How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[tyson]

Frodo;

When you pray, do you end with "Amen"?

[squealpiggy]

No one is forcing anything down anyone's throat. This discussion has remained in this thread. I haven't gone out of this thread with this topic. The people who have clicked on it chose to click it.

But the thread is titled with a veiled threat.

Basically if the choice that Christians presented was

Heavenly kingdom of God
or
Dead

Then I would wholeheartedly support your right to evangelise. As an atheist I'm already comfortable with the concept of being dead. I was dead before I was alive and it wasn't so bad.

The trouble I have is that Christians aren't happy with that. So they throw in the threat.

God will reward you in heaven for your service. (sounds fair). But if you don't serve him he will PUNISH YOU!.

Now that's bull****.

[xfrodobagginsx]

I end with "In Jesus name amen"

[tyson]

I end with "In Jesus name amen"

"In Jesus name, Amen"

Why would you worship the egyptian sun-god "Amen" in Jesus' name?

[squealpiggy]

Amen is not necessarily related to the egyptian god Amun althought a good explanation could be that the use of the word affected the hebrew language and crept into usage in a different form. Saying "Amen" is not worshipping a god because even if the word was borrowed from Egyptians (and changed in meaning to be "Truth" or similar) it has changed its meaning in the borrowing.

Furthermore suggesting that Jesus is the sun god of the egyptians (and there is some similarity in various myths such as virgin birth, death and ressurection etc) and therefore we say "Amen" because of that is misplaced. The word was in use in the old testament long before there was ever a jesus.

[xfrodobagginsx]

"In Jesus name, Amen"

Why would you worship the egyptian sun-god "Amen" in Jesus' name?

I don't worship any egyptian god. I worship the Lord. Amen simply means "so be it" It is a hebrew word, not an egyptian word. Just because there may be a similar word in egyptian doesn't mean that it's the word I'm using. Nice try though.

Here is what strong's dictionary has to say.

0543. Nma 'amen, aw-mane'
Search for 0543 in KJV

from 539; sure; abstract, faithfulness; adverb, truly:--Amen, so be it, truth.

[squealpiggy]

I don't worship any egyptian god. I worship the Lord. Amen simply means "so be it" It is a hebrew word, not an egyptian word. Just because there may be a similar word in egyptian doesn't mean that it's the word I'm using. Nice try though.

Here is what strong's dictionary has to say.

0543. Nma 'amen, aw-mane'
Search for 0543 in KJV

from 539; sure; abstract, faithfulness; adverb, truly:--Amen, so be it, truth.

Or maybe it is a corruption of "Ramen", a delicious noodle.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Evolution isn't possible unless there is an increase in DNA. There isn't a single shred of evidence that this has ever occured. Micro-evolution is a reshuffling of dna within a species. Creationists and Christians admit this happens, but we don't believe in Macro-evolution which is an increase of dna, where one species evolves into another one. This has NEVER happend. That's darwinian evolution and it's simply false. Even darwin became a Christian on his deathbed.

RICHARD DAWKINS STUMPED AT QUESTION OF INCREASE IN DNA:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Richard Dawkins stumped when asked for an example of where a mutation increased the information content of a genome. Watch it for yourself.

The hidden truth is that creation and intelligent design scientists challege evolutionary scientists to public debate, but the evolutionist refuse to debate them out of fear. They can't answer many of the questions and it exposes their deception.

If Down's syndrome was his only example, he's really digging himself into a hole. The simple addition of one chromosome through a DNA copying error which results in a handicappped offspring does not constitute and increase in genetic information, but a decrease. What I'm saying is the the absolute number of total base pairs is not a measure of how much genetic information is there.

[Da Hammer]

i'm not interesting in getting into a religious debate cause they are a huge waste of time and i would be a hypocrite defending something that i havent always believed in. only thing im really gonna is that i havent always believed in god or been a big follower of religion and all that. one thing i think is for sure and thats that there is someone or something out there something that we may never understand thats watching us and either helping us or punishing us. there is always a higher being IMO and why not just believe that its God who is that somebody. the world would be empty of hope if nobody believed in God and that i think both pro-religion folks and atheist people can agree that it would be a horrible thing...

[squealpiggy]

Evolution isn't possible unless there is an increase in DNA. There isn't a single shred of evidence that this has ever occured. Micro-evolution is a reshuffling of dna within a species. Creationists and Christians admit this happens, but we don't believe in Macro-evolution which is an increase of dna, where one species evolves into another one. This has NEVER happend. That's darwinian evolution and it's simply false. Even darwin became a Christian on his deathbed.

RICHARD DAWKINS STUMPED AT QUESTION OF INCREASE IN DNA:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Richard Dawkins stumped when asked for an example of where a mutation increased the information content of a genome. Watch it for yourself.

The hidden truth is that creation and intelligent design scientists challege evolutionary scientists to public debate, but the evolutionist refuse to debate them out of fear. They can't answer many of the questions and it exposes their deception.

If Down's syndrome was his only example, he's really digging himself into a hole. The simple addition of one chromosome through a DNA copying error which results in a handicappped offspring does not constitute and increase in genetic information, but a decrease. What I'm saying is the the absolute number of total base pairs is not a measure of how much genetic information is there.

You have absolutely no clue what all of this means. No clue whatsoever. Define "increase of DNA". What you are doing is confusing the notion of entropy with the notion of the ordering of atoms which in turn leads to the construction of complex molecules including DNA. Most uses of this particular strawman say that there can't be an increase in "information" in the DNA. Your account is even more drooling and imbecilic.

As for public debates, they are won and lost through a combination of the preconceptions of the audience, the ability of the speaker and the ability of the speaker to condense the material into attractive soundbites. The veracity of the material is incidental to the result. All these things put the scientists at something of a disadvantage as church groups tend to organise and pay for attendance to ensure a biased audience, and charismatic church speakers then use every logical fallacy available to them to "stump" the scientists. Nevertheless there have still been public debates between "evolutionists" and young earth creationists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-rob-day.html

A big part of the problem with a public debate is that they are often set up like this:

Slackjawed cowboy: There can be no increase in the DNA according to science so od must have done it!

Pencil-necked geek: Well no, actually what I think you're touching on here is a comment on entropy in which there can be no increase in energy within a closed system but what you have to bear in mind is that the earth is not a closed system and it is constantly being supplied with new energy from the decaying of the Sun. Simply put blah blah blah.

Anybody can make stupid statements to people who don't understand science and sound believable. For an evolutionary scientist who has spent decades of research into the subject it's very different to start explainined rudimentary science to an audience who typically aren't there to learn, they are there to cheerlead their pastor.