How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[numberguy12]

The only one who is blind around here is you. It's not just tradition that tells you these things, it's the Scholars and the Historians who know 100x more than you do, yet you arrogantly act like you know what you are talking about. Historians ARE the ones who researched this stuff. Right! Why don't you believe them?

Sorry, as usual, you are incorrect about this point. The consensus from modern scholarship seems to be that not much at all can be known about the "John" that composed Revelation. And this is a rightful stance. If you put thought into it, there is certainly no direct evidence that "John the Apostle" composed this book. The author of Revelation, like the author of the gospels, is unknown (the latter of course, are even unsigned....but I wouldn't be surprised if you will once again blindly follow tradition and say these authors are known...against the stance of modern scholarship).

It's a waste of time. The person I'm talking to thinks the earth is less than 10,000 years old. No amount of reason, or clear points will get through to these types.

[Paddington]

Sorry, as usual, you are incorrect about this point. The consensus from modern scholarship seems to be that not much at all can be known about the "John" that composed Revelation. And this is a rightful stance. If you put thought into it, there is certainly no direct evidence that "John the Apostle" composed this book. The author of Revelation, like the author of the gospels, is unknown (the latter of course, are even unsigned....but I wouldn't be surprised if you will once again blindly follow tradition and say these authors are known...against the stance of modern scholarship).

It's a waste of time. The person I'm talking to thinks the earth is less than 10,000 years old. No amount of reason, or clear points will get through to these types.

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. The majority of Bible Scholars agree with me, not you. You are getting your info from Liberal idiots who don't believe the truth even when it's shoved in their faces because they have an agenda to disprove the Bible.

[Mr Beer]

""The earliest version to survive in the Bible is Mark's Gospel. It was probably written between AD 75 and 85" - Paddington's source.

Two seconds later, Paddington argues with it.

[numberguy12]

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. The majority of Bible Scholars agree with me, not you. You are getting your info from Liberal idiots who don't believe the truth even when it's shoved in their faces because they have an agenda to disprove the Bible.

Hint: simply saying things doesn't make them true. A reminder of this fact:

-Elephants are smaller than ants.
-16 is a prime number.

You are saying the majority of Bible scholars agree with you. This is not substantiated. In terms of critically evaluating the evidence in front of us, we would have no way of knowing Revelation was written by "John the Apostle". From the text itself, we have it was written by simply by a John from Patmos (even this not need to be true, but that's besides the point). Scholars consider the book of Revelation to be authored by a different author than the gospel of John, because of its vastly different usage and style of the Greek.

You talk about people not believing in the truth even when it's shoved in their face, and yet you staunchly stand by the false notion that earth is less than 10,000 years old, despite mountains of evidence thrown at you saying otherwise. People don't find your fundamentalist nonsense convincing whatsoever: they have the capacity to think for themselves and see through the babble. Threads like this just expose how ridiculous your stance is on scientific matters like the age of the earth. That's all this thread is really doing- putting the nonsense on fully display.

[Paddington]

""The earliest version to survive in the Bible is Mark's Gospel. It was probably written between AD 75 and 85" - Paddington's source.

Two seconds later, Paddington argues with it.

That's not true. I never argued with that.

[LuckyAH]

Imagine being the child of someone stupid enough to believe the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old. You would be so disappointed and ashamed of your father once you were old enough to know better (approx. 10 yrs old).

[Paddington]

Imagine being the child of someone stupid enough to believe the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old. You would be so disappointed and ashamed of your father once you were old enough to know better (approx. 10 yrs old).

Scientists admit: Snakes once had legs as Genesis says

https://www.wnd.com/2019/11/scientis...-genesis-says/

[Mr Beer]

That's not true. I never argued with that.

Concession accepted.

[PlanoLifter]

Scientists admit: Snakes once had legs as Genesis says

https://www.wnd.com/2019/11/scientis...-genesis-says/

Scientists have changed their mind it seems - there is no story on that page

[Mr Beer]

https://www.wnd.com/2019/11/scientis...-genesis-says/

Not found, error 404
The page you are looking for no longer exists. Perhaps you can return back to the site's homepage and see if you can find what you are looking for. Or, you can try finding it with the information below.

Could always try for a non-silly article, one talking about how some primeval snakes had hindlimbs. 70 million years ago. And then snakes evolved away from hindlimbs.

But yeah that sounds exactly like what the Bible said about snakes.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeonto...nakes-had-legs

[LatinoWarrior2]

I’ve moved from atheist to baptist and attend church regularly. A lot of truth has been preached over the last year or so

[pantanovera]

In my opinion, we can get to heaven, when we help people in need with kindness and love

[numberguy12]

Scientists admit: Snakes once had legs as Genesis says

https://www.wnd.com/2019/11/scientis...-genesis-says/

Lol!

Here is the study in question:

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/11/eaax5833

You really want to stand by this study Paddington? Cool. Might want to actually read it though, it's literally chock-full of evolutionary terminology. It's an analysis of some fossil specimens of Najash, the extinct genus of snake, and insights they yield into its phylogenetic position. These fossil specimens are on the order of 90 million years old. From the study, discussing the location of the fossils:

These deposits underlie the Huincul Formation, dated by fission track analysis of a volcanic tuff unit at about 88 Ma

88 Ma standing for 88 million years ago. I'm lol'ing bc of the conservative Christian news site 404ing this article now. Hmmmm.....makes me wonder why this would be the case.

It is commonplace that ancestors of snakes had more developed hindlimbs (besides lots of fossil evidence, pythons and boas have hindlimb vestiges to this day, and snakes in general have the genetic machinery for limb growth, it's just not turned on). This all supports snakes from the distant past having hind limbs, and further, an evolution of snakes from earlier lizards. No, the Genesis story of a sudden loss of limbs is not accurate, this was a process over millions of years.

In Genesis 3, God not only curses the serpent to crawl on its belly, but also curses the serpent to only "eat dust" all the days of its life. Why, then, do snakes not eat only dust? Snakes are carnivorous and eat all kinds of animals: lizards, birds, insects, small mammals....heck some are known to eat antelope and deer (they of course swallow their prey whole, pretty remarkable to observe). Looks like that curse didn't quite end up working out. It's also strange that we don't observe snakes literally talking to humans....ever. It boggles the mind how some don't realize this is a poetic figurative story.....none of this has any basis in reality.

Even if this was in agreement with the story of Genesis (it's not at all), note that it still wouldn't be a sign that Genesis is true. Here's an example: in Star Wars, Luke lives on the desert planet of Tatooine, in a binary star system- He looks up into the sky at sunset and observes two suns. This is like saying that since binary star systems are actually a real thing in our universe....then Star Wars must be real (lol). I.e., since the ancestors of snakes really did have pronounced hindlegs, then Genesis must be true in some sense.*

*EDIT: This analogy is not perfect, so I will make another. The reason it's not perfect is because binary star systems were well known in astronomy long before Lucas wrote Star Wars (so he could have been merely basing his idea to use the binary system for Tatooine on known science)....whereas the genesis creation story preceded modern scientific understanding of the evolutionary history of snakes and their hindlimbs (unless the ancient Hebrews somehow knew about the hindlimb vestiges, which I guess is possible, idk). So here is a different analogy from Star Wars. We don't currently know of any moons of planets elsewhere in the universe being forest moons. Say that in year 2300, somehow astronomers find that a planet orbiting star #7,434 in our milky way galaxy has a moon that is basically all forest (don't ask me how they'd figure this out, take it as an assumption). It's like saying, well some planets really do have forest moons, thus Star Wars was onto something with its depiction of the sanctuary moon of Endor (which is a forest moon in film ROTJ), and therefore Star Wars is true! Yay!

tl;dr: this study has zero implications regarding the story of genesis. (unless you mean evidence against it, since it details evolutionary changes that took place over millions of years).

EDIT: the article is not 404'd, Paddington is just mislinking the article with a bad (shortened) URL.

[Paddington]

Concession accepted.

Mark isn't the earliest book written after Christ's resurrection. But it was still written by an Eyewitness to the events.

[numberguy12]

Mark isn't the earliest book written after Christ's resurrection. But it was still written by an Eyewitness to the events.

Your last post was about the snakes having legs thing. Slightly confused, do you acknowledge the study, or do you not? Because those fossils were dated around 90 million years ago.

[Paddington]

Your last post was about the snakes having legs thing. Slightly confused, do you acknowledge the study, or do you not? Because those fossils were dated around 90 million years ago.

I don't asknowelge that the fossils are 90 million years old. I acknowledge that the fossils show that the snakes had legs 6000 years ago when God judged them. How would the writer of the Bible know that snakes had legs if these snakes with legs lived 90 million years ago and man didn't come on the scene until supposedly 100,000 years ago? Evolution is not true.

[numberguy12]

I don't asknowelge that the fossils are 90 million years old. I acknowledge that the fossils show that the snakes had legs 6000 years ago when God judged them. How would the writer of the Bible know that snakes had legs if these snakes with legs lived 90 million years ago and man didn't come on the scene until supposedly 100,000 years ago? Evolution is not true.

The location in which the fossils were found was literally dated to 90ish Mya. You are now choosing to ignore facts from that study. Also, if you bother to actually read the article, it is written completely in the garb of evolutionary science. Lol at the alt-right news site 404ing the article (hmm wonder why).

You are living in a fantasy la-la land denying basic science, including the age of the earth and the scientific fact of evolution, including descent from a common ancestor. Your viewpoint is outdated by a least a hundred years, and if your false ideas concerning natural history were still taught, we'd be on our way back to the dark ages. Luckily, they are no longer taught in the classroom, and your side has been out of favor and relegated to the pseudoscientific dustbin of history. The fundamentalists have lost and their positions are old news. Sorry, the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, you are off by 5 entire orders of magnitude. Just lol.

[wincel]

I'd still like to see the following reconciled by religious people:
-free will in the sense your actions are not even approximately predetermined
-prayer with God reacting to your "chosen" actions in "the present" to change your future
-relativity of simultaneity making any global notion of "present" ill defined
The core issue of this is the idea that God acts along a timeline in this universe. This basically can't happen because there is no notion of present globally. God somehow must view the universe externally, unchanging in 4d. This then means that any autonomy you have would show up as making the 4d object unknown. At least, that's my thinking. If someone has a way around this, I'd like to hear it. It doesn't really make sense for God to be able to "hear your prayer" and reactively answer by then changing your future. That means that in the creation of the universe, God already knew what you would pray for and put the changes in to make it consistent at the start. But then how do you really have any autonomy or make choices? It just doesn't seem to click together. I have never seen any religious physicist properly answer this to me. I've even asked a PhD in physics from Princeton about it, and he basically was like "yea but why ruin something great for people to believe?" lmao which means he really doesn't believe, he just chooses to pretend to believe to be in a community...

[Mr Beer]

^^

Yeah it's very difficult to conceive of an active intercessionary god unless he's some kind of cosmic dickbag playing games with his pet ant colony.

[Paddington]

The location in which the fossils were found was literally dated to 90ish Mya. You are now choosing to ignore facts from that study. Also, if you bother to actually read the article, it is written completely in the garb of evolutionary science. Lol at the alt-right news site 404ing the article (hmm wonder why).

You are living in a fantasy la-la land denying basic science, including the age of the earth and the scientific fact of evolution, including descent from a common ancestor. Your viewpoint is outdated by a least a hundred years, and if your false ideas concerning natural history were still taught, we'd be on our way back to the dark ages. Luckily, they are no longer taught in the classroom, and your side has been out of favor and relegated to the pseudoscientific dustbin of history. The fundamentalists have lost and their positions are old news. Sorry, the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, you are off by 5 entire orders of magnitude. Just lol.

The dating isn't fact, it's opinion of the evolutionist. A creationist would look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion about the date. You are confusing fact from opinion. I am not the one living in a fantasy world, you are.

[numberguy12]

The dating isn't fact, it's opinion of the evolutionist. A creationist would look at the same evidence and draw a different conclusion about the date. You are confusing fact from opinion. I am not the one living in a fantasy world, you are.

It is like you are posting from the dark ages. No one cares what someone utterly oblivious to the science thinks about any of this, sorry.

[IawI]

Atheists be like duhhh we live in a simulation duhh multiple universes duhh i am monkey

they think that is more plausible than Jesus Christ LMFAO give me a fking break you Reddit homos are going to burn in hell because of your intellectual narcissism

[Smob3]

Atheists be like duhhh we live in a simulation duhh multiple universes duhh i am monkey

they think that is more plausible than Jesus Christ LMFAO give me a fking break you Reddit homos are going to burn in hell because of your intellectual narcissism

How Christian of you.

[IawI]

How Christian of you.

Sorry you can’t understand righteous Christian anger retard

[Mr Beer]

red red red

...ok

[Paddington]

It is like you are posting from the dark ages. No one cares what someone utterly oblivious to the science thinks about any of this, sorry.

False. What you believe is Scientifically false, but you aren't interested in seeking the truth and it's obvious to me.

[numberguy12]

False. What you believe is Scientifically false, but you aren't interested in seeking the truth and it's obvious to me.

The age of the earth being way older than 10,000 years is scientifically false? Lol nope.

-Scientifically tested over and over again with extremely well-established methods (radiometric dating is a part of science).
-Confirmed by all kinds of independent evidence from various other scientific fields such as astronomy.
-The scientific consensus is overwhelming for the old earth (and by overwhelming, I mean essentially all the scientists in the relevant fields).

Do you even understand what science is? You are taking your false notion of the earth being 6,000ish years old from a document. This is not science, it is religion.

To show how ridiculous your misunderstanding of any of this is, consider the follow artifacts from ancient Sumer (ancient Mesopotamia) and various pre-historic cave paintings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period (7th to 4th millennium BC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting (many thousands of years ago)

According to your nonsense, which I presume has the earth and universe around 6,000 years old or so (4,000 BC), the universe was created after some of those random pieces of pottery and statues in some random region in the middle east on earth. The universe was created long after all kinds of various cave paintings were made around the world in places like Spain, France, and Indonesia.

You just cant make this up. None of this is going into the vast record of fossils from biology from eons and eons before any of this. Much less astronomical observations indicating an approximate 14 billion year old universe. Nope, Paddington wants to believe the universe is younger than some random pots and artifacts created by primitive humans.

Sorry, the science says you are wrong. Again, you are posting as if you are from the literal dark ages (but strangely enjoying the fruits of modern science in actually making your post, I see). Do we revolve around the sun on earth?

[Paddington]

The age of the earth being way older than 10,000 years is scientifically false? Lol nope.

-Scientifically tested over and over again with extremely well-established methods (radiometric dating is a part of science).
-Confirmed by all kinds of independent evidence from various other scientific fields such as astronomy.
-The scientific consensus is overwhelming for the old earth (and by overwhelming, I mean essentially all the scientists in the relevant fields).

Do you even understand what science is? You are taking your false notion of the earth being 6,000ish years old from a document. This is not science, it is religion.

To show how ridiculous your misunderstanding of any of this is, consider the follow artifacts from ancient Sumer (ancient Mesopotamia) and various pre-historic cave paintings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period (7th to 4th millennium BC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting (many thousands of years ago)

According to your nonsense, which I presume has the earth and universe around 6,000 years old or so (4,000 BC), the universe was created after some of those random pieces of pottery and statues in some random region in the middle east on earth. The universe was created long after all kinds of various cave paintings were made around the world in places like Spain, France, and Indonesia.

You just cant make this up. None of this is going into the vast record of fossils from biology from eons and eons before any of this. Much less astronomical observations indicating an approximate 14 billion year old universe. Nope, Paddington wants to believe the universe is younger than some random pots and artifacts created by primitive humans.

Sorry, the science says you are wrong. Again, you are posting as if you are from the literal dark ages (but strangely enjoying the fruits of modern science in actually making your post, I see). Do we revolve around the sun on earth?

Yes the age of the earth is not over 6,000 years and science confirms it. Radio Metric dating is not reliable it has been demonstrated over and over again. Astronomy confirms a young earth. Do you even understand that two people can look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions? It's too bad that evolutionists continuously draw the wrong conclusions to fit their false theory. Science says that YOU are wrong and there is a long list of evidence to back ME up, NOT you.

[numberguy12]

Yes the age of the earth is not over 6,000 years and science confirms it. Radio Metric dating is not reliable it has been demonstrated over and over again. Astronomy confirms a young earth. Do you even understand that two people can look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions? It's too bad that evolutionists continuously draw the wrong conclusions to fit their false theory. Science says that YOU are wrong and there is a long list of evidence to back ME up, NOT you.

Uneducated nonsense on full display here.

A reminder that simply saying things does not make it true.

-An African bull elephant is smaller than an ant.
-12 > 47

Simply saying that science backs your position does not make it true. As discussed over multiple pages in this thread, the science says the earth is old: there is vast evidence indicating the earth [and universe] is very old. You are claiming science backs your position with literally zero evidence to support this claim. You claim that astronomy backs a young earth with literally zero evidence to support this claim. No one cares what someone oblivious to basic scientific concepts thinks about any of this btw.

It is hilarious you are using the term "evolutionists".....I mean we are talking about the old age of the earth, which is an objective fact from geology, but you of course are lumping everything you disagree with into the term "evolutionist", like a true bible-belt oriented fundamentalist creationist. This thread never disappoints.

also you didnt respond.....do you think the earth revolves around the sun? Still trying to figure out which century you are posting from, in terms of your perspective.

[Paddington]

Uneducated nonsense on full display here.

A reminder that simply saying things does not make it true.

-An African bull elephant is smaller than an ant.
-12 > 47

Simply saying that science backs your position does not make it true. As discussed over multiple pages in this thread, the science says the earth is old: there is vast evidence indicating the earth [and universe] is very old. You are claiming science backs your position with literally zero evidence to support this claim. You claim that astronomy backs a young earth with literally zero evidence to support this claim. No one cares what someone oblivious to basic scientific concepts thinks about any of this btw.

It is hilarious you are using the term "evolutionists".....I mean we are talking about the old age of the earth, which is an objective fact from geology, but you of course are lumping everything you disagree with into the term "evolutionist", like a true bible-belt oriented fundamentalist creationist. This thread never disappoints.

also you didnt respond.....do you think the earth revolves around the sun? Still trying to figure out which century you are posting from, in terms of your perspective.

You are the one who is uneducated. You obvioiusly never looked that the other side of the issue because you believe everything you hear from these evolutionists without questioning any of it. It's pretty sad really. I learned all of the evolution stuff in School and I know that they are dead wrong.

I never said the earth didn't revolve around the sun. That's your straw man argument because you can't win on the facts.