Why can't Jesus come already?

[2Dbunk]

We've recently had innocent children gassed; school children killed enmass. pedestrians run over in large cities. So when will Jesus say "enough is enough" and come down and save those loyal to him before more of them defect to Donald Trump?

Some may think this is a dare by a disgruntled Atheist -- and they would be right! Enough of superstitious religion in everyman and woman's face, having to prove nothing but reveling and bragging about stupefying expectations. Why isn't "He" down here already, sending me to hell for my apostasy and delivering the brain dead to their ecstasy? Has anyone really thought about the multitudes just these past few weeks, that, because of their evil, will be consigned to everlasting brimstone. The Christian God and his son, knowing all this, are sadistic to the nth degree to allow it to continue. Can anyone logically defend the actions of this Dynamic Duo?

PS - I don't hate God, mainly because he doesn't exist (certainly not the personal kind, anyway).

[tam]

Peace to you!

JW, Post #10]

But I thought the OP was built on the prerequisite there is no God.

Or is your OP to discuss how inactive nothing is?

The latter. You hit the nail on the head! I discuss it as being a provocative hypothetical, trying to figure out what makes religionists tick.

I have to say, 2Dbunk, I'm not seeing that your provocative hypothetical has helped you to figure out what makes 'religionists' tick.

Tam's response is indicative of religionists attempt to rational their heritage, even as doubts swirl in their heads.

I can assure you that there are no doubts swirling in my head.


My Lord has not yet returned because it is not yet time for Him TO return; and that time was set from the beginning.




Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[JehovahsWitness]

...nothing doesn't do anything because nothing is by definition the absence of anything.

Which answers the question, "Why can't Jesus come already?". .

No it answered the question about the nature of "nothing".

I don't believe Jesus is " nothing" so the question is imho totally unrelated to him. I understand however that the question of whether Jesus can be classified as "nothing" is beyond tbe scope of this thread. Naturally, those that agree with the stated bias the OP may draw an alternative concusion.

JW

[Tcg]

I don't believe Jesus is " nothing"...

JW

Your belief has no effect on reality. Jesus, if such a person ever existed, is long dead and has long been nothing.

[JehovahsWitness]

I don't believe Jesus is " nothing"...

JW

Your belief has no effect on reality. .

Please present your proof to support this claim.

Jesus, if such a person ever existed, is long dead and has long been nothing.

I am aware you sincerely, however you cannot prove this to be the case.

• If Jesus no longer exists, he is incapable of taking any action. If he does, he can. I believe he exits, you (I presume) also have a belief, your belief is that he does not. One of our beliefs reflects the reality, and therefore impacts on reality, one does not. The discussion on which belief system is right is beyond the stated scope of this thread, but reasonably, since you cannot prove which is true you, like myself can only state your belief.

Your belief has been duly noted.


JW

[Willum]

Your belief has no effect on reality. .

Please present your proof to support this claim.

This is kinda a definition of sanity. I mean they ask if you think you have superpowers - you know like your beliefs change reality. He shouldn't need to provide proof that belief doesn't change reality, it is kinda a given.

Jesus, if such a person ever existed, is long dead and has long been nothing.

I am aware you sincerely, however you cannot prove this to be the case.

Interesting, no one has ever come back from the dead before, there is no reasonable way for anyone to return from the dead, yet he can't prove it? I think you need to prove it is a reasonable thing to believe. Note: Don't prove that Jesus et&al., were raised from the dead, just prove it is a reasonable thing to believe that they were, and no sneaky believing because you believe as a reason.

If Jesus no longer exists, he is incapable of taking any action. If he does, he can. I believe he exits, you (I presume) also have a belief, your belief is that he does not. One of our beliefs reflects the reality, and therefore impacts on reality, one does not. The discussion on which belief system is right is beyond the stated scope of this thread, but reasonably, since you cannot prove which is true you, like myself can only state your belief.[/list]

Your belief has been duly noted.


JW

That ain't a belief. it is a logical conclusion, one that, if you disagree, you need to provide some evidence or logic to dispute.

Jesus, if he ever existed at all, is dead. Perhaps some fanatics claimed he rose from the dead, but it is on you to prove it.

[Bust Nak]

I wish you had stated what these simple premises were so we could evaluate them.

Good news! I did exactly that elsewhere on multiple occasion, many times directly in response to you, re: the problem of evil. Here is one example. Here is another.

In simple terms the 'knowledge' I have acquired about how we ended up in this state is...

3. Some chose to be evil and some chose to be good.

And hence affirming one of the premise of the problem of evil. This contradict with the existence of an omni-max style god.

How could HIS omnipotent ability to create and destroy change this logical flow of events?

HIS omnipotent ability allows him to intervene in a non-contradictory manner before step 3. i.e without the usual noises of forcing or coercing or programming us. I am deliberately and explicit stating non-contradictory to rule out red-herring claim that this would somehow involve an violation of our ability to choose to be holy or evil as set out in step 1.

Finally, you didn't answer one of my question, which I thought had merit. You said omnipotence does not mean God can go against his own character. Lets take lying (presumed to be against God's character) for example:

a) God is omnipotent but cannot lie, the implication being that a lying God is an impossibility.

b) God is omnipotent and hence can lie but would not lie. The implication here is that a lying God is a logically coherent concept and hence possible. God just wouldn't.

The implications are different but is it significant?

[Mithrae]

We've recently had innocent children gassed; school children killed enmass. pedestrians run over in large cities. So when will Jesus say "enough is enough" and come down and save those loyal to him before more of them defect to Donald Trump?

Some may think this is a dare by a disgruntled Atheist -- and they would be right! Enough of superstitious religion in everyman and woman's face, having to prove nothing but reveling and bragging about stupefying expectations. Why isn't "He" down here already, sending me to hell for my apostasy and delivering the brain dead to their ecstasy? Has anyone really thought about the multitudes just these past few weeks, that, because of their evil, will be consigned to everlasting brimstone.

Trying to conflate two or three or four different questions/doctrines into a single thread will dramatically narrow its scope and hence (arguably) effectiveness. Were you interested in discussing the timing of Jesus' alleged return, or doctrines about the fate of souls after death, or "Is the Christian god and "His" son sadistic to the nth degree"? Those are partially overlapping, but still three quite distinct questions - regardless of how rhetorically or emotionally compelling it may be to throw them all in together!

Assuming that the latter two were tangential and that the thread title is the main point here, I have to say that I'm not too impressed with the Christian responses

You asked "Why doesn't Jesus return?" But it seems that beyond the usual obligatory reference to some verses in the gospels, neither you nor our Christian responders have asked/answered why would Jesus have returned by now?

Why would Jesus return in the 8th century?
Why would Jesus return in the 13th century?
Why would Jesus return in the 18th century?
Why would Jesus return in the 20th century?

As far as I can tell, prior to the late 20th century or so, there has been nothing objectively special about the things happening on this planet to make any given century any more special than another. If Jesus didn't come back in the 1st century, why on earth would he have come back in any other?

Now however, for the first time in human history
a) we have instantaneous global communications
b) we have extended our reach beyond our atmosphere
c) we have the potential to destroy ourselves and most other species
d) we also have the potential to provide a live of comfort and plenty for all
e) we have the potential, in the next few decades, to create machines more intelligent than ourselves

Each of these is utterly new and unique in human history, and besides perhaps B each of these can be quite clearly and directly related to various notions about prophecy and "God's plan" or (in the case of D) our failure as a species to live up to what we might have been: And in that latter case, a plausible interpretation of the 'millennial kingdom' is that it wouldn't be some supernatural reign of God qua God, but rather a 'merely' human rule of Jesus showing what we could have accomplished ourselves, if we had generally tried to do so rather than alternately blaming or cynically exploiting 'God' for our own selfish ends. (In fact, some kind of vindication along those lines is really the only plausible concept behind a literal 'millennial kingdom' that I know of.)


Now I'm not a Christian. But it seems to me that if we look at the events which have occurred on the surface of this planet objectively, there are some fairly obvious and noteworthy characteristics which distinguish the century from WW2 forwards from every previous century.

So if we - admittedly from our privileged position in the 21st century - ask ourselves "Why didn't Jesus return in the Nth century?" and find ourselves unable to come up with a plausible answer in addition to 'he doesn't exist,' it seems to me that we simply aren't trying very hard to look at those centuries objectively!

[ttruscott]

ttruscott, I'm reminded how Anatole France described theology: "That science which treats the unknowable with infinitesimal exactness."

Then he was a fool as there is nothing of the scientific method in the study of theology, nor is its topic matter unknowable to all; it is just knowable in the Spirit, not in the physical.

Exactness is prized unless it relegates others to a position of not understanding.

[ttruscott]

Quote:
In simple terms the 'knowledge' I have acquired about how we ended up in this state is...

3. Some chose to be evil and some chose to be good.

And hence affirming one of the premise of the problem of evil. This contradict with the existence of an omni-max style god.

Far from it - it affirms the existence of a GOD whose purpose in our creation necessitated our free will including the ability to choose to be evil in HIS sight.

[ttruscott]

HIS omnipotent ability allows him to intervene in a non-contradictory manner before step 3. i.e without the usual noises of forcing or coercing or programming us. I am deliberately and explicit stating non-contradictory to rule out red-herring claim that this would somehow involve an violation of our ability to choose to be holy or evil as set out in step 1.

Calling the coercion of our free will to not choose evil as an intervention in a non-contradictory manner is sophistry. An intervention that changes our minds irrevocably IS a violation of our ability to choose to be holy or evil as set out in step 1 on our own!

Non-contradictory has no meaning except to hide the fact you still deny HIS interference denies our true free will behind a new word.