, bones out of joint for something He didn't do so that you and I could go to heaven and you think there was no sacrifice? He felt all of the pain and suffering associated with death.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Without a gospel of Mary we don't even know that happened. Its all hearsay.

Metaphors, myths, parables and fables.

Mary wasn't the only eyewitness. There were many more.

 

[spacekowboy]

NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS.




take the hint. Seriously.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Mary wasn't the only eyewitness. There were many more.

Name them! Who was present at Jesus resurrection? Who saw him die and then discovered his empty tomb and encountered your arisen Christ? Mary, I believe and no one else. None of the disciples had the balls to see him die. To be a true credible witness one must have seen him die and seen him resurrected. The disciples just heard he died, hearsay. Mary Magdalene is the only credible witness to both his death and resurrection. Her story was suppressed by at least three of the disciples including their leader Peter so he could claim the glory of being the first to see the resurrected Jesus. Even if he was not their to see him die.

http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/witnesses-resurrection.html

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Sorry rex. You have been replaced by the lizard for similar reptile types in the ark. Besides what the f#$ is up with those useless front legs? DAD? DAD?

Actually Dinosaurs just that. Giant lizards. They took babies on the Ark, but if you know the Bible, people lived much longer before the flood. I am certain that this would also be true for other animals. Since Lizards never stop growing and they lived 10x longer, they grew to be huge. There is a ton of evidence that Dinosaurs lived with men. Marco Polo even saw Dinosaurs.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Actually Dinosaurs just that. Giant lizards. They took babies on the Ark, but if you know the Bible, people lived much longer before the flood. I am certain that this would also be true for other animals. Since Lizards never stop growing and they lived 10x longer, they grew to be huge. There is a ton of evidence that Dinosaurs lived with men. Marco Polo even saw Dinosaurs.

You're not helping your argument by denying evolution as accepted fact. Best steer clear of that path. It just leads to ridicule and abuse.

How do you explain crocodile fossils on Canada's Arctic coast line? At one time Canada's northern coast must have been in warmer waters. Longer lived lizards or not, cold blooded animals, do not do well in sub-zero conditions.

How about continental drift? Has there been enough biblical time for the continents to move or did your God create the whole world as we see it now?

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Name them! Who was present at Jesus resurrection? Who saw him die and then discovered his empty tomb and encountered your arisen Christ? Mary, I believe and no one else. None of the disciples had the balls to see him die. To be a true credible witness one must have seen him die and seen him resurrected. The disciples just heard he died, hearsay. Mary Magdalene is the only credible witness to both his death and resurrection. Her story was suppressed by at least three of the disciples including their leader Peter so he could claim the glory of being the first to see the resurrected Jesus. Even if he was not their to see him die.

http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/witnesses-resurrection.html

Hundreds of people including the Roman Soldiers, the Jews and the Religious leaders saw Jesus die. It's even in the the official History of the Roman Empire by their historians that He was crucified. Jesus's followers were allowed to have His body for burial after His death from the Roman Government. I am sure that many of His followers also watched Him die. Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb. Peter and another disciple also discovered the empty tomb. So what you are saying is that the Roman Government didn't know how to kill a man? A task which they had done thousands of times? Mary had no story suppressed. Evidence?

 

[phrodeau]

Hundreds of people including the Roman Soldiers, the Jews and the Religious leaders saw Jesus die. It's even in the the official History of the Roman Empire by their historians that He was crucified. Jesus's followers were allowed to have His body for burial after His death from the Roman Government. I am sure that many of His followers also watched Him die. Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb. Peter and another disciple also discovered the empty tomb. So what you are saying is that the Roman Government didn't know how to kill a man? A task which they had done thousands of times? Mary had no story suppressed. Evidence?

They didn't manage to kill him so that he stayed dead, now did they?

 

[Hard_Rom]

Hundreds of people including the Roman Soldiers, the Jews and the Religious leaders saw Jesus die. It's even in the the official History of the Roman Empire by their historians that He was crucified. Jesus's followers were allowed to have His body for burial after His death from the Roman Government. I am sure that many of His followers also watched Him die. Mary Magdalene discovered the empty tomb. Peter and another disciple also discovered the empty tomb. So what you are saying is that the Roman Government didn't know how to kill a man? A task which they had done thousands of times? Mary had no story suppressed. Evidence?

Christ you're bloody thick! Did you read the link? The various gospels don't agree.

You need to eye witness both to be a credible witness. Seeing him die and hearing he was resurrected is not enough. Hearing he died and seeing him after is not enough. To be 100% credible you must see him die and see him resurrected.

Why do not all the bible gospels agree on the witnesses to Jesus resurrection? They don't even agree. Why? How can one disciple write about Mary Magdalene being the one who discovered the empty tomb and first encountered a resurrected Jesus and another deny her involvement? Could the bible have political and gender discrimination issues?

 

[Hard_Rom]

They didn't manage to kill him so that he stayed dead, now did they?

Entirely possible the spear thrust from the Roman soldier was not fatal.

 

[phrodeau]

Christ you're bloody thick! Did you read the link? The various gospels don't agree.

You need to eye witness both to be a credible witness. Seeing him die and hearing he was resurrected is not enough. Hearing he died and seeing him after is not enough. To be 100% credible you must see him die and see him resurrected.

Why do not all the bible gospels agree on the witnesses to Jesus resurrection? They don't even agree. Why? How can one disciple write about Mary Magdalene being the one who discovered the empty tomb and first encountered a resurrected Jesus and another deny her involvement? Could the bible have political and gender discrimination issues?

The Gospels were all written several decades after the events, so they had plenty of time to get their stories straight.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The Gospels were all written several decades after the events, so they had plenty of time to get their stories straight.

But they didn't! The gospels vary on the resurrection.

http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/witnesses-resurrection.html

 

[phrodeau]

Actually Dinosaurs just that. Giant lizards. They took babies on the Ark, but if you know the Bible, people lived much longer before the flood. I am certain that this would also be true for other animals. Since Lizards never stop growing and they lived 10x longer, they grew to be huge. There is a ton of evidence that Dinosaurs lived with men. Marco Polo even saw Dinosaurs.

There is no archaeological evidence that any people lived longer in the past than they do today. Not one bone.

 

[Hard_Rom]

There is no archaeological evidence that any people lived longer in the past than they do today. Not one bone.

But the bible says...

 

[Christobal]

I will say this for the guy. He keeps speaking the truth as he knows it without being rude. Defensive occasionally but not rude even in the face of scorn.

We all put our opinions out here on lit. This guy believes what he believes and my thoughts do not matter to him so why keep posting.

 

[phrodeau]

But the bible says...

The only possible source for the information in the first eight chapters of Genesis was Noah and his family, since they alone survived the Flood.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

You're not helping your argument by denying evolution as accepted fact. Best steer clear of that path. It just leads to ridicule and abuse.

How do you explain crocodile fossils on Canada's Arctic coast line? At one time Canada's northern coast must have been in warmer waters. Longer lived lizards or not, cold blooded animals, do not do well in sub-zero conditions.

How about continental drift? Has there been enough biblical time for the continents to move or did your God create the whole world as we see it now?

Evolution is not a fact. It's a theory and it takes more faith to believe in it than it does in Creation. Take the time to look at the other evidence that the School Text Books are censoring. What about Crocodile Fossils on Canada's Arctic Coast Line? Actually many people believe that Continental Drift is in the Bible. It may have happened at the time of the flood or another time. In no way does that prove evolution.

Ge 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Ever heard of the missing link? Do you really know what that is? It's the fact that no transitional fossils have ever been found that link one species into another. The only changes that have been proven to occur, which creation scientists believe anyway, is lateral adapation, aka micro evolution (within the species). Macro (Darwinian Evolution) has never been proven to happen because that would require an increase in genetic information, which has never happened, ever, once. Even Richard Dawkins was stumped when asked about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

 

[Hard_Rom]

The only possible source for the information in the first eight chapters of Genesis was Noah and his family, since they alone survived the Flood.

And then used incestuous sex to repopulate the world. Maybe some cuckolding going on too. Perverts! What happened to 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbours wife'?

I suppose this explains the genetic bottleneck that has limited genetic diversity amongst humans. The anti-global warming types should adopt this explanation other than historic climate change threatening the human race.

 

[Bookishleigh]

The only possible source for the information in the first eight chapters of Genesis was Noah and his family, since they alone survived the Flood.

We can't count Noah's youngest son though - he was cursed by Noah after he caught his father lying drunk and naked in his tent.

Honestly, it sounds like a fun family to me....

 

[Hard_Rom]

Evolution is not a fact. It's a theory and it takes more faith to believe in it than it does in Creation. Take the time to look at the other evidence that the School Text Books are censoring. What about Crocodile Fossils on Canada's Arctic Coast Line? Actually many people believe that Continental Drift is in the Bible. It may have happened at the time of the flood or another time. In no way does that prove evolution.

Ge 10:25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.

Ever heard of the missing link? Do you really know what that is? It's the fact that no transitional fossils have ever been found that link one species into another. The only changes that have been proven to occur, which creation scientists believe anyway, is lateral adapation, aka micro evolution (within the species). Macro (Darwinian Evolution) has never been proven to happen because that would require an increase in genetic information, which has never happened, ever, once. Even Richard Dawkins was stumped when asked about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Then why do we not see such rapid global transformation to day. The Canadian northern coast had to move a long ways in 6000 years. Why in the last two thousand has that velocity of movement not been recorded? Why can our scientific instruments of today detect such rapid shifts? Did it suddenly stop? Why? The hand of God I suppose.

Your entire theory is based on a book written two millennia ago. That can't even agree on the resurrection of it's supposed God. One that dictates that humans once lived for 900 years or so. One that condones incest and adultery. Heck, it's actually two separate books written thousands of years apart by two different religions. If your theories are correct than you have given the Quran the ultimate place atop the Abrahamic religions as the last word.

If your bibles are to believed, why not Scientology's outer space theories? Why not Mormon dogma?

You have been brainwashed and are ignorant of scientific reality. Heck of reality in any form.

I can see why Scientologist believe the words of some science fiction author with all the bible literalist around.

Your arguments actually detract from the words of Jesus. He preached love and understanding. How can one follow such a philosophy with many of it's proponents such deluded fools?