How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[Kara Spengler]

Eris;1400107 wrote: Yes.

I think he's probably mixing us up, too. I told him what SL is and the difference between SL and SLU, but I think it didn't take. Shocking, I know.


Thanks, I did not recognize you without your avatar.

[Bruv]

I believe in Jesus Christ and currently going to Awake Grace Ministries Pentecostal International in Ashford Assembly

[xfrodobagginsx]

Bruv;1400183 wrote: I believe in Jesus Christ and currently going to Awake Grace Ministries Pentecostal International in Ashford Assembly


I so glad that you believe in Jesus Christ. Does that mean that you place your faith in Him alone for your salvation, believing in your heart that He died on the cross and rose from the dead for your sins?

[Kara Spengler]

There are actually people besides frodo taking this thread seriously?

[littleCJelkton]

Kara Spengler;1401047 wrote: There are actually people besides frodo taking this thread seriously?


They probably didn't read all of it.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Kara Spengler;1401047 wrote: There are actually people besides frodo taking this thread seriously?


Yes, there actually are people who care about their soul.

[Kara Spengler]

xfrodobagginsx;1401424 wrote: Yes, there actually are people who care about their soul.


So there are actually people who care about something that they can not detect with any form of instrumentation and has no interaction with our universe? Then if they do they will actually come to you for advice because they have not done whatever magic rituals already?

Okay .....

[xfrodobagginsx]

Kara Spengler;1401429 wrote: So there are actually people who care about something that they can not detect with any form of instrumentation and has no interaction with our universe? Then if they do they will actually come to you for advice because they have not done whatever magic rituals already?

Okay .....


There is overwhelming evidence to believe in the Bible and Jesus Christ. It's your own fault if you refuse to look at it.

[Kara Spengler]

xfrodobagginsx;1401724 wrote: There is overwhelming evidence to believe in the Bible and Jesus Christ. It's your own fault if you refuse to look at it.


Oh really?

List the evidence. Cite sources.

Some notes before you answer that:

1) Something is not evidence for itself. For example, your bible is not true just because of something it says. That is called circular (aka self-referential) logic and is the sign of a feeble mind.

2) Anyone can call themselves an 'expert' but a fact is a fact. So whatever you point to has to be something that is not influenced by biases of who is doing the observing. You might say you see one thing in a splatter of spilled paint and someone else will see something else .... but both of you can agree on the the numbers you get when analysing the spectrum of the paint.

So, where is your evidence?

[xfrodobagginsx]

The Laws of Conservation





The laws of conservation are basic laws in physics that state which processes can or cannot occur in nature. Each law maintains the total value of the quantity governed by that law (e.g. matter and energy) remains unchanged during physical processes. Conservation laws have the broadest possible application of all laws in physics and are considered to be the most fundamental laws in nature. In 1905, the theory of relativity showed mass was a form of energy and the two laws governing these quantities were combined into a single law conserving the total amount of mass and energy. This law says neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed. This fact leads to an inescapable question.





If matter and energy cannot be created, how did they originate?

Where did the entire physical universe come from?





Again, it is impossible to create matter and energy through natural methods. However, they do exist, so we find ourselves in a quandary. It would seem to the unbiased either matter and energy made themselves from nothing or a supernatural creator made them. Both answers violate the law of conservation. The fact that matter and energy cannot be created is consistent with the claim in Genesis which says God rested from his work and all he created. This law of science contradicts the notion that matter came from nothing through natural means. Bible believing theists understand the universe was framed by the Word of God and what is seen did not come from things that are visible. God is the one who calls those things that do not exist as though they did.





Why couldn't the universe have always existed?

Because nothing that has a beginning and an end could have always existed.





Today, virtually all scientists accept theBig Bang theory which says the entire universe came into existence at a particular point in time when all of the galaxies, stars and planets were formed. The Law of Entropy says closed systems go from a state of high energy to low energy and from order to disorder. All closed systems, including our universe, disintegrate over time as they decay to a lower order of available energy and organization. Entropy always increases and never decreases in a closed system. All scientific observations confirm everything continues to move towards a greater state of decay and disorder. Because the available energy is being used up and there is no source of new energy, the universe could not have always existed. If the universe has always existed, it would now be uniform in temperature, suffering what is known as heat death. Heat Death occurs when the universe has reached a state of maximum entropy. It is a fact that one day our sun and all stars in the universe will burn out. Electromagnetic radiation will disappear and all matter will lose its vibrational energy. Because the stars cannot burn forever and because they are still currently burning, they could not have always existed because they would have already burned out by now.



Some believe the law of entropy cannot be applied to the universe because they feel the universe is an open system and not a closed one. A closed system is defined as a system in which neither matter nor energy can be exchanged with its surroundings. Matter and energy cannot enter or escape from a closed system. It has boundaries that cannot be crossed. The definition of the word universe is all matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.





If the universe is "all matter and energy", how could it be an open system?

If the universe is everything, how can there be something else out there to provide more matter and energy?





The skeptic asks, "If God created the universe, then who created God?" God is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question, "Who created God?" is illogical. A better question would be, "If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause? And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?" Everything which has a beginninghas a cause. The universe has a beginning; therefore, the universe has a cause. It is important to stress the words "which has a beginning". The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so he does not need a cause. Einstein's general relativity shows that time is linked to matter and space. Time itself would have begun along with matter and space at the beginning of the universe. Since God is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time and is independent and outside of time. He is not limited by the time dimension he created, so he has no beginning in time.





There is not even one generally accepted scientific theory on the origin of matter and energy.

[xfrodobagginsx]

The Law of Biogenesis





This law is composed of two parts. The first part states that living things only come from other living things and not from non-living matter. Life only comes from life. The second part of this law states that when living things procreate, their offspring are the same type of organism they are. This is consistent with the account revealed in Genesis which says all living things reproduce after their own kind. Sharks only come from other sharks, snakes from other snakes, owls from other owls, orange trees from other orange trees, etc. Every living organism alive today is a product of and evidence for biogenesis. Some people feel biogenesis is not a scientific law, but biogenesis is a law because no one has ever documented a single case of non-living matter coming to life in self-replicating form.It is as true today as it has ever been. On the other hand, abiogenesis has been debunked many times over. When someone observes the first example of spontaneous generation which includes self-replicating machinery (DNA and RNA), biogenesis will no longer be a law. Until that time, it remains one.



If one stretched out a strand of DNA from the oldest and most basic organism known to man, a bacterium, it would be almost1,000 times longer than the diameter of the bacterium itself. Its DNA pattern is about 4 million blocks long. Where did all of this exquisite information come from? The components of a bacterium are far more complex than any machine mankind has ever made. There is absolutely zero scientific evidence of the existence of any organisms between the supposed event of abiogenesis and bacteria. This is the biggest missing link of all. There is absolutely no evidence any such organism is alive today or was ever alive in the past. Some feel it makes total sense no such fossils exist because the creature would have been made up of parts which do not fossilize well. If this argument was valid, there would not be any fossils of bacteria but there are.



Replication requires the complex machinery of DNA and RNA which are collectively known as the genome. According to evolution, something like the genome could only achieve its utter complexity through replication, cumulative selection and mutation.





How could DNA and RNA evolve from something very rudimentary into their present day intricacy when the organism containing the basic genome would require the more complex, present day DNA and RNA to replicate?





The Gene Emergence Project has sponsored an event called The Origin of Life Prize.They are currently offering 1.35 million dollars to anyone who can offer a credible, verifiable and reproducible explanation of the origin of life. They are by no means a creation science group. Their advisors include biochemists, molecular biologists, biophysicists, information theorists, artificial life and intelligence experts, exo/astrobiologists, mathematicians and origin-of-life researchers in many related fields. The Foundation's main purpose is to encourage interdisciplinary, multi-institutional research projects by theoretical biophysicists and origin-of-life researchers with special focus on the origin of genetic information/instructions/message/recipe in living organisms. They want to know by what mechanism initial genetic code arose in nature. They are requiring full reign be given to the exploration of spontaneously forming complexity and to inanimate systems of self-organization and replication.





There is not even one generally accepted scientific theory on the origin of life.





________________________________________________________________________________





Scientific Method





The scientific method is held in high esteem by most atheists and it is composed of the following parts...





1) Careful observation of a phenomenon.

2) Formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomenon.

3) Experimentation to demonstrate whether the hypothesis is true or false.

4) A conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.





Nobody has ever observed the creation of matter or energy.

Nobody has ever observed a molecular cloud collapse or any planet form.

Nobody has ever observed abiogenesis.

Nobody has ever observed the evolution of any genome.

Nobody has ever observed any phylum, class, order or family change.





Evolutionists are excellent at Step 2 -Hypothesizing.



The only problem comes on Steps 1, 3 and 4 -Observation, Experimentation and Validation.



We read about their theories and the conclusions of the failed experiments they performed in an effort to validate their opinions about a phenomenon that has not only never been proven scientifically but has never even been observed.



The definition of a miracle is an event which is inexplicable by the laws of nature. The fact is there are zero generally accepted scientific explanations on these issues. If you want to believe in naturalism it is fine with me but please don't make the erroneous claim that "science" is on your side.







What term is used to describe something you believe to be true but has no empirical evidence?



Faith.





The bottom line is we live in a universe which completely frustrates any attempt to explain its origin and content by natural processes alone. The best evidence for the possible existence of a supernatural creator lies in the total lack of any scientific evidence in these key areas. Can God be scientifically proven? No, it would be nice but his existence cannot be proven scientifically. The reason is God is supernatural; he exists outside thenatural, scientific world. While our scientific tools cannot prove God exists, they do provide us with evidence we can use to determine if there is a better explanation for what has taken place besides the existence of a supernatural creator.



It is interesting how atheists reject any notion of the supernatural because of what they perceive to be a lack of evidence when they could use that same objectivity to reject their naturalistic world view. Most atheists are not even honest enough to apply the same burden of proof for naturalism that they demand of supernaturalism.



The laws of science falsify the notion that this physical, living world came to be through natural means. These laws provide very credible evidence for the possible existence of a supernatural being. Atheism violates these basic laws of science. Atheism requires not only a tremendous amount of faith but also a belief in miracles. And not only miracles but natural miracles, an oxymoron. Both naturalism and supernaturalism require faith and which one you place your faith in is one of the two most important choices you will ever make.





How did life begin?

[Lon]

Eight secular scientists who changed the world - Salon.com

[Kara Spengler]

Oh gee, look, he can copy and paste the same exact argument he tried on SLU. Frodo- we shot those ramblings down before so why would you think our answers changed?

[Kara Spengler]

BTW, among many other things notice the general theme is 'in the absence of an answer the default is the existence of a deity'. That is not proving one exists and shows bias. Even if one was responsible, you have not shown it is yours. There are plenty of mythologies to choose from and you only can lay claim to one of them. Would you feel the same way about your arguments if they were used to prove Odin for example?

[xfrodobagginsx]

Was The New Testament Written By The Eyewitnesses or After All Eyewitnesses Were Dead?

Critics claim that the New Testament was written so long after the events of Jesus life that all the eyewitnesses had died and thus the accounts are not accurate. Can we answer this claim? Do we have any reason to believe that the New Testament was written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses? Yes we do. Lets start with a timeline of the events well be talking about.

4 to 1 BC Jesus is born

30 to 35 AD Jesus is crucified and resurrected

50 to 95 AD The New Testament is written

Here are some reasons for dating the New Testament books early:

Jesus had predicted that the Jewish temple would be destroyed. This happened in 70AD yet none of the gospels - even John which was written last - mentions it. The idea that, not one, but four different gospel writers would not mention this fulfilled prophecy is simply hard to believe. Some critics argue that the destruction of the temple is mentioned in chapters like Matthew 24 but those verses are clearly talking about the Great Tribulation because they mentioned Jesus returning and reigning forever. Its foolish to suggest that four different writers were smart enough to fool everyone into thinking Christianity was true yet all were stupid enough to say that Jesus had returned and was reigning

Around 95AD the early church father Clement quotes either directly or indirectly nearly every book of the Bible

Throughout church history the authors of the gospels have never been disputed. They have always been Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is very important because had these books been written by anonymous authors many years later we would find two things:

1) There would be several different traditional authors to each book

2) They would be named after more important people

For point #1 we point out that there is not one different author suggested anywhere in church history for any of the gospels. Not one. Its only recent modern scholars that claim the authorship of the gospels is in dispute. The early church always knew who wrote them. We can prove this out. Compare the gospels to the book of Hebrews which is anonymous. While the gospels have only one author per book, Hebrews has no less then half a dozen different traditional authors!

As far as point #2 goes, note that three of the four gospel writers arent important people in the New Testament (John is the exception). Compare this to books that are known frauds The Gospel of Peter, The Gospel of Mary, The Gospel of Thomas, all well-known figures. People who forge books would put famous peoples names on them to give them credibility. The gospels dont follow this pattern.

The gospels claimed to be written either eyewitnesses (Matthew, John) or people who had access to eyewitnesses (Mark, who served as Peters secretary and Luke who had access to Paul and the other apostles). And it was nearly two thousand years before anyone disputed this

Now lets see if we can find reasons to date some books earlier then 70AD:

Paul, who wrote two-thirds of the New Testament, wrote his works between 50-55AD. These dates are not seriously disputed. So, if nothing else, we can say most of the Bible can be traced back as early as 15 to 20 years of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus

Peter and Paul were both martyred around 66AD yet the New Testament does not mention their deaths. After Jesus they are the two most important people in Church history and yet not so much as one verse is devoted to their deaths? Even stranger is that Acts, which is the sequel to the gospel of Luke, ends with Paul in jail. So from this we can conclude that Paul was still alive by the end of Acts. Now if Paul died in 66AD then Acts must have been written before that. If Acts was written before 66AD then Luke must have been written even earlier then that. And since critics say that Luke was written after Mark and Matthew then they both must have been written very early. That means at least three of the four gospels were written before 66 AD and most likely all were written before 70AD

James, who authored the book of the Bible after the same name was martyred in 62AD

So before 70AD have at least Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians , 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Philemon, James, 1 Peter, and 2 Peter all written.

Now lets take a different approach to prove our point. The fatal mistake the critics make is they assume that there was 30 or more years of silence between the death of Jesus and the birth of Christianity. Jesus, they reason, died and long after all the eyewitnesses were gone the New Testament was written. I think we can show this wasnt the case and that the apostles were preaching about Jesus from the beginning.

As we said before, the earliest New Testament writings come from Paul in the early 50s. So right here we have the two-thirds of the New Testament written within 15 to 20 years of the crucifixion. Whats important is what Paul wrote. He doesnt talk much about Jesus life the way the gospels do. His writings build on the foundation of the gospels. He assumes youve already heard the gospel account.

Also notice to whom hes writing to. He writes to churches and elders and instructs them on theology, church conduct, the importance of the resurrection (even challenging people to verify the resurrection by talking to the eyewitnesses!), and corrects false teaching. So from Pauls writings we learn:

He writes to people who knew the gospel story and he is teaching them how to apply the gospels to their lives

Christianity is so far advance that its organized to the point where there are churches in many areas far away and they have elders

The churches were having to deal with false teachers who were coming to their churches

So within 15-20 years of the crucifixion Christianity has gained a following, spread throughout different regions, organized meeting places for believers, established a hierarchy within the church, and has been around long enough to develop problems with false teachers. You cant do all this overnight. And you cant do it at all if people hadnt heard, and checked out for themselves, the claims of the gospel.

Later on, with the rise of the false teachers the need arose for the gospels to be written so future generations would know the truth about the good news of the salvation that is found in Jesus Christ.

[Kara Spengler]

*sigh* You truly are blind to real logic.

[Eris]

xfrodobagginsx;1401981 wrote: [a wall of text he copy & pasted almost certainly without reading it.]
If you're going to use other people's material, it's proper to attribute the source.

[xfrodobagginsx]

islam, the "Religion of Peace" Beheads 17 for Listening to Music.



Taliban Beheads 17 for Partaking in Celebration - Middle East - News - Israel National News

[Kara Spengler]

So that has what to do with the thread Frodo?

[Eris]

Kara Spengler;1402233 wrote: So that has what to do with the thread Frodo?
He has Sharia envy.

[Kara Spengler]

Eris;1402248 wrote: He has Sharia envy.


Ah yes.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Kara Spengler;1402259 wrote: Ah yes.


Whistling

[Eris]

Here's something else for you to peruse, Frodo.

The Complete Tanach with Rashi's Commentary - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible



You might find it enlightening. I certainly do. Enjoy!

[xfrodobagginsx]

Please take the time to read this first post.

[Kara Spengler]

xfrodobagginsx;1404422 wrote: Please take the time to read this first post.


It is just the same one you post everywhere. Should we give you all of the same replies you have been given on countless other forums?

Even christian forums have pretty much disowned you. That MIGHT be a clue that you are an internet joke by now.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Kara Spengler;1404424 wrote: It is just the same one you post everywhere. Should we give you all of the same replies you have been given on countless other forums?

Even christian forums have pretty much disowned you. That MIGHT be a clue that you are an internet joke by now.


Yes, please follow me around and help me bump these threads, in spite of your ill intentions. I appreciate your help allowing people to get the Gospel. It's not my job to convert people, just tell them and you are helping me. Thank YOU and may the Lord open your hardened heart and blind eyes to the truth.

[Kara Spengler]

xfrodobagginsx;1404702 wrote: It's not my job to convert people, just tell them


So your goal is not to do anything about a situation you dislike but pretty much just yell at people? Thanks for playing, next contestant.

[Eris]

xfrodobagginsx;1404702 wrote: Yes, please follow me around and help me bump these threads, in spite of your ill intentions. I appreciate your help allowing people to get the Gospel. It's not my job to convert people, just tell them and you are helping me. Thank YOU and may the Lord open your hardened heart and blind eyes to the truth.
If you had any regard for the truth, you'd use Kent Hovind as a reference a whole lot less than you do. I'm convinced you're a Poe.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Kara Spengler;1404704 wrote: So your goal is not to do anything about a situation you dislike but pretty much just yell at people? Thanks for playing, next contestant.


What are you talking about? I am doing something. I am warning people. It's just like on that hateful forum that you come from. They thought they were really getting me good, but in fact, they were keeping the topic going for me. I was thankful to see that it recieved 100,000 views. That means that most of them had an opportunity to read the first post and get the gospel. Do you really think that I stuck around there for the insults? LOL It was so that the thread could keep going and it surely did. You will stand before God one day. I really hope that you will reconsider the way that you are treating His Gospel of Grace. You need to accept it instead of trying to detour others from accepting it. If you don't, you will not only be punished for rejecting His offer of salvation yourself, but for hindering others from coming to it as well. I wouldn't want to be in your shoes. Turn to God before it's too late.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Eris;1404712 wrote: If you had any regard for the truth, you'd use Kent Hovind as a reference a whole lot less than you do. I'm convinced you're a Poe.


Kent Hovind has more knowledge in his little finger than 100 evolutionary scientists combined. He takes on 3 at a time with no problem what so ever.

[Kara Spengler]

xfrodobagginsx;1404961 wrote: Kent Hovind has more knowledge in his little finger than 100 evolutionary scientists combined. He takes on 3 at a time with no problem what so ever.

[Eris]

xfrodobagginsx;1404961 wrote: Kent Hovind has more knowledge in his little finger than 100 evolutionary scientists combined. He takes on 3 at a time with no problem what so ever.
Not since 2007.

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves."

[xfrodobagginsx]

Eris;1404983 wrote: Not since 2007.

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves."


Being charged with a crime doesn't mean he's a bad person. I looked into the case. The man thought he was doing the right thing. The Government prosecuted him for tax evastion because he refused to pay 10$ for the licence to be a non profit organization. That was his 10 year mistake. I will not stop using his arguments because they are sound and have nothing to do with his legal situation.

[Eris]

Of course, because you're trying to make Christianity look stupid.

[Eris]

His legal problems involve significantly more than failing to register as a non-profit.

Kent Hovind - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's quite a read.

He's a scientifically illiterate fraudster. No one sincerely interested in spreading the Gospel would use him as a reference.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Eris;1404990 wrote: Of course, because you're trying to make Christianity look stupid.


No, I'm just giving to true Biblical Christianity and you hate it.

[Eris]

xfrodobagginsx;1405621 wrote: No, I'm just giving to true Biblical Christianity and you hate it.
Yes, because your preaching would be so much less credible if you stopped saying stupid things about the natural world.

[xfrodobagginsx]

I'm not saying anything stupid. I've given the facts and you don't like it. Too bad. Truth is truth.

[Kara Spengler]

xfrodobagginsx;1405783 wrote: I'm not saying anything stupid. I've given the facts and you don't like it.


Yes, you are stupid.

No, you have been given facts and you ignore them rather than come up with an intelligent response. Copy/pasting from someone else does not count, especially since all of the things made lousy arguments.

[Eris]

xfrodobagginsx;1405783 wrote: I'm not saying anything stupid. I've given the facts and you don't like it. Too bad. Truth is truth.
Why wouldn't I like the truth?

[xfrodobagginsx]

Jesus said:



Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. {reproved: or, discovered}

21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

22 ¶ After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

[Kara Spengler]

1) How does that jive with statements you have made that not all Christians are going to your heaven?

2) WTF? The current sub-discussion is on evolution and Horvind .... did you need to meet your daily RDA of non-sequitors?

[xfrodobagginsx]

[QUOTE=Kara Spengler;1406000]1) How does that jive with statements you have made that not all Christians are going to your heaven?

[QUOTE]

All Born Again Christians go to heaven. A born again Christian genuinely has the Holy Spirit living inside them. Jesus is the judge and He gets to set the rules.

It is a Spiritual change that genuinely occurs in the person. I've felt it and know God's Spirit.

Jesus said:



Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?" Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

[Kara Spengler]

Please note that I asked two questions and you answered neither.

[Eris]

Deuteronomy 13:

1. Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.

2. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,

3. and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"

4. you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.

5. You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.

6. And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Kara Spengler;1406077 wrote: Please note that I asked two questions and you answered neither.


I answered your question. You asserted that I claimed that not all Christians go to heaven. My response was that only Born Again Christians go to heaven. If someone calls theirself a Christian and they aren't born again, then they aren't going to heaven.

The second question requires no response. It's not true and is baseless.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Eris;1406092 wrote: Deuteronomy 13:

1. Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.

2. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,

3. and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"

4. you shall not heed the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream; for the Lord, your God, is testing you, to know whether you really love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul.

5. You shall follow the Lord, your God, fear Him, keep His commandments, heed His voice, worship Him, and cleave to Him.

6. And that prophet, or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death; because he spoke falsehood about the Lord, your God Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeemed you from the house of bondage, to lead you astray from the way in which the Lord, your God, commanded you to go; so shall you clear away the evil from your midst.


What is your point?

[xfrodobagginsx]

...

[Corgz]

I do not believe any of that mumbo jumbo exists. Therefore, i shall see all of my other athiest friends in the deep pits of Hell once I die.

[xfrodobagginsx]

The evidence is not in your favor.