How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[wincel]

[BrosefMengele]

Did you really need to make another thread???

[Paddington]

How does it feel living in la-la land?

The Bible of course littered with blatant contradictions in almost every book. Also, why is this a separate thread than the other one.....same title, separated by like 2 threads on the first page. In that one, you responded that there is "tons of evidence" for God....while listing literally zero. The problem is there just isn't evidence (I mean you would think the point would be faith anyway). You are also denying basic science, and a tip: That will always be a losing battle. You simply can't argue things like the earth is 10,000 years old. You are being brainwashed.

I always think these threads are funny, because the first thing that comes to mind is how someone in an uncontacted tribe would be affected....or, say, a Native American from 600 AD. Lol, zero chance to accept Jesus....zero chance to get into heaven....zero benevolence from God.

It's not la la land, it's true land. You should try it. Basic science is on the side of the Creationists and Christians NOT evolutionists. It's just that when that is all you are fed since birth, you don't know any better. Research the creation evidence and it will show you the stuff that the evolutionists won't.

[Brozef]

How does it feel living in la-la land?

The Bible of course littered with blatant contradictions in almost every book. Also, why is this a separate thread than the other one.....same title, separated by like 2 threads on the first page. In that one, you responded that there is "tons of evidence" for God....while listing literally zero. The problem is there just isn't evidence (I mean you would think the point would be faith anyway). You are also denying basic science, and a tip: That will always be a losing battle. You simply can't argue things like the earth is 10,000 years old. You are being brainwashed.

I always think these threads are funny, because the first thing that comes to mind is how someone in an uncontacted tribe would be affected....or, say, a Native American from 600 AD. Lol, zero chance to accept Jesus....zero chance to get into heaven....zero benevolence from God.

Because when a human wants something to be true SO BADLY logic goes out the wiindow.
But I'm sure you already knew that.

[numberguy12]

It's not la la land, it's true land. You should try it. Basic science is on the side of the Creationists and Christians NOT evolutionists. It's just that when that is all you are fed since birth, you don't know any better. Research the creation evidence and it will show you the stuff that the evolutionists won't.

Sorry, it's not. Sciencists don't hold that the earth is <10,000 years old, and the vast, vast majority of scientists that are actively publishing in a biology/paleontology related field hold that evolution is real and has occurred. In fact, evolution is essentially the common thread tying the entire subject of modern biology together. You are being brainwashed by non-scientific garbage apologetic sites.

[numberguy12]

Lmao.

If the literal creationists on this board were actually interested in the origins of man and his place in the universe, Sagan's well written, accessible books on these subjects are a great way to get started (not that they will, or care about actual science).

Most people know about Cosmos, but other outstanding books by him on particular topics:

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (with Ann Druyan): The history of life on earth and the evolutionary origins of man.

Pale Blue Dot: The earth's position in the universe, the solar system around us, and our future in space.

Demon Haunted World (Science as a Candle in the Dark): An overview of skepticism, the triumph of science over mysticism and cultist beliefs, and good explanation of why "extraordinary claims should require extraordinary evidence".

[Paddington]

Sorry, it's not. Sciencists don't hold that the earth is <10,000 years old, and the vast, vast majority of scientists that are actively publishing in a biology/paleontology related field hold that evolution is real and has occurred. In fact, evolution is essentially the common thread tying the entire subject of modern biology together. You are being brainwashed by non-scientific garbage apologetic sites.

Sorry, yes it is. The evidence supports the Biblical model, not the evolutionary one. Evolution is only taught in Schools because of Liberal judges and the Separation of Church and State lie. It's all based on lies. Creation Scientists findings aren't published because it contradicts what they want people to believe. You have been brainwashed and you don't know it. You think it's me. Everything I hear or am taught by Cretaionists is scientific.

[numberguy12]

Sorry, yes it is. The evidence supports the Biblical model, not the evolutionary one. Evolution is only taught in Schools because of Liberal judges and the Separation of Church and State lie. It's all based on lies. Creation Scientists findings aren't published because it contradicts what they want people to believe. You have been brainwashed and you don't know it. You think it's me. Everything I hear or am taught by Cretaionists is scientific.

You clearly have almost no exposure to formal education in the sciences- and have demonstrated again and again how little you understand about the subject..........so why should anyone listen to your brainwashed ramblings over the myriad of phd trained scientists who literally devote most of their lives to studying science and producing new research in the relevant fields?

Are you that blind to what science is that you dont even understand which of the following is science?

1. Simply use a book to deduce all the relevant truths about the world and how it was created (religious creationism)

2. Actually observe the world around you, conduct experiments, and use the relevant data and evidence to construct new theories that make successful predictions.

Do you really think that simply consulting a book is science? Do you even know what science is? "Creation Scientist" is an absurd term lol. The mere fact that we have obvious evidence that the earth is > 4 billion years old immediately relegates any creationist to the realm of quackery. You are being misled.

[numberguy12]

If you are interested in how we actually came to be in terms of our species, modern biology and evolution is where to turn to, not some religious text from 2,500 years ago.

It's amazing how the beaks of some little dull-colored birds in the Galapagos have revealed more about our origins than all the religious texts from the past combined.



(these birds Darwin observed- "Darwin Finches"- are not technically what modern definition calls a finch, but of the tanager family). Also, the different mockingbird species found in the Galapagos archipelago were crucial to influencing Darwin's ideas. If you want to gain insights about nature (and where we came from), you have to observe.........nature. Not some man-made text. Go back and review what science is.

[BredRoller]

Negged on principal that you keep spreading this bs. Especially that part about "basic science agreeing with creationism". You're delusional.

Did you really need to make another thread???

LMAO Even this guy is tired of your chit m8

You clearly have almost no exposure to formal education in the sciences- and have demonstrated again and again how little you understand about the subject..........so why should anyone listen to your brainwashed ramblings over the myriad of phd trained scientists who literally devote most of their lives to studying science and producing new research in the relevant fields?

Are you that blind to what science is that you dont even understand which of the following is science?

1. Simply use a book to deduce all the relevant truths about the world and how it was created (religious creationism)

2. Actually observe the world around you, conduct experiments, and use the relevant data and evidence to construct new theories that make successful predictions.

Do you really think that simply consulting a book is science? Do you even know what science is? "Creation Scientist" is an absurd term lol. The mere fact that we have obvious evidence that the earth is > 4 billion years old immediately relegates any creationist to the realm of quackery. You are being misled.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to numberguy12 again.

[Paddington]

If you are interested in how we actually came to be in terms of our species, modern biology and evolution is where to turn to, not some religious text from 2,500 years ago.

It's amazing how the beaks of some little dull-colored birds in the Galapagos have revealed more about our origins than all the religious texts from the past combined.



(these birds Darwin observed- "Darwin Finches"- are not technically what modern definition calls a finch, but of the tanager family). Also, the different mockingbird species found in the Galapagos archipelago were crucial to influencing Darwin's ideas. If you want to gain insights about nature (and where we came from), you have to observe.........nature. Not some man-made text. Go back and review what science is.

I just laugh at you because I already explained this to you. You are using examples of EXACTLY what I said. There are variations "Within the species" but they always remain Finches. I took evolution in College and I remember this feeble example that they gave based on these little birds that remained finches. Creationists don't doubt that there are variations within a kind. It's call Lateral Adaptation and is a form of Micro Evolution (Within the Species). In no way does it prove macro (Darwinian) Evolution where one kind of animal evolves into another. There is no half breed between a finch and a lizard per se. There are different types of finches and no one doubts that. So I suggest that you go back and read what I wrote before you posted this ridiculous example.

[numberguy12]

I just laugh at you because I already explained this to you. You are using examples of EXACTLY what I said. There are variations "Within the species" but they always remain Finches. I took evolution in College and I remember this feeble example that they gave based on these little birds that remained finches. Creationists don't doubt that there are variations within a kind. It's call Lateral Adaptation and is a form of Micro Evolution (Within the Species). In no way does it prove macro (Darwinian) Evolution where one kind of animal evolves into another. There is no half breed between a finch and a lizard per se. There are different types of finches and no one doubts that. So I suggest that you go back and read what I wrote before you posted this ridiculous example.

"Finch" isnt a species, smh. Again demonstrating literally zero knowledge of biology, hardly surprised. Evolution by natural selection is the obvious takeaway from the different species of birds mentioned above. You keep asking for transitional fossils, and I already linked a huge list of them, that you are of course unable to comprehend. One example being Archaeopteryx. Fossils are exceedingly rare, so it's quite surprising we even have this huge list of transitional fossils.....but we do.

Beyond this, we have vast molecular evidence that all life on earth is closely linked. Just look at molecular similarity between organisms. Look at the similar components of a eukaryotic cell, whether you are looking at a horse or a dog.....or sunflower. DNA has the same form- the same type of macromolecule- regardless of which of the above we are talking about. Human DNA, actually, is only about 1% different from a chimpanzee in single nucleotide substitutions. Genetically....we see gene divergence at a minimum for human-chimpanzee, then slightly greater divergence for human-gorilla, then even slightly more for human-orangutan (exactly what we expected based on what we know about macro human evolution, and our closer connection to the African apes). The genetic studies confirm exactly what we already knew: that humans and chimpanzees share a relatively recent common ancestor.

Lol why am I already a skeptic regarding you taking college course titled "evolution". Please go back and reread post #38. No one cares what you think regarding any of this if you are just ripping off nonsense from garbage creationist sites. If people want to know about our true origins, they will read the books and studies put out by people who are trained in biological science, who know >>>>>> you about the subject (and me....my field is mathematics). You dont need to listen to the authority and take their word for it though, just do your own reasearch- the evidence of macro-evolution is vast.

Btw how old is the earth again? Just lol.

[Paddington]

"Finch" isnt a species, smh. Again demonstrating literally zero knowledge of biology, hardly surprised. Evolution by natural selection is the obvious takeaway from the different species of birds mentioned above. You keep asking for transitional fossils, and I already linked a huge list of them, that you are of course unable to comprehend. One example being Archaeopteryx. Fossils are exceedingly rare, so it's quite surprising we even have this huge list of transitional fossils.....but we do.

Beyond this, we have vast molecular evidence that all life on earth is closely linked. Just look at molecular similarity between organisms. Look at the similar components of a eukaryotic cell, whether you are looking at a horse or a dog.....or sunflower. DNA has the same form- the same type of macromolecule- regardless of which of the above we are talking about. Human DNA, actually, is only about 1% different from a chimpanzee in single nucleotide substitutions. Genetically....we see gene divergence at a minimum for human-chimpanzee, then slightly greater divergence for human-gorilla, then even slightly more for human-orangutan (exactly what we expected based on what we know about macro human evolution, and our closer connection to the African apes). The genetic studies confirm exactly what we already knew: that humans and chimpanzees share a relatively recent common ancestor.

Lol why am I already a skeptic regarding you taking college course titled "evolution". Please go back and reread post #38. No one cares what you think regarding any of this if you are just ripping off nonsense from garbage creationist sites. If people want to know about our true origins, they will read the books and studies put out by people who are trained in biological science, who know >>>>>> you about the subject (and me....my field is mathematics). You dont need to listen to the authority and take their word for it though, just do your own reasearch- the evidence of macro-evolution is vast.

Btw how old is the earth again? Just lol.

It's just a variation in the same type of bird. No transition from one kind to another. No proof, just an example of Lateral Adaptation. No one denies that variations happen...HELLO? That's why we have all of the cat breeds, eg. Cheetahs, Lepards, Lions, Tigers, ect. They are STILL cats. Show me one that isn't still 100% cat and no other animal kind. You can't Same with Dogs. You have Wolves, Foxes, German Shephards, Kyotes, but they are ALL still just dogs. No half dog, half cat, or half dog half sheep, ect. They always remain within their kind. You have shown me ZERO transitional fossils. You have only shown examples within their kind. Where is the half breeds of one kind evolving into another?

Yes we have vast evidence that all life is linked because the same God designed them all. We also have vast evidence that all life started at the same time according to DNA evidence. Evolutionists can't explain that one, but Creationists can...He he he.

There is no half human, half gorilla, or half human, half chimp. We have no common ancestor with chimps. How convenient that they have no evidence of this supposed common ancestor. What a joke. It's a lie!

I really don't care if you believe me about my college background. I have been force fed the evolutionary lie all of my life, all through school and College, but I took the time to study the other side. You should too.

[numberguy12]

It's just a variation in the same type of bird. No transition from one kind to another. No proof, just an example of Lateral Adaptation. No one denies that variations happen...HELLO? That's why we have all of the cat breeds, eg. Cheetahs, Lepards, Lions, Tigers, ect. They are STILL cats. Show me one that isn't still 100% cat and no other animal kind. You can't Same with Dogs. You have Wolves, Foxes, German Shephards, Kyotes, but they are ALL still just dogs. No half dog, half cat, or half dog half sheep, ect. They always remain within their kind. You have shown me ZERO transitional fossils. You have only shown examples within their kind. Where is the half breeds of one kind evolving into another?

Yes we have vast evidence that all life is linked because the same God designed them all. We also have vast evidence that all life started at the same time according to DNA evidence. Evolutionists can't explain that one, but Creationists can...He he he.

There is no half human, half gorilla, or half human, half chimp. We have no common ancestor with chimps. How convenient that they have no evidence of this supposed common ancestor. What a joke. It's a lie!

I really don't care if you believe me about my college background. I have been force fed the evolutionary lie all of my life, all through school and College, but I took the time to study the other side. You should too.

Barely worth responding to this scientifically illiterate post, but will focus mostly on the bolded. We have evidence that life on earth is indeed related, but this has nothing to do with God, rather it is evidence of evolution: it points to a last universal common ancestor. It is worth to note, the micro scale of DNA comparison between species conforms exactly to what we suspect on a macro comparative anatomy/fossil history scale regarding evolution. It is not just DNA either, you can do similar analysis with proteins found in various species (cytochrome c- that important hemeprotein found in ETC along the mitochondrion inner membrane in eukaryotic cells across species- is, for example, identical between humans/chimps, but slightly different between humans and more distantly related animals. Exactly what we predict given our closer relationship to the chimps). Speaking of chimps, the other hominids (including chimps) have a haploid number of 24 chromosomes- except humans (we have 23). Amazingly, we have found evidence (in the form of conserved centromeres and telomeres) that our chromosome #2 is literally two fused chromosomes from our early hominid ancestors- the composition of our chromosome #2 is basically the same as what the chimp has across two different chromosomes....just fused. You can't get a clearer picture than this, and what it means regarding evolution.

No, sorry, all life didnt start at the same time (you realize if you are arguing this, you are appearing to the rest of the board as someone who is essentially trying to argue that 2+2=5, and no one will take the rest of your ridiculous claims seriously). No, humans and dinosaurs were not created nor lived at the same time. This would contradict the entire fossil record we have, and certainly no DNA evidence points to anything remotely regarding this (you can attach "because the DNA evidence says so" to anything, doesnt mean anything you are saying is remotely true (Jupiter is smaller than the earth because.......the DNA evidence says so, etc). No, humans and things like cyanobacteria, which preceded us by billions of years, were not created at the same time, lol. You are being brainwashed.

I can tell you already know nothing about the subject because you are looking for half human/half chimp fossils, but this is clearly not how evolution works- there aren't half human/chimps (so much for that college evolution class you "attended", eh?). Humans didnt come from chimps. These are both species extant today that share a last common ancestor (and it's pretty recent relatively, probably 13 mya or so). We didnt come from the chimp, we came from that extinct species. And there have been many different species of human-like ancestors since then, such as Homo erectus (which we have plenty of evidence for), that are not to be confused with our current species Homo sapiens. We came out of africa.

As much as you want to cling to your false description of the world's creation, you just cant argue the vast evidence, sorry. I notice you never answered directly the age of the earth, and I sense the reason for this is because you know that your presumably ridiculous answer to that (<10,000 years old), will expose your entire position immediately for the nonsense it is. We have direct, obvious, evidence that the earth is many magnitudes older than this, about 4.5-4.6 billion years old. Lol at your pseudoscience.


edit sidenote: if you consider for a second just how many species are extinct out of the ones that ever existed (a huge percentage), you will realize that there certainly doesnt appear to be some "plan" with any of this. Take the dinosaur extinction event, which most scientists believe was caused by a comet or asteroid impact some 66 mya. If that object was just in a slightly different orbit (nudged some thousands of km to the side or so), there wouldnt be us here now: there almost certainly wouldnt have been the rise of the mammals, and the dinosaurs could still be king, or something else entirely evolved from them. Just reflect for a second how flukey that is, that a certain object just happened to be in a particular spot, for us to come to be (and the K-Pg event was hardly the only mass extinction event in earth's history, picture how many flukes had to line up going back billions of years). This is no "creation" for the specific purpose of man- we see clearly that man is but a byproduct (and an extremely late byproduct) of a long, at times flukey, path of evolution of life on earth.

[BrosefMengele]

As bad as it is that OP believes in "the triune god", at least he doesn't believe in evolution......

[numberguy12]

As bad as it is that OP believes in "the triune god", at least he doesn't believe in evolution......

Color me surprised, more than one person on the r/p is brainwashed into a cult of pseudoscience and refuses to look at the evidence. Yawn.

[Paddington]

As bad as it is that OP believes in "the triune god", at least he doesn't believe in evolution......

I believe what the Bible actually says about God. That Jesus Christ is the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace, the Mighty God. Why don't you believe this? Explain:

Isaiah 9:6 "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

[BrosefMengele]

Jesus Christ is the everlasting Father

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (NIV)
24 Then the end will come, when he [Jesus] hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Jesus is the everlasting Father? I think not.. Read that carefully.

Your beliefs don't make sense. Jesus isn't the Father...

[Paddington]

1 Corinthians 15:24-28 (NIV)
24 Then the end will come, when he [Jesus] hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Jesus is the everlasting Father? I think not.. Read that carefully.

Your beliefs don't make sense. Jesus isn't the Father...

I LOVE how you completely ignore the verses that prove you wrong and then just post something a bit more convenient for you. The Bible says that Jesus's name would be Wonderful, Counselor, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, The Mighty God.

Do you deny that the Bible says that???

I never said that it had to make sense to us, but God is above our understanding. It's called FAITH. I believe it because that's what the Bible says. I don't just dismiss it because I don't understand. I trust God.

[BrosefMengele]

I LOVE how you completely ignore the verses that prove you wrong and then just post something a bit more convenient for you. The Bible says that Jesus's name would be Wonderful, Counselor, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, The Mighty God.

Do you deny that the Bible says that???

I never said that it had to make sense to us, but God is above our understanding. It's called FAITH. I believe it because that's what the Bible says. I don't just dismiss it because I don't understand. I trust God.

Jesus is not the Father. The Bible doesn't teach that. Even trinitarians don't believe that.

You don't even know the basics of your religion..

[thunderykoala]

Jesus is not the Father. The Bible doesn't teach that. Even trinitarians don't believe that.

You don't even know the basics of your religion..

I'm curious about this one, too, because I've never heard Jesus referred to as the Father. He's been referred to as the image of the father (perhaps that's what the verse means), but the Father and the Son have always been two distinguished persons. But I'm curious how you personally reconcile that verse with your opinion, since the verse seemingly explicitly refers to Jesus as some type of capital F Father in such a way that is reminiscent of God the Father.

[BrosefMengele]

I'm curious about this one, too, because I've never heard Jesus referred to as the Father. He's been referred to as the image of the father (perhaps that's what the verse means), but the Father and the Son have always been two distinguished persons. But I'm curious how you personally reconcile that verse with your opinion, since the verse seemingly explicitly refers to Jesus as some type of capital F Father in such a way that is reminiscent of God the Father.

Could be that Jesus came in His Father's name for His incarnation. That would be my guess. Or the name is merely symbolic.

Anyway, you are right; Christ is the image and glory of God. Not the Father Himself. Only Oneness people believe that. Not trins.

[Paddington]

Jesus is not the Father. The Bible doesn't teach that. Even trinitarians don't believe that.

You don't even know the basics of your religion..

The Father, Son & Spirit are one God. Question: Who created all things?

[wincel]

Satan was the good guy of the bible. Prove me wrong.

[BrosefMengele]

Question: Who created all things?

1 Cor 8:6a
Weymouth New Testament
yet *we* have but one God, the Father, who is the source of all things and for whose service we exist,

[numberguy12]

The Father, Son & Spirit are one God. Question: Who created all things?

Idk, who created the creator of all things, and who created the creator of the creator of all things, etc.

Who created the sunlight that reaches the earth from the sun? Answer: question is nonsensical. "Who" is assuming some sort of intelligent agent as a premise (fallacy), whereas we know it hardly requires an intelligent agent: the sunlight, a form of EM radiation, is due ultimately to fusion reactions occurring in the core of the sun. There is no "who" here.

[Paddington]

Satan was the good guy of the bible. Prove me wrong.

Satan is a liar and decieved Eve and she ate of the forbidden fruit, bringing curse upon her self.

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

[Paddington]

1 Cor 8:6a
Weymouth New Testament
yet *we* have but one God, the Father, who is the source of all things and for whose service we exist,

You have a big issue, now don't you?

Jesus created all things:

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

God created the heaven and the earth:

Genesis 1

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


Jesus Christ IS God.

[BrosefMengele]

You have a big issue, now don't you?

Jesus created all things.

No, He did not.

1 Cor 8:6a
*we* have but one God, the Father, who is the source of all things..

The Father is the Creator God. Not Jesus.

[Paddington]

No, He did not.

1 Cor 8:6a
*we* have but one God, the Father, who is the source of all things..

The Father is the Creator God. Not Jesus.

I see, so you believe 1 Cor 8:6, but you don't believe 1 Corinthians chapter 1 of the same book? I think it's safe to say now that you are picking and choosing which parts of the Bible you like and believing them, and then ignoring the ones that are inconvenient for you because you don't understand them in faith. Wouldn't this be an accurate assessment? Would you kindly explain 1 Corinthians chapter 1 where it plainly says that all things were created by Jesus Christ?