How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Hard_Rom]

Thanks!

Sorry! Forgot the sarcastic eye rolling emotie.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I read something about the Westboreans once: They believe in predestination. Therefore (and despite whatever Jesus might have said to the contrary), they have no duty to spread the Gospel and save souls, there's no point, every soul already is inalterably saved or damned; but it is their duty to shame sinners.

Hey, you know what the Westboreans need to do? Picket a Hell's Angels funeral! Now those are some wretched sinners, those HAs! Always drinking, fighting, drugging, fighting, fornicating, committing violent acts . . . their very name is a blasphemy! And their rides are so damned noisy and annoying! They need shaming! And what better time than when they're all gathered together to mourn a dead friend?! Com'n, guys! Step up! The Lord wants you to! Fred calls down from Heaven, "Shame those biker-scum*urk*" [Biker Saint drags Fred away for gentle moral admonition and a few compound fractures]

 

[KingOrfeo]

Much of the belief system of evolution is NOT supported by the actual evidence.

Actually, it is, and there's a lot of evidence for it and none whatsoever against it.

It's theory.

Only in the sense that Newton's Law of Gravity is a theory. (Einstein's general relativity superseded it, but that does not make it wrong; as my HS physics teacher put it, "Newton's physics is a good approximation of reality, and Einstein's is a better approximation.") A new proposition in science is at first a "hypothesis"; after data have been found in support of it, and papers have been published about it in peer-reviewed journals, and those papers critiqued by colleagues in the field, and more data in support are found and more papers published and so on, eventually it becomes accepted as the most thoroughly proven kind of proposition there is in science: a "theory".

 

[phrodeau]

Theory is the key word. It's a religion. Much of the belief system of evolution is NOT supported by the actual evidence. It's theory. Creationism is based on the same evidence that evolution is based upon, it's just that creationists draw different conclusions based upon that same evidence.

So where is the evidence of Genesis 1 and 2? It isn't in your link.

How about the evidence for the creation story in Job chapter 38? Or Psalm 104? How about reconciling the different accounts where they don't agree?

 

[Hard_Rom]

So where is the evidence of Genesis 1 and 2? It isn't in your link.

How about the evidence for the creation story in Job chapter 38? Or Psalm 104? How about reconciling the different accounts where they don't agree?

baggins is just going to say the bible is all the evidence needed, as it is the word of god. circular logic

 

[Tryharder62]

So where is the evidence of Genesis 1 and 2? It isn't in your link.

How about the evidence for the creation story in Job chapter 38? Or Psalm 104? How about reconciling the different accounts where they don't agree?

Just a thought on Genesis:
I think you have to look at the purpose for the writings. Genesis one is the chronological order of events(land animals created before Adam). Genesis two gives more detail. It isn't dealing with order of events and simply tells that land animals were brought to Adam to be named. That doesn't mean that Adam was created first. It is just that animals that had been created were brought to Adam to be named.

 

[Super-Surprise]

http://www.nude-in-public.cc/promo/girls/angelica1/tgpangelica193.jpg

 

[Hard_Rom]

Think this guy is going on iggy for irrelevance and intrusive. aka Trollism

 

[Tryharder62]

Think this guy is going on iggy for irrelevance and intrusive. aka Trollism

I know what he posts is not in my bible!

 

[Hard_Rom]

I know what he posts is not in my bible!

If you're an Old Testament type they got all sorts of kinky stuff in there. Hand maidens, brother's wives, I think some polygamy maybe and a dose of incest. There's every chance Jesus had an ex-prostitute for a gf.

Wonder if there are any biblical based erotic stories on Lit?

 

[KingOrfeo]

If you're an Old Testament type they got all sorts of kinky stuff in there. Hand maidens, brother's wives, I think some polygamy maybe and a dose of incest. There's every chance Jesus had an ex-prostitute for a gf.

And what's up with the Beloved Disciple? This is Jesus, he loves everybody -- why single out one disciple as "a disciple whom Jesus loved" unless they had a special relationship, wink-wink, nudge-nudge?

And then there's "Suffer the little children to come unto me."
[Jesus lies back on couch, crooks finger, waggles tongue, rubs crotch, turns pitcher of wine on end table into Kool-Aid]
[KingOrfeo goes to Hell just for typing this]

"Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me."

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

baggins is just going to say the bible is all the evidence needed, as it is the word of god. circular logic

Evidence For Creationism:


http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

 

[Tryharder62]

And what's up with the Beloved Disciple? This is Jesus, he loves everybody -- why single out one disciple as "a disciple whom Jesus loved" unless they had a special relationship, wink-wink, nudge-nudge?

And then there's "Suffer the little children to come unto me."
[Jesus lies back on couch, crooks finger, waggles tongue, rubs crotch, turns pitcher of wine on end table into Kool-Aid]
[KingOrfeo goes to Hell just for typing this]

"Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me."

Yikes!!! That gave me a headache!

https://cdn.petcarerx.com/LPPE/images/articlethumbs/Sick-Puppy-Large.jpg

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Evidence For Creationism:


http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

The bullshit so-called "Big Bang" theory is your best tactic for this line of reasoning. Not someone that starts with the viability of the Ark.

 

[phrodeau]

Evidence For Creationism:


http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

Walt Brown makes a good living hawking his book to people desperate to cling to young earth creationism. Sadly, his ideas are not supported by evidence.

Even though local sorting can occur, on global scale neither sediments nor fossils are sorted by size, shape, and density. If they were, we would see large heavy boulders concentrated at the bottom of the geologic column, and the particle size and densities getting smaller toward the top of the column, which is not what we find. Instead we find sediments of many different sizes, shapes, and densities occur in every geologic period. That's because, as demonstrated by many lines of evidence, they were not produced from a single global Flood, but under different conditions over extended periods of time. If Brown's apparatus results and assertions really matched the fossil record, we should find, for example, large modern mammals (rhinos, hippos, cattle, horses, etc) sorted with medium and small sized dinosaurs, whales and dolphins deposited with mososaurs and ichthyosaurs, many modern bony fish preserved with ancient placoderms and jawless fish, and many modern aquatic arthropods (crabs, lobsters, etc) sorted with ancient arthropods like trilobites and eurypterids. None of these combinations are ever found.

http://paleo.cc/ce/wbrown.htm

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

Walt Brown makes a good living hawking his book to people desperate to cling to young earth creationism. Sadly, his ideas are not supported by evidence.



http://paleo.cc/ce/wbrown.htm

Yes they are supported by the actual evidence. You obviously didn't read any of it.

 

[phrodeau]

Yes they are supported by the actual evidence. You obviously didn't read any of it.

I did read enough to tell me that he is full of shit.

There is no evidence backing his assertions. He does not publish in scientific journals. His theories are hare-brained.

Pick one, and I'll tell you exactly what's wrong with it.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Creationism is a fallacy. There are legitimate arguments for the existence of God. And enough accounts to conclude Jesus was a real person. But creationism is completely made up based on a few verses in Genesis. When thumpers start talking creationism they put themselves in the same class of religion as Scientology and Mormonism.

 

[phrodeau]

Walt Brown is even refuted by other young-earth creationists.

http://creation.com/hydroplate-theory

 

[rocket_surgery]

Creationism is a fallacy. There are legitimate arguments for the existence of God. And enough accounts to conclude Jesus was a real person. But creationism is completely made up based on a few verses in Genesis. When thumpers start talking creationism they put themselves in the same class of religion as Scientology and Mormonism.

Most young earth creationists think the way they do because it's their belief that every word of the Bible is true in the literal sense. Usually comes from whatever church they belong to. No matter what you say to them the answer is always "But the Bible says..."
It's frustrating but pointless to argue about. It's also frustrating when all creationists are lumped in with them. Anyone who believes in God is a creationists but most don't believe Genesis should be taken literally.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

I did read enough to tell me that he is full of shit.

There is no evidence backing his assertions. He does not publish in scientific journals. His theories are hare-brained.

Pick one, and I'll tell you exactly what's wrong with it.

It's ALL based on the actual evidence. Just because you don't like his conclusions doesn't mean that you can discount the evidence. It's the same evidence as the evolutionists use, it's just a different conclusion.

 

[xfrodobagginsx]

The bull&&%t so-called "Big Bang" theory is your best tactic for this line of reasoning. Not someone that starts with the viability of the Ark.

He gives evidence for everything. He explains his line of reasoning for everything he is teaching.

 

[Hard_Rom]

He gives evidence for everything. He explains his line of reasoning for everything he is teaching.

So does NAMBL!

 

[KingOrfeo]

So does NAMBL!

Speaking of which . . .

 

[phrodeau]

It's ALL based on the actual evidence. Just because you don't like his conclusions doesn't mean that you can discount the evidence. It's the same evidence as the evolutionists use, it's just a different conclusion.

Show us that evidence. Show us where cow and horse fossils are found in the same strata with apatosaurus and triceratops fossils.