What would convince you that God doesn't exist?

[abnoxio]

I'm interested what it would take for a Christian, Catholic, etc. to be convinced that God did not exist.
In other words what kind of proof would convince you. The discovery of Jesus's body? Alien invaders? that kind of thing.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.

[Diana Holberg]

The problem is that even when it would have been to his advantage to prove a theological point, Paul never quotes the words of Jesus. Why? He did not know the words of Jesus?

Paul doesn't quote anyone -- only written sources. I do the same. It is only wise when dealing with skeptics who deny the existence of everything they cannot see.

But the question remains, why does Paul not quote the apparently well known words of the messiah he was promoting?

What are you talking about? Jesus' words were not "well known" before the written Gospels. There was no CNN. The other apostles could quote Jesus because they had lived and walked with Him for 3 years. Paul didn't have the benefit of that experience.

Then why are the stories of Jesus and the teachings of Jesus preached from millions of pulpits every week? Are you saying the the these texts had little or no value in ancient times but are useful theologically now?

Of course not. Again: Paul's letters were not written to communicate the Gospel. That was always done in person because of Baptism.

Sermons preached from pulpits (a) are being preached mostly to Christians, (b) are done in person, and (c) are based on written texts.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

Try this. Read Paul's writings as if you had not read the subsequent Gospels. You will get a picture not of a flesh and blood man of history, since Paul virtually ignores that aspect of Christ.

Again, I don't know what you're talking about. Paul starts the book of Romans by talking about the human body, its relation to faith, and the resurrection of Jesus' body. This is far from ignoring His humanity. Paul teaches in Romans that we await with hope the redemption of our body.

He begins the book of 1 Corinthians by explaining that though one is absent in the body, we can be present to each other in spirit -- because of Jesus. A huge part of the message of this book is that we physically are united in Christ.

In 2 Corinthians, Paul talks about carrying in his own body "the dying of Jesus"...

In Galatians, he says, "...for I bear on my body the brand-marks of Jesus."

I could continue. Every letter Paul wrote served to further explain how Christ's humanity is what permits us to become part of His Body. Christ's humanity is central to an understanding of the Gospel.

You will get a picture of a spiritual sacrifice, taking place in the spiritual realm.

Not at all. Paul writes about our bodies as "a temple of the Holy Spirit". He writes about the importance of caring for the body as such, but also of disciplining the body so as to not sin. He also writes about the importance of bearing up under severe punishment and suffering for Christ's sake:

• 2 Cor 4:7-12
  7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; 8 we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; 9 persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10 always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. 11 For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus' sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12 So death works in us, but life in you.

The sacrifice takes place in the spiritual realm, all right... but it is manifested here in our flesh... in our bodies.

This is a very strange phenomenon. Here is the apostle to the gentiles, preaching a spiritual Christ and not providing his audience with any details of the earthly existence of the messiah.

The details of Christ's death are part of the Gospel message -- delivered in person. Paul's letters are written to Christians who have already heard this message. And again, you are wrong that he preaches only a "spiritual Christ".

Certainly the gentiles in Asia Minor and points west were not familiar with the alleged life of Jesus. The written gospels were not yet in circulation. They would not even have the familiarity with Jewish prophesy. So, why would he keep this valuable data from his converts?

He did not keep it away from them. He personally delivered it. Then those to whom he personally delivered it, personally delivered it to others. Paul writes about this in many places.

[Diana Holberg]

You have not even demonstrated the basic reasons why you too a leap of faith. At least my future hope is based results now. Saying that you have a "personal" relationship wit God is not evidence. Did you have it before you believed?

At the time I would not have said so. Today I believe that it was the grace of my childhood Baptism that made it possible for God to break through my wall of unbelief. I have no other explanation -- I was not seeking, I was not asking question, I was not open. I had a successful career and a fascinating lifestyle (in my own opinion at the time). There is no logical explanation for my conversion.

(Rather like Paul, now that I think about it.)

[Diana Holberg]

Matthew 5:31-32 contradicts I Corinthians 7:10-11.

Jesus:

• Matt 5:31-32
  31 "It was said, 'WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE'; 32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Summary: Divorce of a husband from a wife is adultery, except when due to unchastity

Paul:

• 1 Cor 7:10-11
  10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband 11(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

Summary: Separation of a wife from a husband is not recommended, but permissible; when this occurs, the husband should not divorce the wife

I do not see a contradiction here.

By the way, marriage reflects God's relationship with us. He will not leave us or forsake us. We may separate from Him, but we may not worship another. If we do, only then may we find ourselves permanently severed from Him. It is not He that divorces us, but we who bring about the separation.

[trencacloscas]

I'd be a lot more likely to be convinced that you and Bernee don't exist than that God doesn't exist.

Should we open a new thread to debate about why people that claim imaginary friends are considered loonies and religious people aren't?

[Cathar1950]

DH wrote:

I do not see a contradiction here.

Here is another version.
What is interesting is in Jewish law the woman did not have the right to divorce. In Roman law she did. Here Mark is addressing his Roman readers. Jesus didn't say it Mark made it up and the others followed. We don't know what Jesus said but it seems he had strict view.
Mark 10:1-15

6but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them;

7on this account shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife,

8and they shall be -- the two -- for one flesh; so that they are no more two, but one flesh;

9what therefore God did join together, let not man put asunder.'

10And in the house again his disciples of the same thing questioned him,

11and he saith to them, `Whoever may put away his wife, and may marry another, doth commit adultery against her;

12and if a woman may put away her husband, and is married to another, she committeth adultery.'

[Diana Holberg]

Here is another version.
What is interesting is in Jewish law the woman did not have the right to divorce. In Roman law she did. Here Mark is addressing his Roman readers. Jesus didn't say it Mark made it up and the others followed.

Sure... if you want to make something up.