Before You Ask, "Does God Exist?"...

[jonathan180iq]

It's sort of self fulfilling, since anyone who did accept that interpretation of prophecies would themselves become Christians. But what reason, do you believe, they have to accept them that other people don't?

Their faith requires them to be read a certain way...
I appreciate the fact that you admit it's self fulfilling. At least you're having an honest conversation about it.

Your previous argument for god was the supposed fulfilling of prophecies, correct?
I'm arguing that your basis for the existence of god is based on a flaw. You're using the conditioned interpretation of what you assume to be prophecies foretelling of your particular savior... They could very well be misinterpreted, or purposefully misconstrued to fit the needs of your faith. I mean, there's a reason that Judaism still exists, right?

It seems awfully convenient to me that the interpretations which supposedly foretell of Christ were first interpreted by an author who had an admitted reason for seeing them that way. Without the Pauline chapters and epistles, most of the things which you see as being direct mentions of Christ in the Old Testament would not be understood that way at all. I think that damages your claim.

 

[BSM1]

I am not psychology doctor to solve this problem

How do you know?

 

[Kemosloby]

Their faith requires them to be read a certain way...
I appreciate the fact that you admit it's self fulfilling. At least you're having an honest conversation about it.

Your previous argument for god was the supposed fulfilling of prophecies, correct?
I'm arguing that your basis for the existence of god is based on a flaw. You're using the conditioned interpretation of what you assume to be prophecies foretelling of your particular savior... They could very well be misinterpreted, or purposefully misconstrued to fit the needs of your faith. I mean, there's a reason that Judaism still exists, right?

It seems awfully convenient to me that the interpretations which supposedly foretell of Christ were first interpreted by an author who had an admitted reason for seeing them that way. Without the Pauline chapters and epistles, most of the things which you see as being direct mentions of Christ in the Old Testament would not be understood that way at all. I think that damages your claim.

I think you need to rethink all that.

 

[Underhill]

What God says is the proof of God is the proof of God, which is prophecy coming true. So if the Old testament prophecies the coming of Jesus then that is the proof of God.

I prophecy that there will be a war in 20 years. There will also be a new messiah who claims to be Gods chosen prophet.

Now, if both of those things come true (and they probably will) does that make me god or gods messenger?

 

[Kemosloby]

I prophecy that there will be a war in 20 years. There will also be a new messiah who claims to be Gods chosen prophet.

Now, if both of those things come true (and they probably will) does that make me god or gods messenger?

You need to be a bit more specific, any everything your prophet does must fullfill all prophecies, including the ones of his horrible crucifixion, which he also suffers with his own blood.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think you need to rethink all that.

Can you refer me to a specific prophecy for Christ that you've come to believe in which is not dependent on the explanations in the Pauline epistles?

 

[Kemosloby]

Can you refer me to a specific prophecy for Christ that you've come to believe in which is not dependent on the explanations in the Pauline epistles?

The whole old testament is a prophesy of Christ. One I really like is the Rock that Moses struck with his staff. Moses struck the rock with his staff, the Rock split open and water poured out of the Rock. Very symbolic of Jesus on the Cross. The prophecies are made more by symbolism than anything else, if you go by the words only, you probably wouldn't catch many prophecies.

 

[rusra02]

Before you ask, "does god or the gods exist", shouldn't you be asking, "If god or the gods exist, then how would we know that they exist?"

Isn't the latter the more fundamental question? Why or why not?

There are several answers to the question as to how we know God exists, I think;

1. What the true God created would be strong evidence.
2. If God acted in human history, that would be convincing evidence.
3. If the true God communicated with men, this also would be strong evidence.

To me, the fundamental question is; who is the true God? And I have no doubt that the answer is Jehovah is the one true God. (Isaiah 45:18)

 

[Underhill]

You need to be a bit more specific, any everything your prophet does must fullfill all prophecies, including the ones of his horrible crucifixion, which he also suffers with his own blood.

Oh come now, the old testament was not very specific.

But even if you want to go down that road, remember, with an open timeline and religious leaders writing down the details after the fact, the details don't really matter.

For example, historically we think Jesus probably existed (although even that much is debatable). But we have no evidence of the rest beyond the writings in the new testament, all of which were written 70-150 years after the fact by the people who were leading this new religion. Don't you think it behooves them to match the old testament prophecies to Jesus wherever they could? Of course it did. It legitimized their teachings (as long as you ignore the details).

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Here's one rather large problem with this whole god/s thing.

If we can not gain knowledge of god with our brain and senses, then all known religions are false, for they were all penned by men.

If we can gain knowledge of god with our brain and senses then where is it? How, exactly, is it acquired? Where's the data?

 

[Quintessence]

Before you ask, "does god or the gods exist", shouldn't you be asking, "If god or the gods exist, then how would we know that they exist?"

Isn't the latter the more fundamental question? Why or why not?

Not how I would approach it. I never ask the question "does X exist." To me, that is always an absurd question. The question is "in what manner do I experience and know X?" or "what is my relationship with X?" That, I would consider fundamental. It is the question that takes into account different manners of existences by not assuming what it means to "exist."

 

[DrTCH]

I find it lamentable that millions of people seem to be unable to comprehend that in the mystical or religious realm, we are speaking of something entirely different from "New York Times (literal) Reality." The question of the existence of God is not a "Yes or No question." On the other hand, I consider the famous "Proofs" of deity to be extremely risible.

A secondary problem is that many insist on asking the question in terms of a personal deity. For me, the "spiritual dimension" gives my life meaning, but I'm loath to accept, e.g., the Judeo-Christian (vengeful and often barbaric) OT deity, Yahweh. Actually, why even resort to personifying Spirit? Why not employ a concept like that of Taoism, of a kind of sustaining force, from which we derive life and sustenance..and inspiration?

I am particularly irked by nuts who insist on sentiments like,"The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God!" Baloney!! A tyrannical deity plays no role in my personal M.O. or philosophy.

My best to all of you on this chilly December morning!! ; )

 

[DragonHawk1959]

What God says is the proof of God is the proof of God, which is prophecy coming true. So if the Old testament prophecies the coming of Jesus then that is the proof of God.

Can you show that those "prophesies" existed before the fact?
As to the OT prophesies regarding the coming of a Messiah- there was a Christopher (anointed one) some 40 years before Jesus. The previous Christos was a warrior who succeeded mainly in getting himself and his followers crucified in the valley in which they made their last stand. But supposedly he fulfilled the prophecies, which is how he gathered his followers.

 

[Robert Landbeck]

"how would we know that they exist?" You bring up what I would regard as the fundamental flaw and contradiction of existing theistic traditions. What is why there is no absolute proof offered by those who proclaim or pretend to such, while offering nothing more than a theological rational for a 'faith' paradigm that many like myself regard as intellectually dishonest.

In an historical irony, it is one of the few things both science and religion agree upon. That no perfect proof of God is possible. But there is nothing within the scriptural record that contradicts such a potential. That religious tradition doesn't have such a literal proof to offer may simply mean that what exists from history is no more than a theological counterfeit. Humanities greatest own goal. And that true religion has yet to begin.

Before you ask, "does god or the gods exist", shouldn't you be asking, "If god or the gods exist, then how would we know that they exist?"

Isn't the latter the more fundamental question? Why or why not?

 

[Kemosloby]

Oh come now, the old testament was not very specific.

But even if you want to go down that road, remember, with an open timeline and religious leaders writing down the details after the fact, the details don't really matter.

For example, historically we think Jesus probably existed (although even that much is debatable). But we have no evidence of the rest beyond the writings in the new testament, all of which were written 70-150 years after the fact by the people who were leading this new religion. Don't you think it behooves them to match the old testament prophecies to Jesus wherever they could? Of course it did. It legitimized their teachings (as long as you ignore the details).

It depends how you look at the old testament. Moses striking the Rock with a staff, the rock splitting open and water flowing out of it, giving life to the Israelites who were thirsty. Jesus running around talking about being the water, etc. you will never thrist etc. Then crucified and struck with a spear, splitting him open , blood and bile pouring onto the ground.

Job 16:13 his archers surround me. Without pity, he pierces my kidneys and spills my bile on the ground. (Jesus talking through the prophet Job..prophecy)

 

[Underhill]

It depends how you look at the old testament. Moses striking the Rock with a staff, the rock splitting open and water flowing out of it, giving life to the Israelites who were thirsty. Jesus running around talking about being the water, etc. you will never thrist etc. Then crucified and struck with a spear, splitting him open , blood and bile pouring onto the ground.

Job 16:13 his archers surround me. Without pity, he pierces my kidneys and spills my bile on the ground. (Jesus talking through the prophet Job..prophecy)

I tend to give the writers of the New Testament credit for their writing prowess.

 

[viole]

What God says is the proof of God is the proof of God, which is prophecy coming true. So if the Old testament prophecies the coming of Jesus then that is the proof of God.

Some qualified readers of the OT would not agree with you. The Jews for instance.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kemosloby]

Some qualified readers of the OT would not agree with you. The Jews for instance.

Ciao

- viole

Yes right, the definition of being a Jew is not agreeing with me. But All the early Christians were Jews, and they'd agree with me.

 

[viole]

Yes right, the definition of being a Jew is not agreeing with me. But All the early Christians were Jews, and they'd agree with me.

But for sure that cannot be used as proof of anything. If much more qualified than me readers of the OT do not agree that Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy, how do you intend to convince the avaerage skeptic, that does not even believe in the divine origin of the OT to start with?

She could just dismiss your claim and say: come back when you have convinced your fellow believers in the OT.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kemosloby]

But for sure that cannot be used as proof of anything. If much more qualified than me readers of the OT do not agree that Jesus is the fulfillment of the prophecy, how do you intend to convince the avaerage skeptic, that does not even believe in the divine origin of the OT to start with?

She could just dismiss your claim and say: come back when you have convinced your fellow believers.

Ciao

- viole

That's their problem, if any have ears to hear let them hear.