I read all kinds of information, encyclopedias, wikipedia, science magazines, and the bible.Then with this knowledge i spends ages thinking about a nature of the universe.
The phrase "jesus will return SOON" is from the bible, and its rather well known, and not open to much interpretation. 2000 years is not soon and he hasn't returned. therefore its a lie.
I've read the bible, and as a historic text and moral guide it's quite valid. But it's pretty stupid to accept the bible as the only truth and ignore everything else.
and just so you know mathematicians regard anything with more than 50 zeros behind it impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avian_influenzaTime to read, Killer.
Maybe he did return, but no-one believed him, and he got locked up in a mental hospital.But I would have to disagree with you about the 'soon' part. Life on Earth has been around for billions of years, so 2000 years is just a speak in the grand scheme of things. So what could be 'soon' to God could in fact be millions of years to humans.However considering the phrase 'Jesus will return soon', I think that whoever wrote this meant not that Jesus will come again to Earth soon, but that humans will see Jesus soon, i.e after they die. Giving all the translation errors that could have happened, it's easy to see how the statement could have been misinterpreted.
Ah but theres a problem, creationists don't beleive the world is millions of years old. they only think its 4,000-?? years old. so 2000 years is an age.
and i would dismiss the nobody believed him when he returned, son of god, and all, Dad would look out for him.
And he wouldnt be, he just needs to go to a major beach with a few thousand people on it and walk on the fucking water, that shit will spread round the world in no time.
but would anyone believe it (apart from the people who saw it)?I know I wouldn't. What with special effects these days they can making anything look real on a video. You can't always believe what you see on TV.That ad for McCain's Pizzas on TV where that guy walks on water looks real, but I don't believe he's the son of God.
Of course you dont, its a fucking advertisement.Perhaps the twin tower attacks was just special effects.Spacemonkey, if a few thousand people on a beach saw a guy doing it, and 500 caught it on video, and it was played around the world on the news, then this guy is going to get noticed.Then they would just have to get him to perform some other miracles, heal a few people with deadly knife wounds etc, and we would have proof.Stop being an idiot.
I know this is kinda very off track from what everyone else has posted in this thread, but in a battle between science and religion, I would have to say that Religion would win.I mean, look at the sides. Science has the geek-type guys, like Stephen Hawking and all the other stereotypical geeks with pocket protectors. Religion has all the TV evangalists that you see all the time, standing up their getting worked up delivering their speechs. Now I know that Christianity has a "turn the other cheek" philosophy towards violence, however those guys on TV can get some righteous fervour going.Plus there is always the Shaolin monks doing their chanting thing, before they open a can of whup-ass on the collective skinny asses of the geeks.In closing, I would like to say that 9/10 ninja's are cool, however 5/4 people who can't do maths think 9/8 pirates are even cooler.
Id bash jesus.
simon_nz is a dick!!!!!!!!
one againi do a BSCI have seen what this guy jesus looks likeid bash himsimple
this is by far the stupidest statement in this thread
where is the science is this statment or any of the others.you say its science vrsreligion but its not its evolution vrs religion.the way you prove something scientificlyis by testing it and retesting it.nothing about evolution can be tested.and there areso few fossils that they would not even fill a hurse.not even enough for a properfunral.and the fossils we do have consist many of fragment that could be a istintbreed of monkey.stop calling it true when it is just a theory.