Will Jesus return on a white horse?

[Minimalist]

real religion goes further than science and asks is there anything beyond our Cosmos

Um...religion not only "asks" it supplies answers which it insists cannot be questioned.

[Mark 13:13]

Apparently your god isn't very good at math.

Maybe its just that people are very poor at listening to good advise.

Since "broad is the pathway to destruction" and he admits that few get into heaven, his delaying of the inevitable isn't exactly saving more people, it's condemning more souls to hell.

To the Christian the belief in free will also means we are responsable for the choices we make not God some would even say that in reality we condemn ourselves by refusing Gods forgiveness even at the end.

subservient lobotomized slaves to worship him in heaven.

Free will was the answer to this but it comes at a price

What a narcissistic bastard you serve.

The God I believe in is far from narcissistic as the image of him hanging on the cross shows

That same hand will let those rescued fish and all those left behind, fry on a grill.

By refusing to take the help offered wont the fish fry in the sun by their own doing?

I always find it amusing that christards think that non-believers have never tried their religion.

that's not what I believe but I can't speak for all, I just assume that
some may not have and other may be in a place now that prevents them turning back.

As far as your life goes, did you truly believe? or were you just kidding yourself because at that time you were not in a position to question? and what was the turning point - what changed your mind?

I hope my answers don't come over as flippant its just that with so much in one place and so little information on source of comments its hard to give a lengthier thought out response. apologies

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I could be wrong but that's not how 'science' (not homogenous) works.

Science doesn't start with a conclusion and work backwards to prove it. It starts with a hypothesis and follows the evidence where it leads (either to support or disagree with it).

"I don't know" is the more reasonable and logical response to any question one doesn't actually know the answer to. Science is a tool we use to explore further and further into the unknown. If the answer to question 1 is 1000 other questions, then so be it. That's the 'magic' of science.

Well that's how science is supposed to work but in reality its not; just try and get funding to research for non current medical beliefs on curing cancer. Its called Paradigm Shift if science worked the scientific method properly as you outlined i'm quite sure we would be beyond the pill popping chop it out stage in medicine by now. But theres money in pills as ther is money in fossil fuels so why change.

Sorry, I disagree (and this is actually something I know a bit about).

Evidenced based research. Have you heard of this story?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...tment.html

A mother attempted to block treatment for her son's rare (but treatable) brain cancer (a combination of chemo & and radio-therapy which has possible side effects, but not as bad as death) so she could explore alternative therapies (including diets and other so-called "experimental treatments"). She attempted to get medical evidence to back up her claims. Guess what she got? Nothing. Zero.

To say cancer therapies are just pill-popping exercises is grossly misrepresenting the vast array of treatments that are being researched and, further, are being used to good effect due to years and decades of testing.

Did you know the average drug/treatment from the initial proposal stages can take anywhere from 10 to 20 years before it's accepted by medical councils? Even then, trials continue until it's available for general release.

Now, there are most definitely flaws in the funding of medical research in the UK (and I assume the US too). Part of what you say is actually correct. Drug companies and other private interests will always go for maximum return, which is why an illness that requires continued, on going treatment (such as depression) is much more lucrative than something that requires a one off dosage (antibiotics for bacterial lung infection).

This is where public research councils come in, especially in the EU/UK where university based research is still one of the main avenues for medical research (my partner is a microbiologist investigating antibiotic resistance in e-coli and salmonella).

If a treatment is proven to work, ie, if it proves to be effective in 99.9% (if not 100%) of the multitude of double blind studies it is tested in, then the claims behind its effectiveness are more believable.

This takes me back to the original point. The combination of chemo- & radio-therapy to treat the boy's medulloblastoma has been proven to work, in both medical trials, double blind studies, and through repeated use in real-life settings. The so-called 'alternative' treatments which people (including the boy's mother) role out whenever the conspiracy of the medical establishment is brought up as a serious discussion (it's not) have no substance. No evidence, no medical trials, no double blind studies, nothing.

What these 'alternatives' are are dangerous. they put people's lives at risk, for no other reason than the silly delusion of some people who think they know better than decades of research conducted by people with decades of education and decades of experience.

[CapnAwesome]

What can be done that will not destroy the 'free will' of one people or another?
In the past His fix was to destroy entire races of people who opposed Him and his people in that region. is this what you want?
Is this your prayer?

That's an easy one. Muslims consider Jesus a prophet and revere him as well. If he appeared all would be in awe and certainly listen. If you consider this a subversion of free-will then you have to consider his first appearance as a subversion of free will as well. Preaching and telling people what to do is not a violation of free will.

[Mark 13:13]

Well that's how science is supposed to work but in reality its not; just try and get funding to research for non current medical beliefs on curing cancer. Its called Paradigm Shift if science worked the scientific method properly as you outlined i'm quite sure we would be beyond the pill popping chop it out stage in medicine by now. But theres money in pills as ther is money in fossil fuels so why change.

Sorry, I disagree (and this is actually something I know a bit about).

Evidenced based research. Have you heard of this story?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...tment.html

A mother attempted to block treatment for her son's rare (but treatable) brain cancer (a combination of chemo & and radio-therapy which has possible side effects, but not as bad as death) so she could explore alternative therapies (including diets and other so-called "experimental treatments"). She attempted to get medical evidence to back up her claims. Guess what she got? Nothing. Zero.

To say cancer therapies are just pill-popping exercises is grossly misrepresenting the vast array of treatments that are being researched and, further, are being used to good effect due to years and decades of testing.

Did you know the average drug/treatment from the initial proposal stages can take anywhere from 10 to 20 years before it's accepted by medical councils? Even then, trials continue until it's available for general release.

Now, there are most definitely flaws in the funding of medical research in the UK (and I assume the US too). Part of what you say is actually correct. Drug companies and other private interests will always go for maximum return, which is why an illness that requires continued, on going treatment (such as depression) is much more lucrative than something that requires a one off dosage (antibiotics for bacterial lung infection).

This is where public research councils come in, especially in the EU/UK where university based research is still one of the main avenues for medical research (my partner is a microbiologist investigating antibiotic resistance in e-coli and salmonella).

If a treatment is proven to work, ie, if it proves to be effective in 99.9% (if not 100%) of the multitude of double blind studies it is tested in, then the claims behind its effectiveness are more believable.

This takes me back to the original point. The combination of chemo- & radio-therapy to treat the boy's medulloblastoma has been proven to work, in both medical trials, double blind studies, and through repeated use in real-life settings. The so-called 'alternative' treatments which people (including the boy's mother) role out whenever the conspiracy of the medical establishment is brought up as a serious discussion (it's not) have no substance. No evidence, no medical trials, no double blind studies, nothing.

What these 'alternatives' are are dangerous. they put people's lives at risk, for no other reason than the silly delusion of some people who think they know better than decades of research conducted by people with decades of education and decades of experience.

The point i'm making is that science moves not smoothly but in sudden jolts where studies that don't prove the existing theories get placed to one side and the ones that reinforce the current theories get held onto and promoted and in the modern climate of funding by vested interests funding will go into the areas they want to explore leaving little or none for alternatives. The paradigm shift happens when the body of evidence gets too big to ignore and then the whole scientific body then jumps ship. I suppose is kind of like even in science there is a form of politics. And yes I knew the story and given the circumstances I can appreciate the courts judgement although I haven't researched it to death.

[Minimalist]

In order for jesus to "return" it means he would have had to be here at least once before.

Other than your fantasies what have you got to substantiate that position?

[Mark 13:13]

In order for jesus to "return" it means he would have had to be here at least once before.

Other than your fantasies what have you got to substantiate that position?

Well many of the people we take for granted have as much evidence for existing as Jesus or even less, you don't really need me to help you find the truth of that question. This type of debate was very common in the past so much so that someone printed a very famous proof that Napoleon was a myth just to expose the pointlessness of the debate. A quick take on the book http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nappy.html.

If I were an Athiest the more interesting and possibly honest question would be prove he raised from the dead as you say?

but I won't go into that because we couldn't really go anywhere because we wouldn't have a common ground or language to discuss it as by necessity it would be a debate that demands concrete facts and of we would go in circles again. Though again there are plenty of good and much more intelligent people than me that can answer the question very eloquently that would be easy to track down on the net if you really wanted an answer.

[Minimalist]

Well many of the people we take for granted have as much evidence for existing as Jesus or even less

So, in other words, you have bupkes? That's about what I figured.

[Mark 13:13]

Well many of the people we take for granted have as much evidence for existing as Jesus or even less

So, in other words, you have bupkes? That's about what I figured.

not sure what that means but ok if you insist then before i answer your question what would you accept as evidence ; my opinion ( im not a historian so can't lol) or that of an eminent historian or a scientest? would they have to be athiest; agnostic or theist? how contemporary? because with the plethora of information on the question available I need to be sure we don't waste each others time.

---

True and I would hope scientists keep exploring the universe as through this exploration we grow in understanding but far than being a dead end , real religion goes further than science and asks is there anything beyond our Cosmos and just as science needs to develop new tools and maths to explore further. The exploration of beyond the cosmos needs a different set of tools than our right sided brain offers.

But religion also gives you answers and then expects you to believe them on pain of eternal damnation.

Well not every religion does but i wont be retarded about this I know you mean the Judeo-Christian branch. But I would say religion does not give you all the answers that's why the word mystery appears so often, and whereas some may expect you to believe as you say or else but most would if pushed agree that its how you live your life not necessarily what you believe that will determine your fate. What religions do try to do is find a greater purpose and meaning to this life of ours than its an accident and has little real meaning beyond the present and wonders what is our fate after the death of the body. It tries to explore the why rather than the how.

---

Well many of the people we take for granted have as much evidence for existing as Jesus or even less

So, in other words, you have bupkes? That's about what I figured.

i did find this on my first minute on the net of looking for an answer you might accept http://www.squidoo.com/who-really-believ...us-existed

enjoy.

[Minimalist]

Dawkins is a superb evolutionary biologist. I'm reasonably certain that if I sat down with him for ten minutes I could dissuade him from the HJ bullshit which he obviously learned in his youth.

There is no evidence for a historical jesus. No one living at the time heard a word about the fucker. Period.