How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[crowTrobot 2]

Because my faith isn't based on feelings alone. I believe that the Bible is true. Nothing I have ever read, including the site that you often quote, brings up one valid point where the Bible is incorrect. Secular archelogists use the Bible to locate things. Why is this? What's true and what isn't? It's all a little too perfect, don't you think? Or calendar is based on who's birth?

the fact that SOME biblical stories are based on actual historical places is trivial, typical of all forms of ancient mythology. archeologists have also used the iliad to confirm the identity of actual ancient sites, yet i don't see you rushing to believe in zeus.also the bible particularly the early OT is certainly not perfect, and "secular" (non-apologist) archeologists/anthropologists have disproved many things. genesis and exodus are a total mess historically with almost nothing relevant matching up with evidence. of course those trying to sell books to christians necessarily have to say something else. and you, as with evolution, presumably have only read christian apologist spin on the subject while ignoring what non-apologist working science has learned.

The main argument of atheists everywhere, including this board, is that they don't believe it because it's crazy... and yet very few have even researched the Bible. I would bet that of all the regular atheist posters on this board that maybe only Checky has read the Bible all the way through... and I would bet against that. How can anyone make a decision without researching something thoroughly and following the evidence where it leads?

assuming you're not clinically insane this just sounds like an attempt to defraud neutral readers. after all these years you obviously should know that most if not all of the atheists posting here have read the bible, and "atheists everywhere" in fact base their view of its historical accuracy on evidence. i'd bet you've never in your life heard an atheist say they don't believe the bible because it's crazy without being able to cite specific evidence. you also have no excuse not to know that many atheists including myself were raised as christians and are every bit as familiar with the bible as you are. stop lying.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

I specifically started a thread asking how many Christians have read the entire bible, and was met with the argument (including from Brvheart himself) that it wasn't necessary for them to do so. Many, many Christians I've asked directly -- in fact, the large majority of them -- concede that they have not read the entire bible. However, I have, my (atheist) husband has, Checky has, BigD has, I dare say VB has, and among the small group of atheists I know, it appears the percentage who have read the entire bible is well over three quarters and nearly 100%. Moreover, non-believers are virtually the only ones who read actual scholarship, not the poorly-researched, excuse-making, glossing-over propaganda that passes for "scholarship" in christian bookstores and Southern bible colleges. Peer-reviewed, textbook-published research does not tend to back up the beliefs of evangelicals.

[vbnautilus 49]

Yes, I've read the Bible (and much of the Koran, all of the Bhavagad Gita, much of the Vedas, and some Buddhist texts as well. Koran is probably the only of these I consider less valuable than the Bible). Brv you have to remember also that most atheists were not born into atheist families. I was sent to a religious school for many years of my life where bible study was a big part of it. I rejected this book as a source of information about any scientific question. Indeed nothing ever written has any authority to override actual observation.

[BigDMcGee 3,367]

In the interests of full disclosure, I skipped a great deal of Leviticus and numbers.

[solderz 0]

I have read the bible, front to back, although the whole blank begat blank crap got skimmed over. I wish I could get that time back. Poorly written, poorly constructed, pop-culture wisdom. Its obviously written as something to placate and control the masses. There is zero evidence that jewish people were ever slaves of anyone. If they walked around a desert for years searching for their freedom with Moses, they left absolutely zero trace of it behind. That's just one historical inaccuracy. The bible is full of them.Moses was kind of like Scooby Doo for people thousands of years ago. Every afternoon after lunch, the story teller would tell the adventures of Moses and his gang of 4 jews who solved crimes. That kind of got twisted over the years into the whole slavery/liberation story.

[brvheart 1,768]

the fact that SOME biblical stories are based on actual historical places is trivial, typical of all forms of ancient mythology. archeologists have also used the iliad to confirm the identity of actual ancient sites, yet i don't see you rushing to believe in zeus.also the bible particularly the early OT is certainly not perfect, and "secular" (non-apologist) archeologists/anthropologists have disproved many things. genesis and exodus are a total mess historically with almost nothing relevant matching up with evidence. of course those trying to sell books to christians necessarily have to say something else. and you, as with evolution, presumably have only read christian apologist spin on the subject while ignoring what non-apologist working science has learned.

Could you expand on this please? Are you saying that nothing has been found, as of yet, to confirm? That appears to be what you're saying.

I specifically started a thread asking how many Christians have read the entire bible, and was met with the argument (including from Brvheart himself) that it wasn't necessary for them to do so.

That doesn't apply to this conversation. I was talking about denying something as wrong and only ever quoting anti-Christian pro-hate websites filled with trite, much like moon landing conspiracy sites, and never actually studying the source material. I'm not saying that everyone should be required to read the entire Bible for salvation.

In the interests of full disclosure, I skipped a great deal of Leviticus and numbers.

I KNEW IT!

[brvheart 1,768]

If they walked around a desert for years searching for their freedom with Moses, they left absolutely zero trace of it behind. That's just one historical inaccuracy. The bible is full of them.

So wait, you claim that the Bible is inaccurate because some nomads in a desert didn't leave their trash in a spot that we could locate 3,500 years later? oh.

[vbnautilus 49]

Say, I was just thinking about if I should die for some reason, what will become of my wife? I'd like my brother to have her, but I am not sure if that is allowed, so I did what any rational person would do: I consulted the bible. Unfortunately, I am still confused, does anyone want to clear this up for me? If brethren dwell together, and one of them die and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife. - Deuteronomy 25:5If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing... they shall be childless. - Leviticus 20:21

[vbnautilus 49]

And then of course I was in the shower, thinking about one of my favorite biblical characters (well, everybody's really), Michal, daughter of Saul. And I was just wondering about her children, so of course I went to the flawless history book but again I was confused: 2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:Maybe she adopted?

[crowTrobot 2]

So wait, you claim that the Bible is inaccurate because some nomads in a desert didn't leave their trash in a spot that we could locate 3,500 years later? oh.

it wasn't just some nomads. it supposedly was over a million people grouped together wandering around in a historically sparsely populated area. they certainly would have left abundant evidence.

[crowTrobot 2]

Could you expand on this please? Are you saying that nothing has been found, as of yet, to confirm? That appears to be what you're saying.

to confirm the historical accuracy of the events in genesis and exodus? no nothing has been found.

[Balloon guy 158]

Say, I was just thinking about if I should die for some reason, what will become of my wife? I'd like my brother to have her, but I am not sure if that is allowed, so I did what any rational person would do: I consulted the bible. Unfortunately, I am still confused, does anyone want to clear this up for me? If brethren dwell together, and one of them die and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife. - Deuteronomy 25:5If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing... they shall be childless. - Leviticus 20:21

See, the fact that you are asking this, shows that you may have read the words, but you didn't understand the words.Old Testament is Jewish law, things changed in the New Testament.So whenever you guys point to Old testament ruels and try to pretend they apply to us now, you show your ignorance.But I know it sells books, so your side keeps pretending you got us....kind of sad really

[Balloon guy 158]

it wasn't just some nomads. it supposedly was over a million people grouped together wandering around in a historically sparsely populated area. they certainly would have left abundant evidence.

Like transistional fossils over hunderds of millions of years, compared to the 40 years in a desert?certainly...Okay

[vbnautilus 49]

See, the fact that you are asking this, shows that you may have read the words, but you didn't understand the words.Old Testament is Jewish law, things changed in the New Testament.So whenever you guys point to Old testament ruels and try to pretend they apply to us now, you show your ignorance.But I know it sells books, so your side keeps pretending you got us....kind of sad really

I was under the impression that both Deuteronomy and Leviticus are Old Testament. Are you saying that the Old Testament had contradictions in it and was not the infallible word of god, that only the new testament is? In that case you can toss out Genesis and all that creation stuff? My understanding is that you can get out of a contradiction this way if New Law contradicts Old. But if there is a contradiction within one of these sections, I think you still have a problem.

[crowTrobot 2]

Like transistional fossils over hunderds of millions of years, compared to the 40 years in a desert?

not sure what your point is. obviously in terms of how much artifacts/bones deteriorate 3500 years cannot be compared to millions. evidence from a tight group of a million+ people living together for 40 years would still be there, as it is everywhere else in the world with any significant contemporaneous population.

[Balloon guy 158]

I was under the impression that both Deuteronomy and Leviticus are Old Testament. Are you saying that the Old Testament had contradictions in it and was not the infallible word of god, that only the new testament is? In that case you can toss out Genesis and all that creation stuff? My understanding is that you can get out of a contradiction this way if New Law contradicts Old. But if there is a contradiction within one of these sections, I think you still have a problem.

Oh.Sorry, my bad, too many examples of the other that I missed your point.Anywho,One, you die your brother is to marry your wife in order to continue the family name, protect the dowery etc.Other, If you and your wife split up, and your brother marries your ex-wife, then this is bad.In context:

16“‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.17“‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.18“‘If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.19“‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.20“‘If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.21“‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.22“‘Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. 23You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them. 24But I said to you, “You will possess their land; I will give it to you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey.” I am the Lord your God, who has set you apart from the nations.

Clearly a provision about the types of sexual acts that are sin, contextually clear about the motive here.Compared to:

5If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.7However, if a man does not want to marry his brother’s wife, she shall go to the elders at the town gate and say, “My husband’s brother refuses to carry on his brother’s name in Israel. He will not fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to me.” 8Then the elders of his town shall summon him and talk to him. If he persists in saying, “I do not want to marry her,” 9his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, take off one of his sandals, spit in his face and say, “This is what is done to the man who will not build up his brother’s family line.” 10That man’s line shall be known in Israel as The Family of the Unsandaled.

This verse is contextually speaking of the family name and it's importance, while allowing for teh brother to get out of this if the woman is really ugly.Seems pretty easy to understand if you'ver read the surrounding verses.

[Balloon guy 158]

not sure what your point is. obviously in terms of how much artifacts/bones deteriorate 3500 years cannot be compared to millions. evidence from a tight group of a million+ people living together for 40 years would still be there, as it is everywhere else in the world with any significant contemporaneous population.

Well a long as you are sure about the what will and will not survive in a desert after 3,500 years...

[Southern Buddhist 1]

In the interests of full disclosure, I skipped a great deal of Leviticus and numbers.

You skipped Leviticus???? No way, it's got some of the most batshit stuff in the whole Bible. It's a must-read.

That doesn't apply to this conversation. I was talking about denying something as wrong and only ever quoting anti-Christian pro-hate websites filled with trite, much like moon landing conspiracy sites, and never actually studying the source material. I'm not saying that everyone should be required to read the entire Bible for salvation.

It applies completely. You said,

The main argument of atheists everywhere, including this board, is that they don't believe it because it's crazy... and yet very few have even researched the Bible. I would bet that of all the regular atheist posters on this board that maybe only Checky has read the Bible all the way through... and I would bet against that. How can anyone make a decision without researching something thoroughly and following the evidence where it leads?

In your second sentence, you allege that none of the regular atheist posters on this board have read the bible all the way through. We've now established that most of them have. But you haven't, most Christians haven't, and most never will because they don't believe they need to. So when it comes to knowing the source material, I think we can see who has the upper hand here.Why, indeed, how can anyone make a decision without researching something thoroughly and following the evidence where it leads? We have, you haven't.I'm not saying that anyone needs to read the Bible "for salvation." It isn't a mechanism for salvation in and of itself. I am saying, though, that anyone who truly believes it all to be the word of God might -- you know, just might -- want to know what it all says. And when someone who hasn't read it debates with a group of people who have nearly unanimously read it, he is the proverbial one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

[Balloon guy 158]

In your second sentence, you allege that none of the regular atheist posters on this board have read the bible all the way through. We've now established that most of them have. But you haven't, most Christians haven't, and most never will because they don't believe they need to. So when it comes to knowing the source material, I think we can see who has the upper hand here.

There is a big difference in 'reading' it without understanding it, and reading it while you understand it. From what 99.99% of the athiest in this board have said about what they understand the Bible to mean, it's clear that they don't even have a rudimentary knowledge of what the Bible means.

Why, indeed, how can anyone make a decision without researching something thoroughly and following the evidence where it leads? We have, you haven't.I'm not saying that anyone needs to read the Bible "for salvation." It isn't a mechanism for salvation in and of itself. I am saying, though, that anyone who truly believes it all to be the word of God might -- you know, just might -- want to know what it all says. And when someone who hasn't read it debates with a group of people who have nearly unanimously read it, he is the proverbial one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

Except one side thinks they know what it says, and they don't.So it's more like the proverbial one legged man competeing with the full amputee in an arse kicking contest.

[crowTrobot 2]

Well a long as you are sure about the what will and will not survive in a desert after 3,500 years...

science is sure because they have multiple comparable contemporaneous examples - chinese, egyptians, hittites etc. left clues wherever they went. also a dry environment actually would be much less corrosive for artifacts than a wet one, so the fact that it was in a desert isn't worth mentioning.that's just one of many things about the story that don't fit evidence, including no corroboration whatsoever in egyptian archeology and no evidence nations of canaan were conquered as described. also there's no evidence moses was a historical figure or that any part of the torah was composed until well after the fact.

[BigDMcGee 3,367]

You skipped Leviticus???? No way, it's got some of the most batshit stuff in the whole Bible. It's a must-read.

yeah, I didn't have much interest in priestly laws governing sacrifice when I was a kid.. I wanted to skip ahead to the good parts of the old testament like Kings, Samuel and Daniel. And, of course, Job.

[Balloon guy 158]

science is sure because they have multiple comparable contemporaneous examples - chinese, egyptians, hittites etc. left clues wherever they went. also a dry environment actually would be much less corrosive for artifacts than a wet one, so the fact that it was in a desert isn't worth mentioning.that's just one of many things about the story that don't fit evidence, including no corroboration whatsoever in egyptian archeology and no evidence nations of canaan were conquered as described. also there's no evidence moses was a historical figure or that any part of the torah was composed until well after the fact.

So since all people leave trash, the Jews could not have wandered the desert for 40 years.What kind of trash?The Biblical record says that their clothes and shoes didn't wear out during this time, and they were fed from manna from Heaven, so no farming tools to wear out and discard.I guess their blankets would be left around, maybe their houses...oh wait, they didn't have houses, they were nomadic.You are ready to declare that because you don't find some trash, that therefore they couldn't have been out in the desert, and then you try evoke the powers of evidence and science.Sounds like someone is basing their beliefs on faith again

[Balloon guy 158]

And as far as the rest of Exodus, here's a cool Jewish site that goes into details that I didn't know but enjoy now.Link to Exodus proofs

[crowTrobot 2]

Sounds like someone is basing their beliefs on faith again

in the same way you don't believe in the easter bunny based on faith.

[crowTrobot 2]

And as far as the rest of Exodus, here's a cool Jewish site that goes into details that I didn't know but enjoy now.Link to Exodus proofs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus