Odds of Jesus returning soon

Posted on by

According to Sportsbet the odds of Jesus Christ returning soon are 501/1

It’s all too obvious that, even if Jesus returned this year in clouds of glory, there would be those who wouldn’t acknowledge him.

The author John Updike said if Jesus did return sometime soon the event would be cut down to size by the TV evening news. It wouldn’t be the lead item.
“Our brains are no longer conditioned for reverence and awe,’’ he said.

Years ago, acclaimed US broadcaster Edward R Murrow caused a bit of a fuss when he observed: “If we were to do the Second Coming of Christ in color for a full hour, there would be a considerable number of stations which would decline to carry it on the grounds that a Western or a quiz show would be more profitable.’’

If Jesus was on his earthly mission today, he might be cited by the AMA for practicing medicine without a licence, the Liquor Licencing people for making wine without a permit, the Department of Health for opening graves without a permit, the Equal Opportunity folks for practicing discrimination and PETA for sending demons into a herd of pigs. Not to mention the interfaith movement for declaring that one way is right.

The miracle is that Jesus’s mission and message remain relevant and widely heard despite the attempts over centuries to tone them down.

Jesus continues to challenge conventional ideas of what’s right and wrong, to cut through hypocrisy, to inspire protest against injustice, assure the oppressed that they are loved and valued, and to instil hope that another kind of community is possible,

Whether that’s possible all hinges on whether Jesus was, as he said, the Son of God, human but divine and capable of saving us all.

There will always be those who try to downplay Jesus as just a social reformer, or a long-haired peace activist.

But a mere hippie or moral teacher could not have made this unique impression on mankind.

Despite our efforts to keep him out, God intrudes. When Jesus returns this time, we’ll all know it.

117 thoughts on “Odds of Jesus returning soon”

  3. Except Jesus deflected when it was suggested he claimed to be the Son of God. Yes, I know, in the Gospel of John he owns it. In that, it doesn’t make sense that he would deflect such a title one time and own such a title another. Certainly a continuity issue, one that should be scrutinized.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • No He did not. In Matthew 4:3 the devil’s first temptation challenges the idea that Jesus is the Son of God by asking Him to turn stones to bread. Jesus does not correct the devil’s challenge to His position as the Son of God, but rather challenges the Devil on obedience to God. This is the first admission by Christ that He is the Son of God.

      Read everything on the matter JasonJshaw and not just selected passages.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • And just a little bit latter in Matthew the Devil promises Jesus the world if Jesus worships him.

        If he really was the son of God that offer would not have any meaning. It would be like trying to bribe Bill Gates with $50.00

        Read everything on the matter davinci and not just selected passages.

        Like

      • I don’t see any sort of admittance in that passage by Jesus that he is the Son of God. Implied at best. Jesus proves nothing but his knowledge of the Old Testament, something you’d think the Devil would have known well about in his tests.

        And who could have possibly witnessed these in order to re-tell such a wild story?

        Anything else that I should read that isn’t easily put into question through a little careful thought?

        Like

      • Bubba Ray

        You don’t understand temptation. The devil cannot tempt one unless there is something in that person that the Devil can actually twist to induce the person to fall for his temptation.

        For example, the Devil cannot tempt me to steal a luxury car. I have absolutely no interest in cars, outside of using them as a tool to get from A to B. So it is pointless for the devil to even try.

        In the case of Jesus, the temptation would have been pointless to make to Jesus as the Son of God, but very easy to make to Jesus as the Son of Man, as we are told that He was incarnated as a servant (with less political power than a free man), we are told that the foxes have lairs, the birds nest, but Jesus did not even have a place to lay His head down. To someone who had nothing, it would have very tempting to use political power to advance Christianity, in the same manner that Mohammed used political power to advance Islam.

        Thankfully, He didn’t use political power to advance Christianity.

        Like

      • ” but Jesus did not even have a place to lay His head down”

        Right but he could have changed the stones to bread………

        Seems that he was either powerful or powerless whenever it suits your.

        Like

    • Hi davinci,
      as I’ve pointed out many times, Son of God in no way means exactly the same as God the Son. Every Jew understands himself to be a Son of God. Each king of old Israel was crowned with the Psalmist’s word (so they tell me) which run ‘Thou art my son. This day have I begotten thee.’ as one who once accepted the Adoptionist view about Jesus, I have little doubt that the words described as being divinely declared at the Baptism, were those same words, not revised as in the present text.

      I rather expect anyway, that by the time that the Matthew text you quote was written, the powers that be in the church had come to that conclusion that Jesus was an incarnation of The God and made sure that the verses they left in reflected their views, leaving the terms ambiguous.
      Rian.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • shock! horror!! By what warped fantasy would anyone come to the conclusion that the bible was ambiguous?! Heretic!! Get the stake and the kindling!

        Sorry Rian…sometimes I just can’t help myself! Have a great day.
        I did!

        Like

      • “as I’ve pointed out many times, Son of God in no way means exactly the same as God the Son.”

        Well, yes, that may be so Rian, but……..

        Jesus is The Son Of God

        “At Jesus’ baptism, the Father spoke out of heaven and said,

        “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased,” (Matt. 3:17).

        The writer of Hebrews quotes the Old Testament in reference to Christ and says,

        “FOR TO WHICH OF THE ANGELS DID HE EVER SAY, ‘YOU ARE MY SON. TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU”? And again, “I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME”? 6 And when He again brings the first-born into the world, He says, “AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.” 7 And of the angels He says, “WHO MAKES HIS ANGELS WINDS, AND HIS MINISTERS A FLAME OF FIRE.” 8 But of the Son He says, “YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER,” (Psalm 2:7-9).

        We can clearly see that in this context, Jesus being called the Son of God means that Jesus is God. Of course, this is reflective of the Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So, the term Son of God means that Jesus is God in flesh.”

        Matt Slick

        Like

    • davinci and all,
      for anyone who is familiar with the training of Jewish scholars, the story of the Temptation of Christ looks very familiar.

      Key questions are thrown at the student, and he is expected to come out with the correct verse or verses from the Jewish Scripture that answer the questions. This is just what the account appears to suggest. The term of ‘the Satan’ within Judaism could apply to any accuser or testing individual, as well as the heavenly Prosecuting counsel. So the story reads just like a case of Jesus was undergoing an examination at the time in preparation for his mission, and for each of the three questions, Jesus gave the correct answer out of Deuteronomy, thereby demonstrating that he knew the Scriptures.

      Everything there reads just like that. We are even told that he went into the wilderness in order to be tempted (read tested or examined) by the Satan. It was clearly all prearranged.
      Rian.

      ,

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

      • Except that Jesus was not tested by some Jewish scholar. I am familiar with what you are saying but the two are not similar.

        We are told that the first temptation came when He was hungry (after 40 days of fasting) when one’s ability to judge and reason coherently are impaired. No Jewish examiner would do such a thing to his students.

        And it just got worse. It is believed by some that when the Devil showed Him the kingdoms of the earth in all their glory, he was using the power of hallucination to tempt Jesus with the kingdoms of the earth. If that is true, then we have one of the greatest strengths of character that Jesus had ever shown. He resisted the temptation even under conditions conducive to hallucinations.

        Like

      • davinci,
        Of course you are taking it that the Gospel accounts are verbally accurate. It looks far more to me like later revisions of the text to fit more of the theological development that had happened by the end of the first century. Quite easy to imagine that the scene of the so-called Temptations was simply a combining or even confusion of two or three anecdotes strung together by later scribes. The idea of a ‘Master’ or Guru trotting off into some sort of desert or cave or mountain-top in order to separate himself under deprivation for certain spiritual exercises, is well-known. Legend tells us that the Buddha went through very similar trials.

        You still havent explained how the whole episode is described as pre-arranged. Some very clear appointment with the Satan, for sure. And as for the idea that Jesus – who was supposed to be God (the Son), how he could display anything other than strength of character… Well words fail me. When some expert theologian can explaine clearly just how Jesus could be both God and man, I will take a bit more interest.

        Rian.

        Like

  4. When Jesus pbuh returns it will be grand. He will make position very plain. He will return to Damascus surrounded by a war with the Anti Christ leading.

    Like

    Reply ↓

    • Come back to Australia, Dom; somebody found your Sense of Humour hiding under a bed…and it’s refusing to go to asia and certain death.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • ps….if you can bring yourself to read Deuteronomy 13 with an open (inquisitive) mind you’ll see that god ( the jewish god, remember ) clearly describes Jesus as the antichrist, and condemns him to death.
        Quite obviously one of the “other gods” who would lead the jews from ‘the gods of their fathers’ were were Jesus and Allah, given the historical evidence.
        By some strange ‘coincidence’ (even though christians insist there’s no such thing) Revelation13(!) confirms the theme. Jesus is the ‘dragon’ which rises out of the “sea” (aka the ‘baptismal waters’) and the seven heads obviously represent the seven major schisms of his church, each with their own independent ‘Crown’.

        Verse five clearly refers to the length of Jesus’ ministry. , verse 8 clearly describes all non-jews as those who stand condemned ~ which itself is confirmed by Revelations 7…which itself is generally a repeat of ….yep! Deuteronomy 7.
        Another ‘coincidence?

        Like

      • My two year contract finished and I am back in Brisbane. Don’t tell PG otherwise he will round me up and send me lovingly to the airport to wave me goodbye.

        Like

      • Deuteronomy 13

        If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder spoken of takes place, and the prophet says, “Let us follow other gods” (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,” 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The Lord your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul.

        Not Jesus pbuh but some that followed him.

        Peter had an interesting reply to a similar question. It is in Clementine Homily 16 in his discussion with Simon the magician.

        Simon stated
        Since you say that we ought not to believe even the prophet that gives signs and wonders if he say that there is another god, and that you know that he even incurs the penalty of death, therefore your teacher also was with reason cut off for having given signs and wonders.

        And Peter answered:
        Our Lord neither asserted that there were gods except the Creator of all, nor did He proclaim Himself to be God, but He with reason pronounced blessed him who called Him the Son of that God who has arranged the universe. .

        Like

      • Ah! Goodonyer. We can add one more brain to a seriously understocked inventory!
        If you’re really concerned about PG just send a letter to the airport authority telling them if they try to export you you’ll blow up the plane, and sign it Mad Moslem..

        Don’t laugh…. Today I had a magistrate telling me that ‘principle’ had nothing to do with ‘law’. True; funny story.

        Like

      • I don’t have the time of the theology to get into the myriad ~ and endlessly variable ~ details Dom. But however it came about the bottom line is that Jesus/christianity led jews away from the god ‘their fathers had not known. (even if only because there WAS no Jesus in the days of their fathers/whatever.)
        And there WAS only one god:-
        I AM. (no hint of ‘We Are’.) The ‘Son of God’ and Trinity claims fall on the very words of THE ONE TRUE god. Check also the First Commandment, etc.
        And the other side of that coin must be that, if they WEREN’T led astray from the god of their fathers, then there is no basis for christianity, nor the worship of Jesus, since he wasn’t “known” by the (eg) disciples’ fathers.

        As I say, I don’t have the theology (nor any real interest, to be honest), but I can follow a logical argument and enjoy doing so.

        Incidentally, I’ve never been impressed by later ‘patch-up’ jobs performed by people who’ve spent perhaps centuries getting their heads together and their stories straight. (and almost for their own aggrandisement. eg Paul the Loser until he created a patchwork god to suit his own ends. “God told me….whatever” is no longer a valid assertion with proof.)
        You accept the ‘original’ or you don’t. Patching up even ‘Truth’ gives it the stink of falsity.
        I’ve often said ~ for years ~ that the most stupid and self-destructive thing christianity ever did was to insist upon hitching it to the jewish god. A few quick
        paragraphs could’ve had Jesus declaring himself the newly-discovered One True God.
        Islam has done pretty well taking that tack.

        Like

      • Egyptian religion went through upheavals. At the time of Joseph the kings seemed to have been distant relatives of the Hebrews, and may have had similar beliefs. But later the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 who “came to power in Egypt” and “did not know Joseph”. It was from him that Moses led the Israelites. Moses himself was brought up by the Pharaoh’s daughter, could have been royal by birth.(Despite what the Bible tells us!) The name Moses is incomplete, does not usually stand alone, means ‘drawn from’ something, ‘descended from’ someone, a little like ‘de’ in France, ‘O’ in Ireland, ‘Mac’ in Scotland.

        The Egyptian royal family had many Mose names, brothers and sisters who intermarried.

        Crown Prince Thutmose who disappears from the public records, appears to have become a priest. .His bier is inscribed
        *Thoth-MS-S ‘, “True of Voice” ‘–SM (priest?) Tutmosis, “True of Voice”-(“deserving”, worthy, or “venerable”).*
        Note the ‘Mosis’!

        In his place, his younger brother . Ahmenhotep IV, who changed his name to Ahkenaten, succeeded to the throne, and monotheism was embraced.

        Tutankhaten, who succeeded him at age 8 (with Akhenaten’s old vizier, Ay, as regent) changed his name to Tutankhamun in year 3 of his reign (1348 BC or 1331 BC) and monotheism fell out of favour.

        Did Akhenaten learn monotheism from the Hebrews, or did Moses learn it from Ahkenaten? Doesn’t really matter, does it.
        🙂

        Like

      • Wilson v St George Bank Ltd (S284/2001) [2003] HCATrans 597

        MR WILSON: Your job is to ensure fairness.

        GUMMOW J: No, it is not.

        MR WILSON: It is not?

        GUMMOW J: It is to apply justice, according to law.

        MR WILSON: And what is justice? Justice is the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs and justice is what I am after. Justice means – – –

        GUMMOW J: Justice, according to law

        Like

    • If what you say was true, it would have been indicated in the Hebrew Old Testament as well as the Christian New Testament. But this is not the case.

      In the Old Testament we are told that:

      “On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem. And the Mount of Olives will split apart, making a wide valley running from east to west. Half the mountain will move toward the north and half toward the south.” Zech. 14:4

      In the New Testament we are told that Jesus will return in like manner as He went to heaven (Acts 1:11). Jesus ascended to heaven from the Mount of Olives.

      So unless the Mount of Olives spoken here is anywhere near Damascus, then the whole statement by Islamic sources is incorrect.

      Incorrect because they admit that Jesus was a prophet, Mohammed was a prophet, Allah and Jehovah are the same God, etc. But when we scrutinise their claim, we find that Mohammed essentially disagrees with every prophet of the Old Testament and Jesus’ teachings. When we scrutinise the teachings of Jesus with those of the prophets that went before Him, we find an extremely harmonious agreement.

      When we scrutinise why Islam’s statements about Jesus differ from those of the gospels, we find that Islam only received the gospel from second hand sources and did not bother to check whether their sources were reporting matters accurately or not.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • I think I may have been a bit too subtle.

        The reason why I mentioned Haman is because the Christian apologists, and missionaries made similar claims you did on the authenticity of the Quran. They used the verses in relation to Haman.

        Quran

        Haman has been ordered by the Pharaoh to build a tower.

        Bible

        Haman is an advisor to Xerxes (Ahaseures) and in Babylon

        Now when people in Europe began studying eastern thought, as well as Islam they discovered this. Almost immediately they began saying that Muhammad pbuh took this religion from some priest and mixed up the stories when he was “making” the Qur’an. Their main goal was to say that the Qur’an was made up, or written by man.

        Sounds a bit like you doesn’t it.

        Example : Encyclopedia Britannica said in 1891:

        “The most ignorant Jew could never have mistaken Haman (the minister of Ahasuerus) for the minister of the Pharaoh”

        In the 19th and 20th century when the study of Hieroglyphics began to revive the language of the ancient Egyptians; a French Doctor Maurice Bucaille, was studying history and came across this disparity in the Qur’an and the Bible. So he went to Egyptologist to get to the root of the person named “Haman”. What he discovered was at the estimated time of Moses, there was a man who was named ‘Haman’ and he was a worker of the Pharaoh and his duty was “The Chief of the workers in the stone-quarries.” Just as the Qur’an described it. So Dr. Bucaille went to one of the French Egyptologist and told him that the a man in 7th century who claimed to a Messenger of God, said that there was a man named Haman and that he was an architect for the Pharaoh. He was later told that this book was the Qur’an, and the Egyptologist responded:

        Had the Bible or any other literary work, composed during a period when the hieroglyphs could still be deciphered, quoted ‘Haman,’ the presence in the Qur’an of this word might have not drawn special attention. But, it is a fact that the hieroglyphs had been totally forgotten at the time of the Qur’anic Revelation and that no one could not read them until the 19th century AD. Since matters stood like that in ancient times, the existence of the word ‘Haman’ in the Qur’an suggests a special reflection.”

        Oh by the way in the late 19th century, the Catholic Church declared the Book of Esther, of being a book of tales and not a historic book.

        So if I am told that Jesus pbuh is to descend near the mosque of Damascus, then I have good reason to believe that is what it going to happen. Any other literature that states otherwise is wrong. Just as the book of Esther was proved wrong.

        How the Qur’an corrected the Errors of the Bible

        Like

      • Ever wonder whether there could’ve been two yobbos named ‘Haman’?
        Ever wondered why all these ‘One True God(s) ~ they who can Create the Heavens and the Earth in a moment, from nothing ~ couldn’t write their own ‘Books’, but had to rely on self-promoting ‘prophets’?
        I do.
        ….and if you want a giggle, imagine Moses and Mohammed and Paul down at the local pub.
        Pissed.

        Like

      • There may have been two yobbos called Haman. The point is the Haman in the Quran was laughed out because it did not line up with the Haman in the bible. It was later verified by hieroglyphs that were deciphered in the 19th and 20th century, to be true. As the Egyptologist stated, this knowledge was impossible in the 7th century.

        The Haman in the bible on the otherhand was proved to be fake.

        Like

      • Y’don’t mean Elvis Haman, do you!
        I think he was the bloke who used the nom-de-plume ‘Moses’.

        Like

    • the Christians of the first century were absolutely certain he was coming soon in their day.
      Rian
      PS 5001/1?? Yep i’ll take you on; but I would appreciate it if you will specify what you mean by soon.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • Well, Young Feller, I was going to give you a break and suggest the (get-out-of-jail-free-card) Oxford definition of:- before long; presently, in the near future.
        However, since over two thousand years have expired waiting for him to get his act together, I’d be inclined to give him MY lifetime, rather than that of the disciples. (maybe five years tops)
        On the other hand, since it only took him three days to get over being dead and escaping the grave I’d’ve thought, say, 12 months would be fair.

        Anyway, send your money down and we’ll work out a suitable time-table.
        ……unless, of course, you think he might be scratched??…in which case I’ll return your money.
        Minus a small handling and storage charge……..

        Like

      • The apostles believed that He would come in their day. Matthew 24 indicates that they thought that the destruction of Jerusalem was coincident with the coming of the Messiah to take up the throne of David and establish His kingdom (See Matthew 24:1-4).

        Jesus did not correct their view at that time. Instead He mixed the events surrounding His Second Coming with the Destruction of Jerusalem to paint a picture of the political situation that God’s people would face at the second coming. They were to regard what was happening inside Jerusalem during the siege as a microcosm of what will happen in the whole world, during the time of the Second Coming.

        Josephus Flavius describes in great detail what was happening in the city during the siege. Not a pretty sight.

        Like

      • hi Woodn’t Chano,
        just the other day, I put in a posting to you, that didnt show up. I know I cant blame good old Bryan since there was no way my comments were objectionable.
        Anyway, what I said was, thinking it over, maybe i got the thing wrong when it came to odds.

        I am a total non-gambler, and I cant actually be sure of whether or not I’m reading the figures rightly. So just to make the matter clear, I dont believe for a second that there is going to be any ‘return’ of Jesus Christ at any time. So apologies if I misled you. We probably think along the same lines.

        Cheers, Rian. (elderly eccentric, living with two pussycats, and a house full of books.)

        Like

      • Sure you can, Olde Chum : ” I know I cant blame good old Bryan”
        Any publicity is good publicity, as they say. 🙂

        Like

      • Yeah…I’m a non-gambler too. Prefer to rely on certainties.
        And arbitrageI
        And yes, I think we’re pretty-much on the same page.

        Like

    • According to Bryan’s oft-touted statistics 98% of the perpetrators of this atrocity are ‘believers’.
      But they’re “only animals”, aren’t they?

      Again, that’s rubbish Dabs. I never said that. But of course, facts mean nothing to you..

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • Come along now! I’m the one who consistently demands ~ and produces ~ facts be the benchmark. If they get too sensitive (aka ‘offensive’ to someone or other) you refuse to publish them. And the fallback ‘legal’ position is nonsense: it’s NEVER libellous to republish information in the public domain.(Unless specifically banned by a court.)

        In a lengthy ‘debate’ on the allegedly insignificant number of atheists ~ as opposed to ‘believers’, hence ‘proving’ the validity of ‘belief’ ~ you trotted out a number of stats/surveys to confirm your case. To which I responded with some comment about the top 2% of the population having the highest IQs.
        I can go digging if you like, after the weekend; it’s likely I have some of the posts on file. The issue has come up a number of times. But I’m in court tomorrow on the same issue as those who blew the whistle on the animal abusers in the greyhound saga will face.
        Meanwhile, what do you claim the figures are now? I seem to remember a figure of about 22% (and growing) being bandied about for atheism more recently.

        I can also, if necessary dig up the record of you consistently saying that animals are just animals and do not rate the same considerations as ‘human beings who are NOT animals.”

        As I recall, a large body of that debate revolved around whether (other) animals could offer, and deserved, compassion; and you insisted they couldn’t and didn’t; that’s why it was OK to eat them and not eat your neighbours.
        Do you REALLY not remember the contretemps about the very idea of ‘divisible compassion’. I can dig it up from my files for your edification if you wish ~ and promise to post it all if I go to the trouble.
        That particular event wasn’t the only time the issue was raised.
        The ‘facts’ are available.

        Like

      • Human beings possess unique intellectual, cultural, and communicative abilities. Humans are thinkers, uniquely capable of abstract reasoning, and able to apply the foundational logical principle of non contradiction (A cannot equal A and equal non-A). Human minds alone develop propositions, formulate arguments, draw inferences, recognize universal principles, and value logical validity, coherence, and truth. Only human beings wonder why the physical universe corresponds to abstract mathematical theorems.

        Like

      • C. S. Lewis offers a different perspective. Precisely because animals are not created in the image of God and do not have a soul, Lewis writes, “the infliction of pain upon them [becomes] not easier but harder to justify …. For it means that animals cannot deserve pain, nor profit morally by the discipline of pain, nor be recompensed by happiness in another life for suffering in this” (quoted in “C. S. Lewis’s Theology of Animals,” an article by theologian Andrew Linzey). In other words, suffering in humans is more easily redeemed by God than in animals, which makes it all the more important for humans to see to it that animals do not suffer.

        Like

      • As I’ve written previously, according to an old theory, an infinite number of monkeys given an infinite number of typewriters eventually will produce the works of Shakespeare.
        Researchers decided to test the theory on a small scale.
        Six monkeys in a British zoo were given one computer for a month and left alone. In the end, the experiment was much about nothing.
        The monkeys failed to produce a word. In fact, the primates attacked the machine with rocks.
        Perhaps it’s more evidence humans are not an improved version of another species, but something unique.

        BUT I’ve never said that animals do not deserve compassion. That’s another Dabbles lie

        Like

      • “Only human beings wonder why the physical universe corresponds to abstract mathematical theorems.”

        So how many other species did the author interview to come up with that figure ?

        Like

      • I’ll take that as meaning you want me NOT to dig up the record. Right?
        Odd way to of establishing the facts of which you bemoan a dearth.

        Like

      • Yep: I also remember the “… infinite number of monkeys given an infinite number of typewriters….” argument.
        ….and distinctly remember pointing out the absolute idiocy of the very concept of testing ‘infinity’ on a “small scale” !!! It’s a contradiction in terms which ~ I must confess ~ defines the Absolute.

        In terms of the so-called ‘test’ a slightly better (though still not remotely adequate ~ …or, better:- ‘infinitely INadequate’) comparison might be whether ANY of the infinite number of monkeys managed to type a single LETTER Shakespeare used on a single typewriter.
        OR WILL….Infinity is still in progress. (Even a “small-scale” bit of it.” gawd!!!)

        As for the (alleged) smashing of the typewriter, one could suggest that Shakespeare might have done the same if some fool had dumped an unknown object, for which he had NO use whatsoever, got in the way of his quill-stand.

        The whole idea is too stupid for words.
        Little wonder it’s a favourite of godbotherers everywhere.

        Like

      • Even allowing the “Human beings possess unique ……”etcetcetc. as being the reality (and I don’t yield the point in general or detail), what’s the assertion you’re making?
        I could make ~ and prove ~ a similar list of unique qualities for just about every species of which I’m aware. And in many cases those qualities are more substantial, more relevant and more accurate. It’s been said that (other) animals can’t blush….because they never need to.
        Neither do they invent gods to account for their follies and stupidities ~ also because they don’t need to. We have greater intellects, memories, and imaginations
        (depending on definition and circumstance) and that brings with it greater confusion, uncertainties, stresses of all sorts, murder and mayhem.

        No other animal kills for manufactured pleasure, politics, religion, greed or other perversion ~ to name but a few.
        Does that make US more intelligent? More forgiving? More caring? More responsible? More worthy? (if yes, of what ??)
        Rabid hyenas don’t behave like the human animal. I can’t say whether that’s because, or in spite of, our unique qualities.
        All the above are facets and factors of the larger evolutionary game; the root of all beginnings and endings.
        Another facet I’ve observed it that the more ‘intelligent’ a species the more quickly it becomes extinct.
        The pea-brained dinosaurs roamed the earth for over 200 MILLION years.
        Cockroaches who have NO (what we call a) brain, were here a million or more years before the dinosaurs, and by all indications will be here long after we’ve gone to god.

        I’m not getting much of a response (except for the Brave Sir Rian ~ and apparently his cheque’s still in the mail) to my offer to hold bets about the Second Coming, so anyone willing to bet our species will still be here in a piddling 10,000 years should contact me for odds on offer.

        Like

      • What Distinguishes Humans from Other Animals?

        http://www.livescience.com/33376-humans-other-animals-distinguishing-ment...
        Harvard researchers have identified four mental abilities humans possess that other animals don’t
        According to Marc Hauser, director of the cognitive evolution lab at Harvard University, in a recent article in Scientific American, “mounting evidence indicates that, in contrast to Darwin’s theory of a continuity of mind between humans and other species, a profound gap separates our intellect from the animal kind.”

        They are: generative computation, promiscuous combination of ideas, the use of mental symbols, and abstract thought.

        1. Generative computation

        Humans can generate a practically limitless variety of words and concepts. We do so through two modes of operation recursive and combinatorial. The recursive operation allows us to apply a learned rule to create new expressions. In combinatorial operations, we mix different learned elements to create a new concept.

        2. Promiscuous combination of ideas

        “Promiscuous combination of ideas,” Hauser explained, “allows the mingling of different domains of knowledge such as art, sex, space, causality and friendship thereby generating new laws, social relationships and technologies.”

        3. Mental symbols

        Mental symbols are our way of encoding sensory experiences. They form the basis of our complex systems of language and communication. We may choose to keep our mental symbols to ourselves, or represent them to others using words or pictures.

        4. Abstract thought

        Abstract thought is the contemplation of things beyond what we can sense.

        Like

      • This nonsense –> “Only human beings wonder why the physical universe corresponds to abstract mathematical theorems.”
        ………gets tried on by non-thinkers every so often.

        The reality is that the Universe is ‘unique’ and doesn’t ~ CAN’T ~ “correspond” to anything; it just ‘is what it is’.
        WE provide the ‘abstract mathematical theorems’ to suit what WE perceive to be the circumstances from our viewpoint in a particular moment. There is NO ‘universal mathematics’ other than the tool we’ve invented to try and make sense of it all. In fact, we’ve even provided Time and Space when it was desirable to do so.
        What was the velocity of photos while we were still swinging around in the trees by our tails? Did ‘photons’ even exist….and how did we know?
        And we still don’t know: they’re just a label we use to try to explain a phenomenon we observe from out tiniest of platforms in the miniscule portion of Existence we think we CAN observe.
        How do you suppose “mathematical theorems” ~ abstract or otherwise ~ would look if 1+1 DIDN’T = 2? ….and the next question is:- how do you KNOW 1+1=2?

        It’s the same fallacious process we use in inventing gods.
        And though all our inventions are ingenious in their own, purpose-serving way, what they have in common is that they’re on FAR too tiny a scale, because that’s all the human animal is capable of .

        Like

      • Nope. Not a vegetarian. But never been a big meat-eater either ~ and even less so the last few years. Like carbohydrates;breads, beans, pasta,etc. And anything ‘dairy’.
        Why?

        Like

      • oops. –> ” about the Deuteronomy/Revelation juxtaposition.”
        Obviously meant ‘The Genesis/Revelation justaposition’.
        The image is of the whole of creation wrapped ~ from beginning to end ~ within the inescapable coils of the Snake (cum Serpent/Dragon) (and in christianity that’s specifically defined as Original Sin ~ especially since christianity identifies the Snake/Serpent with with Satan.
        There are endless variations-on-a-theme ……er, ‘wrapped’ in that idea. (Metaphysically speaking, of course…..or should that be ‘Hydrathetically speaking’? That’d let even the Greeks get in on the One-True-God act.)

        Consider:- The Dragon of Revelation is very nearly identical to the Hydra of Greek mythology, and since the Serpent of Eden fame is a generic (or taxonomical) version of the same thing, it’s possible ~ if not entirely likely ~ that they’re three legends from the same root .And of course they’re all water creatures
        eg. if you assume that the seven heads of the Dragon are also obvious in the ‘many-headed Hydra’. then ideas do start popping. And every time Hercules cuts off a head of the Hydra it grows two more. Hold that thought while you recall my proposition that The Dragon’s seven heads clearly represent the seven main religious divisions (call them ‘churches’) leading up to (and including) christianity, what happens if you ‘cut one off’?
        Like the Hydra it grows two more ~ and after a few thousand you end up with a proliferation of religions/denominations’sects/etc all stemming from a single point a long time ago.

        Just on a hunch I had a quick look at Google (type in: ‘ Legend of Snake as progenitor of creation’ and read from the top down. Virtually every major religion (including Hindu and Australian Blackfella) appears to have had a mystical Serpent at it’s roots And in every case it’s identified with water.

        As is the Darwinian idea that Life evolved, post-reptile era, and from a at a single point in the past.

        At this point the whole thing gets spooky.
        But if I were some bright and free-thinking young theology student who wanted a subject for a thesis exploring the scintificreligious connection embedded in evolution of species I’d be looking at it seriously.

        ie. Did god really create the evolution of all things?
        ….Or was it the other way around?

        I suspect the answer lies in the question: ‘WHY?’
        ……….???????, which is embedded in ‘Y H W H ……ooo-oo-w!

        With the discovery that god can’t even spell his own name correcty I’m off to molest a box of Chateau Cardboard.

        Like

      • “You really don’t see the irony Dabs?”

        In what? “Anything diary”?
        Is it that time of month again?

        Incidentally why are you STILL holding up my posts “for moderation”, when they obviously don’t require ‘moderation’.
        I do notice that you post them sometimes…..days later when nobody is even going to see them again and the subject matter has moved on.

        Or is forgetfulness one of the symptoms?

        Like

      • why are you STILL holding up my posts “for moderation”, when they obviously don’t require ‘moderation’.

        So that this blog doesn’t fall foul of libel and anti-discrimination laws. That’s just for a start!

        Like

      • Well it’s been a heck of a long time since “libel” was at all an issue in Australia so that should be the least of your worries. You might as well be concerned about champerty as libel.

        ” That’s just for a start!”

        And even more importantly. than no longer existent torts, because somebody’s little ego is easily bruised I’d guess.

        Like

      • Well it’s been a heck of a long time since “libel” was at all an issue in Australia

        Well Bubba, you got it wrong yet again.

        From http://defamationwatch.com.au/

        Anonymous bloggers can no longer defame people without a consequence. In 2012, Yahoo! and Google were each ordered by the Victorian Supreme Court to pay damages of $225,000 and $200,000 to the one person. They were treated as publishers of their search engine results, so once Google and Facebook know of the existence of defamatory material to which they are linking to (whoever posted it), they can be liable for it. In 2014, cases continued to be brought against Google around the world and also against Facebook and Twitter users. Whether aged 18 or 77, unsuspecting users had six figure verdicts levelled against them in the last 12 months

        Like

      • “…..why are you STILL holding up my posts “for moderation”, when they obviously don’t require ‘moderation’.”

        I repeat:- “…….when they obviously don’t require ‘moderation’.”

        Like

      • “…..why are you STILL holding up my posts “for moderation”, when they obviously don’t require ‘moderation’.”

        Because Dabbles as I said, your posts require moderation. I’m not going to risk libel or anti-discrimination fallout just so you can have an (anonymous) rant. Take responsibility and Do it under your own name on your own blog if you wish. Or aren’t you game to stand behind your words?

        Like

      • Despite not letting on to WHAT the subject of your question on “irony” referred, I’ll indulge you. 🙂

        You want to talk about irony? Here we have YOU citing ‘experts’ to demonstrate “What Distinguishes Humans from OTHER Animals?”, when your purpose, as always, (and, arguably, theirs) is to ‘prove that ‘humans aren’t animals’. (Note, in case you missed it, the term “OTHER” on which your reference is based.

        More on that later. Firstly I want to make the point that ~ in line with this same, dare I say, ‘bigoted’ mindset your assertion of the ‘animals are not being capable of love because love comes from god, and being “just animals” they’re incapable of either giving or receiving it WAS THE VERY ASSERTION from which stemmed your denial of animals (OTHER animals as I kept insisting) being capable of showing or accepting ‘compassion’. The evidence makes quite clear that you were wrong in the assertion and wrong in denying it now.
        I resent being called a liar by someone who either doesn’t remember or is denying facts in order to save face. (It ain’t that pretty!)
        I haven’t yet had the time nor inclination to scour my old files, but I HAVE spoken to a couple of long-term readers of this column back in the HS days who distinctly remember the debate ~ which went on for at least a couple of months and was resurrected occasionally over following years. The concept of “divisible compassion” tends to stick in people’s minds.
        Now, back to the future……..

        Like

      • If you resent being called a liar (and I didn’t say that) I guess you should stop lying.
        Your inability to understand that animals and human animals are different in thought, cognition, philosophy and behaviour is plainly blocking any sensible discussion.
        I have always said that animals should be treated with respect. That doesn’t mean I confuse the issue with silly sentiment.
        Now back to reality.

        Like

      • So Dabbles…Not a vegetarian. But never been a big meat-eater either ~ and even less so the last few years. Like carbohydrates;breads, beans, pasta,etc. And anything ‘dairy’.
        Why?

        Are you unconcerned about what happens to animals in the dairy process? Kinda hypocritical aren’t you?

        Like

      • I didn’t say that defamation isn’t a current issue. Boy o boy that “listening” thing is still a work in progress isn’t it.

        I said that the tort of libel doesn’t exist any more. Which it doesn’t.

        Like

      • You said that defamation was the same thing as libel. This is not the case. Unless you mean that apart from the different subject matter, different defences and different parties it’s the same.

        Yes I have studied law ( and perhaps unlike some in this conversation) I even understood it and passed the subjects.

        Like

      • I also passed the subjects and I guess you didn’t finish the course. You don’t seem to understand the subtleties of law. Libel and Slander were placed under the covering of defamation in Aussie law in 2006. They are still words in use. Because they mean different things.
        Happy to help out with an explanation you MIGHT understand.

        Like

      • “Libel and Slander were placed under the covering of defamation in Aussie law in 2006”

        And to think just a little while ago you were saying that libel and defamation were the same thing.

        Now they appear to be different. Hmmm cast all the aspersions you like on me as a student but it appears that I’m one heck of a tutor.

        Like

      • Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
        The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander.

        Like

      • A current Australian legal definition of defamation

        Defamation can arise from written material or may be oral. To establish a ‘prima facie’ case of actionable defamation (whether libel or slander), the plaintiff must establish three things:
        •that the material was ‘published’ (the publication);
        •that the material identifies them (the issue of identification);
        •that the material is defamatory (the defamation issue).

        Like

      • By Lawyers and Legal Services Australia on September 30, 2011

        What is defamation?

        Defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

        In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false, and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. “Unlike libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy.”

        Like

    • Nope it ain’t defamation includes the spoken word which libel does not. Defamation can be criminal, defences are now slightly different as are those parties who are able to bring an action.

      Like

      Reply ↓

  8. Jesus apparently truly meant to return soon when he said “this general would not pass away” and that “some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”. We often interpret the Bible by a doctrine we want to be true. If you’re going to believe in the Jesus of the Bible, shouldn’t you base your doctrines on what the Bible actually says, rather than invent hidden meanings about a second coming?.

    I think it’s likely that his severe injuries at crucifixion caused him to go away to heal and recuperate, with perhaps disciples covering for him temporarily, as when unrecognised on the road to Emmaus, and when he seemed to Mary to be the gardener.

    He meant to come back, but circumstances alter cases. Yet he may have already returned, reincarnated and unrecognised. He may be one of the homeless sleeping in the street, or a refugee barely escaped from drowning at sea.

    Or someone recognised as holy in another religion – after all the Jews and Gentiles have had their experience with him, why shouldn’t he devote some time to others?

    Like

    Reply ↓

      • Too airy-fairy, I think, Dom ~ as hypotheticals tend to be.

        1…. no known organism is ‘intolerant’ (in the contextual sense) except the ONE species of billions that has invented gods. It’s not reasonable to deny a
        connexion in principle. A quick glance at the ‘practice’ amply confirms the principle.
        2…. It’s not possible, in principle or practice, to be ‘intolerant’ of something of which you are ignorant.
        Had those idiots in the next thread, walking around Paris, appeared and behaved like everybody else they would have been perfectly-well tolerated
        until they ‘educated’ the natives.
        …….as were the perpetrators of 9/11 tolerated while the authorities were ignorant of their plan.

        All of which is to say that ‘intolerance’ ~ like ‘bigotry’ and a few others ~ may serve a perfectly legitimate and practicable purpose.

        Like

    • The Anti Christ may start off in hiding but the Messiah will not. The anti Christ may well be pulling the strings of some leaders as we speak.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • “The anti Christ may well be pulling the strings of some leaders as we speak.”

        Sure he is – better pull your tinfoil hat down really really tight so he doesn’t get you too 🙂 🙂 🙂

        Like

      • Lotsa plausible ‘maybe’s’ Dom.
        The question arises: How did the Antichrist come into being? Who created him?
        Or was that another Divine stuff-up like Satan.
        I must say:- Moslems may be onto something. Allah seems to make far fewer errors than the jewish yobbo.
        (And no, that ISN’T an antisemite politically incorrect statement. But if he gets offended he can sue me. I’m just in the mood.)

        Like

      • Sorry Monica, read through the article there is actually no proof. Just smoke and mirrors. You only have to put up with some dribble, not having your family and house blown up. While they blow up innocent people in Pakistan and Yemen and the media ignores it, I will continue with the dribble.

        Like

      • Hey Woody

        The anti Christ is a human being created by God sent as the ultimate test for us. That test being; if a person can perform miracles like raising people from the dead and claims to be God will people believe treat him as a God. Those who follow him will have riches. Those who do not will struggle to survive. Only those who firmly believe in one God and have firm trust in God will have any chance.

        For you Bubba

        Like

      • There’s a difference (“they blow up innocent people”) between ‘innocent’ and ‘defenceless’, Dom.
        And no, I’m no US-groupie. But just because one side in a shitfight is ‘wrong’/’evil’ it doesn’t make the other side ‘right’/’good’.
        It’s not even a matter of ‘scale’.

        Like

      • Hey Dommie!
        For once we’re both on the same page!
        “The anti Christ is a human being created by God sent as the ultimate test for us.”
        Yep. Jesus! Being human (get it?) was his whole claim to fame; the joint was awash with just ordinary gods. (and coincidentally confirms my proposition about the Deuteronomy/Revelation juxtaposition. Alpha and Omega sort of thing.
        The rest follows like night the day. (Check the Vatican/Hillsong/etc/ finances I even heard a rumour that the Mafia tried to muscle in on the Vatican scams and protection rackets ~ though apparently they only wanted the pre-death end of the business. They don’t bother with chicken-feed (communion-wafers) either. Industry-backed trade-certificates (religious banch-cheques) starting at 500 million is the lowest level at which they’ll deal.)
        …..anyway….

        ” Only those who firmly believe in one God and have firm trust in God will have any chance.”,,,, at what? An Eternity (that’s sorta like Infinityful of gods!) trapped with the sort of people you wouldn’t feed to your dog (nobody I know; they’re all sinners and won’t be going either); bored and suppressed —> depressed and unable to get out!….(Wonder if yelling ‘FIRE!!’ at the nightly, compulsory, harpischord karaoke recitals might get you chucked out???)

        ……anyway, it’s good to see you reunited with your lurking Sense of Humour 😉

        Like

      • Hi Dom,

        Is there any country without (innocent) blood on their hands? I am not excusing them, mind, but I still say, “God bless America”.

        Like

      • Hi Monica

        Most countries have innocent blood on their hands. Eventually the people rise up and throw them out. It is the countries that kill people mostly outside their borders and suffer no consequence that gets my attention.

        Like

      • “The anti Christ is a human being created by God sent as the ultimate test for us.”

        Hey Dom – sure he is. Why if you search on the internet just the littlest bit you can find out that Obama is the ani-christ which is why he’s giving the Islamic State such an easy time of things.

        Ain’t the internet great that we can have these kinds of conversations. ‘Cause normally they’re the kind you’d cross the street to avoid.

        Like

      • Hey Dom,

        “Who is whinging now ?”

        Dunno i’m certainly not. I’m saying what a good thing the internet is.

        Otherwise I certainly wouldn’t have know that Obama is cutting the Islamic State a break because he’s the anti-christ and we wouldn’t be having this conversation now.

        I’m celebrating this marvel of communications technology that the US has given us all.

        So why would I cross the virtual street when it’s only the virtual street that makes this kind of information available in the first place ???

        Like

      • Yes Dom,

        I believe your heart is in the right place, and I admire you for your courage in speaking out, and for your honesty, but sometimes, no, I lie, of late it’s been more than sometimes, I worry that you are becoming more hardened and intolerant towards us, your non-Islamic brothers and sisters in the west. But then again, maybe you’re just getting older and fed up with fools! :). I dunno. It doesn’t help that I don’t know you personally. But I really believe that the fruit of ‘religion’ ( and I include Christianity here) is intolerance. And please don’t get offended by my honesty. All I am trying to say is to use the wisdom that I know you have, which is good advice for me too, because ‘Islam’ has become a dirty word these days here in the west and it’s making a lot of us edgy.

        I still cry whenever I remember Martin Place. Something was permanently taken away from me that day, and I was a whole block away from the siege. There was such a heightened awareness of bombs everywhere—I couldn’t even bring myself to go back into the city after that.

        Like

      • Hi Monica

        At the risk of having peanuts thrown at me from those in the gallery. I do not believe the fruit of religion is intolerance. I believe the fruit of ignorance is intolerance. The fruit of violence is more violence.

        Just ask yourself a question. Opposition in Thailand is building about stopping sex offenders coming to their country. From memory statistic show most are from Australia. Hypothetically, Thailand decides it will blow up known sex offenders in say Melbourne rather than wait for them to come Thailand. They send some drones and not only blow up the sex offenders but the surrounding houses as well. Your husband protests on the streets angrily about it, shaking his fist. The media take a photo of him and distribute it around the world saying look at the face of Christianity and ignore why he is angry in the first place. Meanwhile the world watching all the news coming out of the region, starts to feel scared of all these angry people in Australia and feels sorry for the problems Thailand have on their shores and offer them help. How would you feel ?

        Like

      • How would I feel? Two words come to mind, starting with ‘p’ and ending with ‘o’.

        Good analogy Dom, thanks. Now I understand the situation.

        Like

    • Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

      28. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here—”some of those standing here.”

      which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom —or, as in (Mark 9:1), “till they see the kingdom of God come with power” ; or, as in (Luke 9:27), more simply still, “till they see the kingdom of God.”

      The reference, beyond doubt, is to the firm establishment and victorious progress, in the lifetime of some then present, of that new kingdom of Christ, which was destined to work the greatest of all changes on this earth, and be the grand pledge of His final coming in glory.

      Like

      Reply ↓

      • I would never have thought you had the legs for that sort of ducking and weaving, Mon.
        Of course those scripture-writers can make Cassius Clay look slow and clumsy!
        But even if ‘his kingdom’ has, arguably, arrived (though I see no trace of it: quite the reverse) there’s NO sign of the ‘Son of Man’ in the battlements.
        Perhaps he’ll come down for the weekend, if the weather’s nice.

        SMILE! It could be worse….we could all be stuck in Tasmania.

        Like

      • Please don’t tell us you drove to Court today, Dabs. :LOL:

        I’ve got news for you, Jesus Christ has been with us in Spirit and in power for a very long time.

        Like

      • I CERTAINLY wouldn’t tell you that.
        Had a word to Jesus and he suggested I walk there……. the shortcut down Narracan Creek.
        Went ok for a bit, but then my faith lapsed and I finished up with water in my shoe.
        That’s what I’m telling anyone who asks.
        So far so good! 🙂

        Like

      • But, Mon, as any devious theologian might point out ~ and some often do~ that doesn’t apply to those in his audience sitting down.
        And since there’s no documentation it could well be claimed ALL of them were seated.
        😉

        Like

    • Gee, there’s food for thought for the mugwits Strewth. Probably never occurred to many of them before.
      Perhaps when the thought sinks in (in a few thousand years, judging from the rate of absorption of ideas currently demonstrated) they’ll come to wonder what possible benefit there is in the unconscionably cruel experimentation on live animals.
      Sort of like demolishing an old Ford to get second-hand parts for your new Porsche, isn’t it?

      It could be suggested that “generative computation, promiscuous combination of ideas, the use of mental symbols, and abstract thought” are thought-inhibitory.
      ….are about on a par with watching porn whilst working your way through a couple of slabs.

      Like

      Reply ↓

Leave a comment