If Jesus returned to Earth

Nomis21

I think that if Jesus returned to Earth today, it would be Christians who would be the group of people most likely to disbelieve that he had returned, and also the most likely to attack him verbally.

The Adversary

I think if Jesus came back tomorrow, people would be too busy taking Jesus pics and uploading them to Facebook, rather than listening to what he would actually have to say.

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY

If Jesus returned to earth surely to God Almighty he would not turn down the chance to interviewed by our very own Ryan Tubridy on the Late Late Show...???????????

lazybones32

I'd throw a water-balloon at him and make sure his car couldn't leave...that's how we treat our saviours in Ireland.


*

Turtwig

Mod:

While this thread has potential to be an interesting topic i.e If Jesus walked again on the Earth how would he fare?, it doesn't seem like this particular iteration is going to live too long if continue going the way it goes. A Reminder too to all posters that the forum charter still applies. This isn't a thread for bashing or mocking Christianity. Humour is by all means welcome.

Turtwig

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY wrote: »

If Jesus returned to earth surely to God Almighty he would not turn down the chance to interviewed by our very own Ryan Tubridy on the Late Late Show...???????????

I still wouldn't watch it. Ryan is just an awful interviewer. Always asks the mundane and obvious questions.

Manach

Surely once Bono had been interviewed on the Late Late, Jesus appearing would only be meh?

SureYWouldntYa

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY wrote: »

If Jesus returned to earth surely to God Almighty he would not turn down the chance to interviewed by our very own Ryan Tubridy on the Late Late Show...???????????

So Jesus do ya like Ireland ? Have ya any Irish in ya

Nomis21

I have no intention of mocking Christianity. Even though I think Christians often suffer from a lack of a sense of humour when discussing Christianity, which is unfortunate.

However I truly believe that if Jesus returned and was attired as he was during his last known visit to this planet and he walked into any church, he would be shunned by the congregation and the minister leading the service. That is my opinion. I feel I am entitled to it and I have no intention of mocking anybody or anything by saying it.

Turtwig

Nomis21 wrote: »

I have no intention of mocking Christianity. Even though I think Christians often suffer from a lack of a sense of humour when discussing Christianity, which is unfortunate.

However I truly believe that if Jesus returned and was attired as he was during his last known visit to this planet and he walked into any church, he would be shunned by the congregation and the minister leading the service. That is my opinion. I feel I am entitled to it and I have no intention of mocking anybody or anything by saying it.

Most Christians I know love the Monty Python films and Father Ted.

The mod warnging was a just a prophylactic general warning because this is the sort of thread topic that can easily attract the more unsavoury posts. It wasn't specifically aimed at anybody.

Nomis21

The only experience I have of Monty Python and Christians is when I was driving a bus from Amsterdam to London and I put 'Life of Brian' on the video player and a priest traveling in plain clothes told me to take it off because it was "Blasphemy".

Benny_Cake

Nomis21 wrote: »

The only experience I have of Monty Python and Christians is when I was driving a bus from Amsterdam to London and I put 'Life of Brian' on the video player and a priest traveling in plain clothes told me to take it off because it was "Blasphemy".

This only character who didn't have fun poked at him in the Life of Brian was Jesus. He was called "a bloody do-gooder" at one point but that was it.

lazygal

Turtwig wrote: »

I still wouldn't watch it. Ryan is just an awful interviewer. Always asks the mundane and obvious questions.

Like whether he's close to his mother? And how much he loves Ireland?

J C

The real question is when, not if Jesus will return to Earth.

NotCominBack

Sure would make the Atheist & Agnostic thread on boards more interesting

endacl

NotCominBack wrote: »

Sure would make the Atheist & Agnostic thread on boards more interesting

That you, big guy?

:pac:

Last_Minute

Jesus will never return to earth. Think about it. He created the universe and all the trillions of other planets, why would he choose to return to this dump where constant war kills thousand of people every day?

Also why hasn't he returned already? Where is he exactly?

Turtwig

Because we have chocolate. (Although not for much longer if the Daily Mail is to believed.)

TiMe2PaRtYYYYY

Last_Minute wrote: »

Jesus will never return to earth. Think about it. He created the universe and all the trillions of other planets, why would he choose to return to this dump where constant war kills thousand of people every day?

Also why hasn't he returned already? Where is he exactly?

Turtwig wrote: »

Because we have chocolate. (Although not for much longer if the Daily Mail is to believed.)

Jesus would prefer an interview with Ryan Tubridy on the Late Late Show over chocolate any day.... not lookin for a debate as am just sayin

Squeedily Spooch

J C wrote: »

The real question is when, not if Jesus will return to Earth.

What's he waiting for? You'd think any deity worth his salt, seeing how much chaos is going on the world and much of it the result of religion that he'd just step in and fix it all.

The most hilarious thing about Jesus coming back is that it'd freak out the far right evangelicals, a Middle Eastern looking guy who hangs around with prostitutes and lepers, is anti wealth and violence? He's right wing America's worst nightmare.

Gordon Minard

We have to be careful - it was always said that Satan Can Make Evil Appear Good and Good Evil


Consider just a few ways in which Satan can make evil appear good and good evil:

• Not long ago a man and woman living together outside the bonds of marriage would be considered as living in sin-- Conveniently we now call this COHABITATION.
  
  
• Until a few years ago, society considered homosexuality as unnatural, and for the most part, participation was in secret or in the "closet" so to speak. In just a few short years this practice has received a new and elevated status. Those who engage in unnatural affections are merely expressing themselves through an ALTERNATE LIFESTYLE.
  
  
• Divorce has become quite fashionable as societal pressure to keep couples together has dwindled. All a couple has to say is we have IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES. Notice no mention of irreconcilable pride that has resulted in selfishness, self pity, and broken homes.
  
  
• Abortion is conveniently labeled PROCHOICE.
  
  
• Prayer in the schools is an INFRINGEMENT on the rights of a vocal minority.
  
  
• Religious Objects in Hospitals and Public Service Areas e.g. Xmas Crib etc. is considered an INFRINGEMENT on the rights of a vocal minority.
  
  

Yes, I accept that we have moved towards a very secular society but are we not throwing the baby out with the bath water?

And please, please, please don't come back to me about the church abuse history etc.

Gordon

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

Gordon Minard wrote: »

We have to be careful - it was always said that Satan Can Make Evil Appear Good and Good Evil


Consider just a few ways in which Satan can make evil appear good and good evil:

• Not long ago a man and woman living together outside the bonds of marriage would be considered as living in sin-- Conveniently we now call this COHABITATION.
  
  
• Until a few years ago, society considered homosexuality as unnatural, and for the most part, participation was in secret or in the "closet" so to speak. In just a few short years this practice has received a new and elevated status. Those who engage in unnatural affections are merely expressing themselves through an ALTERNATE LIFESTYLE.
  
  
• Divorce has become quite fashionable as societal pressure to keep couples together has dwindled. All a couple has to say is we have IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES. Notice no mention of irreconcilable pride that has resulted in selfishness, self pity, and broken homes.
  
  
• Abortion is conveniently labeled PROCHOICE.
  
  
• Prayer in the schools is an INFRINGEMENT on the rights of a vocal minority.
  
  
• Religious Objects in Hospitals and Public Service Areas e.g. Xmas Crib etc. is considered an INFRINGEMENT on the rights of a vocal minority.
  
  

Yes, I accept that we have moved towards a very secular society but are we not throwing the baby out with the bath water?

And please, please, please don't come back to me about the church abuse history etc.

Gordon

Mod:

None of really appears relevant to the OP. Should anyone choose to the reply to the above post please ensure it is in keeping with the thread topic. Otherwise, post may be liable for deletion.

Peregrinus

Nomis21 wrote: »

I have no intention of mocking Christianity. Even though I think Christians often suffer from a lack of a sense of humour when discussing Christianity, which is unfortunate.

However I truly believe that if Jesus returned and was attired as he was during his last known visit to this planet and he walked into any church, he would be shunned by the congregation and the minister leading the service.

Well, possibly. But if Isaac Newton returned, attired as he was the last time we saw him, and tried to address the Royal Society, I don't think he'd get much traction. Or Galileo.

I don't think this thread is of much interest if it's about fashions in dress. Besides, even the most literalist understandings of the Second Coming do not suggest that Jesus will come wearing a first-century Palestinian costume.

Mark Tapley

If Jesus posted on boards after the Tubridy interview he would be slagged off as a bleeding heart do-gooder.

Into The Blue

Mark Tapley wrote: »

If Jesus posted on boards after the Tubridy interview he would be slagged off as a bleeding heart do-gooder.

And rightly so..

If Jesus returned, I don't think he'd last 33 years this time round.. *Planet has gone to shït in the last 20 years and getting worse.







*wild generalisation may not be 100% accurate

Lady Chuckles

I wonder what he'd do
I wonder if anyone would listen.

I don't think Jesus is interested in being on TV. He'd keep a low profile, a humble job and spread his wisdom through random people he'd encounter .... who in turn would spread it to people in their surrounding

At least that's the way I picture it

Mark Tapley

Not much work for a chippy these days , he might have to sign on. At least as an immigrant he would get a free house , pram etc.

RikuoAmero

Turtwig wrote: »

Mod:

None of really appears relevant to the OP. Should anyone choose to the reply to the above post please ensure it is in keeping with the thread topic. Otherwise, post may be liable for deletion.

Damn...so very tempted...must resist!:P

Peregrinus

I dunno. The first time round, if we're to believe the gospels, he preached to large crowds, travelling around for the purpose. Have we any reason to think he would seek a lower profile this time?

A bit of context for the OP: All the mainstream Christian traditions affirm that Christ will come again - it's right there in the creed. The second coming, as it's called, is associated not with preaching or teaching or mission, but with general judgment and the end of time ("He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end") so there's no reason to think that it will look anything like the public ministry of Jesus, but nor is there any reason to think that Jesus will live a quiet life, influencing only those few people whom he encounters in person. For what it's worth, the general expectation has always been that the second coming will be a striking and unmistakable event - you won't be in any doubt but that Jesus has returned and, since it will be associated with the end of time, it's not something that anyone is likely to fail to notice.

If you don't buy into traditional Christian views on the second coming - and there is no reason why the OP, a Jew, should buy into them - then obviuosly you're not constrained by any of that, and you can imagine an entirely different second coming. I think what the OP envisages is a figure much like Jesus of Nazareth - a nobody, coming from nowhere, preaching a message which is challenging to the comfortable and the established. Yes, he would most probably be ignored, derided or denounced by those who found his message challenging.

RikuoAmero

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dunno. The first time round, if we're to believe the gospels, he preached to large crowds, travelling around for the purpose. Have we any reason to think he would seek a lower profile this time?

A bit of context for the OP: All the mainstream Christian traditions affirm that Christ will come again - it's right there in the creed. The second coming, as it's called, is associated not with preaching or teaching or mission, but with general judgment and the end of time ("He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end") so there's no reason to think that it will look anything like the public ministry of Jesus, but nor is there any reason to think that Jesus will live a quiet life, influencing only those few people whom he encounters in person. For what it's worth, the general expectation has always been that the second coming will be a striking and unmistakable event - you won't be in any doubt but that Jesus has returned and, since it will be associated with the end of time, it's not something that anyone is likely to fail to notice.

If you don't buy into traditional Christian views on the second coming - and there is no reason why the OP, a Jew, should buy into them - then obviuosly you're not constrained by any of that, and you can imagine an entirely different second coming. I think what the OP envisages is a figure much like Jesus of Nazareth - a nobody, coming from nowhere, preaching a message which is challenging to the comfortable and the established. Yes, he would most probably be ignored, derided or denounced by those who found his message challenging.

I have to comment on this, on this assertion by christianity on what form the second coming will be i.e. "It will be in the form of X, not Y"
This sounds to me very much like the assertions of the Jewish people that their prophesied messiah would come in the form of a revolutionary who would kick the Romans out of their country, and basically be King David 2.0 and then later we have the christians going "No, what the Jews expected was wrong".

Peregrinus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I have to comment on this, on this assertion by christianity on what form the second coming will be i.e. "It will be in the form of X, not Y"
This sounds to me very much like the assertions of the Jewish people that their prophesied messiah would come in the form of a revolutionary who would kick the Romans out of their country, and basically be King David 2.0 and then later we have the christians going "No, what the Jews expected was wrong".

I take your point. But of course Christians are the only ones asserting that there will be a second coming at all. Any question about Christ coming again seems to me to invoke that tradition.

Of course you can postulate that Christ will come again, but not in the way that Christians conventionally expect. But it's meaningless to ask how he would be received in that context unless you're going to offer some alternative account of the different kind of second coming that you envisage.

Mark Tapley

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dunno. The first time round, if we're to believe the gospels, he preached to large crowds, travelling around for the purpose. Have we any reason to think he would seek a lower profile this time?

A bit of context for the OP: All the mainstream Christian traditions affirm that Christ will come again - it's right there in the creed. The second coming, as it's called, is associated not with preaching or teaching or mission, but with general judgment and the end of time ("He will come again to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end") so there's no reason to think that it will look anything like the public ministry of Jesus, but nor is there any reason to think that Jesus will live a quiet life, influencing only those few people whom he encounters in person. For what it's worth, the general expectation has always been that the second coming will be a striking and unmistakable event - you won't be in any doubt but that Jesus has returned and, since it will be associated with the end of time, it's not something that anyone is likely to fail to notice.

If you don't buy into traditional Christian views on the second coming - and there is no reason why the OP, a Jew, should buy into them - then obviuosly you're not constrained by any of that, and you can imagine an entirely different second coming. I think what the OP envisages is a figure much like Jesus of Nazareth - a nobody, coming from nowhere, preaching a message which is challenging to the comfortable and the established. Yes, he would most probably be ignored, derided or denounced by those who found his message challenging.

Don't you think its up to the OP to declare or not declare his affiliations as he sees fit.
A challenging message suggests it is hard to understand as opposed to unbelievable.

RikuoAmero

Peregrinus wrote: »

I take your point. But of course Christians are the only ones asserting that there will be a second coming at all. Any question about Christ coming again seems to me to invoke that tradition.

Of course you can postulate that Christ will come again, but not in the way that Christians conventionally expect. But it's meaningless to ask how he would be received in that context unless you're going to offer some alternative account of the different kind of second coming that you envisage.

Just so you know, I'm an atheist. I just read this thread, and found it interesting, and had to comment on what I found to be a similarity on how the majority religion of the day is saying in what form their prophesied messiah will come in.

lazybones32

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Not much work for a chippy these days , he might have to sign on. At least as an immigrant he would get a free house , pram etc.

Maybe not...he's an Israeli Jew; not a lot of public love for them these days.

RikuoAmero

lazybones32 wrote: »

Maybe not...he's an Israeli Jew; not a lot of public love for them these days.

Plus his father wasn't his mother's husband, or so I'm told. Plenty of branches of christianity don't like that one bit.

Peregrinus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Just so you know, I'm an atheist. I just read this thread, and found it interesting, and had to comment on what I found to be a similarity on how the majority religion of the day is saying in what form their prophesied messiah will come in.

And of course you're right. But this isn't a problem confined to religious prophecies. Any attempt to project future events will tend to create expectations which may not be borne out by the subsequent unfolding of events, and which may prevent us from recognising and responding to the events as they unfold.

Peregrinus

lazybones32 wrote: »

Maybe not...he's an Israeli Jew; not a lot of public love for them these days.

It's all a matter of how you spin it. He was born in occupied Palestine!

RikuoAmero

Peregrinus wrote: »

And of course you're right. But this isn't a problem confined to religious prophecies. Any attempt to project future events will tend to create expectations which may not be borne out by the subsequent unfolding of events, and which may prevent us from recognising and responding to the events as they unfold.

Exactly. According to christians, the first time around, the majority religion of the day (Judaism) got it completely wrong when they predicted in what form the prophesied messiah would come in, what he would do etc.
Given that we now have this precedent (as an atheist, I'm hypothesizing here), then couldn't the christians be wrong too with regards to what they call the second coming?

Peregrinus

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Don't you think its up to the OP to declare or not declare his affiliations as he sees fit.

If I had any reason to think it would bother him in the slightest, I wouldn't mention it. But in fact the only reason I know about his affiliation is that he posted it himself on board.ie last week, so I don't think he will object to it's being mentioned.

Mark Tapley wrote: »

A challenging message suggests it is hard to understand as opposed to unbelievable.

No, a challenging message may be very easy to understand; just uncomfortable to accept.

Peregrinus

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Exactly. According to christians, the first time around, the majority religion of the day (Judaism) got it completely wrong when they predicted in what form the prophesied messiah would come in, what he would do etc.
Given that we now have this precedent (as an atheist, I'm hypothesizing here), then couldn't the christians be wrong too with regards to what they call the second coming?

Yes, certainly they could. There might be no second coming, or there might be a second coming which is not as they expect. Given that expectations are quite diverse - just look at the "rapture" crowd in the US - if there is a second coming it will certainly not be in line with at least some expectations.

The point is though, when we ask the question "how would Christ be received on his second coming?", the question is basically unanswerable unless there is some explicit or implicit account of how the second coming will play out. If the Lord comes down in a fiery chariot with trumpet blasts that's one thing; if he wanders into a synagogue somewhere wearing shapeless sacking, looking like Yassir Arafat and talking about give away your possessions and following him that's another; if he's born to a HIV+ prostitute in a favela in Rio de Janiero that's another again. I think if you ask a question about the second coming and don't specify, people are going to assume the familiar "conventional" second coming, which is general judgment at the end of time.

sbsquarepants

Gordon Minard wrote: »

We have to be careful - it was always said that Satan Can Make Evil Appear Good and Good Evil


Consider just a few ways in which Satan can make evil appear good and good evil:

• Not long ago a man and woman living together outside the bonds of marriage would be considered as living in sin-- Conveniently we now call this COHABITATION.
• Until a few years ago, society considered homosexuality as unnatural, and for the most part, participation was in secret or in the "closet" so to speak. In just a few short years this practice has received a new and elevated status. Those who engage in unnatural affections are merely expressing themselves through an ALTERNATE LIFESTYLE.
• Divorce has become quite fashionable as societal pressure to keep couples together has dwindled. All a couple has to say is we have IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCES. Notice no mention of irreconcilable pride that has resulted in selfishness, self pity, and broken homes.

Yes, I accept that we have moved towards a very secular society but are we not throwing the baby out with the bath water?

And please, please, please don't come back to me about the church abuse history etc.

Or - all these perfectly normal things existed before that Jesus geezer came along and said they were all sins?
To-may-to, to-mah-to.

In the whole God versus Satan debate I have to say I find it really easy to see who the good guy and who the bad guy is.
But in case you don't, I think if in doubt, go with the one who says do as you please over the one who says follow my rules to the letter or i'll have you thrown in the furnace!
I mean think about it - who told you Satan is the bad guy?
The fella he tried to depose? The guy you already know to be guilty of genocide? The guy who has threatened you and your family with horrific torture if you don't give him blind obedience? The guy who ordered his most loyal servant to murder his own son to prove his loyalty? The guy who set his pet bears on children for slagging some bald bloke and so on and so on.
Find me a despot in all of human history who comes close to matching your hero for cruelty, bloodlust and just general bat shít craziness. Even 1 person, even 1 tenth as bad. I bet you can't. Yet somehow, in your mind he is the good guy, because he insisted that you call him that or else it's incineration for you gordo.
Think about that for a while.
You my friend are a victim of Stockholm syndrome!

Lady Chuckles

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dunno. The first time round, if we're to believe the gospels, he preached to large crowds, travelling around for the purpose. Have we any reason to think he would seek a lower profile this time?

Well, this is only my belief... so whether "we" have a reason to believe this to be the case; probably not. I have reasons though

I tend to think everyone is so wrapped up in their own nowadays. Society offers a constant flow of information and distractions through many different medias. People are busy and stressed. So I don't think people on TV are able to "reach out" as much anymore as we are overfed information. There are galas and a fundraisers for an awful lot of things, so to the point that it doesn't speak to us anymore.
That's why I think Jesus would keep a lower profile and speak to a few here and there

Mark Tapley

Peregrinus wrote: »

If I had any reason to think it would bother him in the slightest, I wouldn't mention it. But in fact the only reason I know about his affiliation is that he posted it himself on board.ie last week, so I don't think he will object to it's being mentioned.


No, a challenging message may be very easy to understand; just uncomfortable to accept.

Like the KKK saying we must protect the purity of the white race. Easy to understand uncomfortable to accept. Or just bullshít.

RikuoAmero

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Like the KKK saying we must protect the purity of the white race. Easy to understand uncomfortable to accept. Or just bullshít.

I take it you haven't heard about this then?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2828425/The-Ku-Klux-Klan-opens-door-Jews-black-people-homosexuals-new-recruits-wear-white-robes-hats.html

Mark Tapley

RikuoAmero wrote: »

I take it you haven't heard about this then?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2828425/The-Ku-Klux-Klan-opens-door-Jews-black-people-homosexuals-new-recruits-wear-white-robes-hats.html

Does Jesus do any smiting or is that Gods bailiwick?

Peregrinus

Mark Tapley wrote: »

Like the KKK saying we must protect the purity of the white race. Easy to understand uncomfortable to accept. Or just bullshít.

False dichotomy, Mark. A message can be both challenging and bullsh1t. We know that the first time round, what Jesus said got him nailed to a tree. You think people did that because they thought he was bullsh1tting, or because it challenged them in some more fundamental way?

Remember, you're in the Christianity forum. It's generally the case that in this forum there are more things to be said about aspects of Christianity than that some people think Christianity is bullsh1t. The fact that some people think this is rarely more than tangentially relevant to the topics being discussed here. If you come into a thread here purely for the purpose of letting us know that you think Christianity is bullsh1t, most people are going to regard that as threadsh1tting. Just sayin'.

Mark Tapley

Peregrinus wrote: »

False dichotomy, Mark. A message can be both challenging and bullsh1t. We know that the first time round, what Jesus said got him nailed to a tree. You think people did that because they thought he was bullsh1tting, or because it challenged them in some more fundamental way?

Remember, you're in the Christianity forum. It's generally the case that in this forum there are more things to be said about aspects of Christianity than that some people think Christianity is bullsh1t. The fact that some people think this is rarely more than tangentially relevant to the topics being discussed here. If you come into a thread here purely for the purpose of letting us know that you think Christianity is bullsh1t, most people are going to regard that as threadsh1tting. Just sayin'.

Believe the message - Good
Don't believe the message - it is your inability to accept an uncomfortable truth. Any other options?
Jesus was nailed to the cross because of politics, fomenting revolt.
What he was actually saying was incidental.

J C

Last_Minute wrote: »

Jesus will never return to earth. Think about it. He created the universe and all the trillions of other planets, why would he choose to return to this dump where constant war kills thousand of people every day?

Also why hasn't he returned already? Where is he exactly?

Do you realise the Bible predicts that people in the end times will ask exactly your question?

... and the answer to your question is given in 2 Peter 3:9 below.

2 Peter 3:3-9
Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

RikuoAmero

J C wrote: »

Do you realise the Bible predicts that people in the end times will ask exactly your question.

2 Peter 3:3-9
Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Wow, whoever wrote that particular passage must have somehow known that there would be people who would scoff and not believe him. So he says "Ah, be patient guys, God has a different sense of time than we do!"
As the unbeliever, that doesn't really solve the question the other guy asked. To me, the non-existent god who will never show up to fulfill a prophecy, and the existing god who will turn up to fulfill a prophecy but only thousands of years after I'm dead look exactly the same.

J C

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Wow, whoever wrote that particular passage must have somehow known that there would be people who would scoff and not believe him. So he says "Ah, be patient guys, God has a different sense of time than we do!"
As the unbeliever, that doesn't really solve the question the other guy asked. To me, the non-existent god who will never show up to fulfill a prophecy, and the existing god who will turn up to fulfill a prophecy but only thousands of years after I'm dead look exactly the same.

... they won't look exactly the same ... when you get to meet and greet 'the existing God', as you call Him ... instead of the supposedly 'non-existent god', when you die.:eek: