A challenge to our dear Christian friends.

February 26th, 2008, 11:14 PM

Good, I'm glad to be wrong about that. So what is this "evidence sitting right in front" of me that you referred to?

February 26th, 2008, 11:36 PM


Sorry Dex..... I can't tell you.....I don't know how to "open your eyes" to see and understand what I have...or MHZ...or AJ..... I am not a teacher.

What I understand and believe was not "taught" to me per say...... No "person" laid it out in front of me.....

It is something that YOU must come to terms with....... and if you don't....no biggy.... if you're right and I'm wrong....no biggy... if I'm right and you're wrong....still no biggy really. Nice thing about unconditional love....forgiveness is also unconditional.

February 27th, 2008, 12:00 AM

I am referring to those he was debating on this forum, they are them.

February 27th, 2008, 12:02 AM

The greatest gift God could have given us is choice, but it did not come without a price.

The penalty for having the ability to have choice was death.

But, it had to first be made that way, in order for it to be experienced.

But God did not leave mankind alone to pay for Gods own makings, so God knew to correct it by offering Himself as payment, and giving us the free gift of life.

That is the good news that has not been understood correctly because we are in an environment that goes against the spiritual.

Paul stated that perfectly well in this verse:
Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

That is a catch 22 situation which states, "Hey if I can't do it who can"?

The answer? Only God can.

And there lies our hope, for without Him, we are at a terrible loss, for the flesh is of this world, and if left unchecked, would destroy us.

Leave a piece of metal out in the weather, and in time it will begin to rust, to break down and eventually blend in with the earth elements.

But not so our spirits, for our spirits stop not at the death of the body, but are lifted up God wards, as He saves His on creation.

Wonderful, and gives me joy to just explain how loving this God is.

Peace>>>AJ

February 27th, 2008, 12:03 AM

Gerry, you can't tell me? Why not? Surely, if it's sitting right in front of me, all you have to do is point to it, and if I'm even halfway intelligent--and I think I'm at least that smart--I'll see it.

On another level, I do understand how difficult it can be to explain something as deeply personal as religious belief to somebody else. Even after 30 years of marriage my wife and I still have difficulties explaining things much less deep than that to each other, so your reluctance is readily understandable. I really would appreciate it if you tried though. I've seen many explanations and arguments in support of religious belief and didn't find any of them even remotely convincing, but you might have something new, some insight I've never encountered before.

Understand my motives too. I was a believer once, I had an apostasy that caused much distress to many people who cared about me, and still does, and if there's a way back that works for me, I want to know about it. I'm not asking so I can bash you, I'm asking because one of the major lessons I learned as a student of the sciences is that I must never lose sight of the fact that I might be wrong. But I need the evidence.

February 27th, 2008, 12:09 AM

Understood, but by using the word " them" in contexts with your opinion, sets yourself as higher than they.

I admit that after I posted the reply to you, I did the same thing by saying, "you all", which again would seem to set myself higher then the folks in question.

I am still learning not to do that, so as not to offend.

But hey, what good is an experience if we don't learn a thing?

Peace>>>AJ

February 27th, 2008, 12:10 AM

I think you are enough of a student of psychology to know that for you, religion will never work. There is no path to religion for you. A path to belief... perhaps. But not to belief in religion.

February 27th, 2008, 12:49 AM

That might cover being literal, but I don't agree with a lot of things literalists promote as covering the 5 w's.

That also goes for what mainstream promotes, usually they have a few key verses that they base their belief on, on very close examination (reading more) those theories start to fall apart. When an error is found that verse still has to fit in withe the sequence of events somewhere, that can't help but mold the overall picture.

I'm certainly outside the box today but that is from not accepting a view where some thoughts just do not mesh with 'all Scripture'.

Accepting a view you aren't 100% sure about (like pre-trib, mid-trib raptures) holds a greater risk of losing your soul. If you accept view "A" over view "B" because it has less holes you are already lose, you might be in a large crowd (alike thinkers) but it is still a wasteland in terms of understanding the truth about what all those written words mean.

The first two chapter of Genesis are a perfect example of that, Ch:1 covers the literal (dust) and Ch:2 covers the spiritual (wisdom about God. that is why they are slightly different, man is mentioned much earlier in Ch:2 that the 1st chapter.

My reference called for 70x7, but I get your point. Jubile included the release of bondmen, among other special things other than keeping the calendar accurate.

There are some I know that I should be keeping track of cause I know for sure 490 times is just a green light to keep doing the same thing. Does that number also apply to leaven in the Church. Like the person mentioned in 1Co:5:1, that seems to have been stopped (ejected from the Church)just about as soon as it was found out.

If you want to discuss my previous post in PM's that fine because I won't discuss it otherwise. No need to take a discussion like this to a PM.

February 27th, 2008, 12:54 AM

Try picking it up some day because it is by your own free will, you know what they say about leading a horse to water.

February 27th, 2008, 01:39 AM

We're not a couple of politicians, so we're not pre coached on how to be very careful
with our wording, hence, a few little slip ups.

February 27th, 2008, 02:00 AM

Agreed!

Peace>>>AJ

February 27th, 2008, 02:21 AM

What form do you expect that evidence to take? The odds of finding anything physical is less than remote. That only leaves one option that I can see, does the Bible contain truths or not? For myself I could come up with verses (that I feel tell a truth) about something that you would agree with. Say I was to stack them on the right, I would have a pile of (say 10) verses. The ones I have some doubt about would go on the left. It would seem that you have more on the left than on the right. The first 4 books of the NT would be the best place to find something that would add something that you might agree with as having some truth in them. The writings of the Apostles would be your next best choice. For instance would you see any truth in these verses?
1Co:15:12:
Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead,
how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
1Co:15:13:
But if there be no resurrection of the dead,
then is Christ not risen:
1Co:15:14:
And if Christ be not risen,
then is our preaching vain,
and your faith is also vain.
1Co:15:15:
Yea,
and we are found false witnesses of God;
because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ:
whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.
1Co:15:16:
For if the dead rise not,
then is not Christ raised:
1Co:15:17:
And if Christ be not raised,
your faith is vain;
ye are yet in your sins.
1Co:15:18:
Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
1Co:15:19:
If in this life only we have hope in Christ,
we are of all men most miserable.

1Co:15:32:
If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me,
if the dead rise not?
let us eat and drink;
for to morrow we die.

I am a bit hesitant to add more examples because that is me telling you what to believe as being true or not.

Scriptures contain information about two types of events concerning men. Good events and some horrible events. For myself I read the NT before I started reading the OT so I had a stack of verses about things that would be (mostly) good news, reading in the OT (pages that listed the types of people who would be toasted) kind of left me feeling almost physically ill. The way I balanced it out was to read something that was 'good' before reading about the 'bad' things. Now the OT doesn't bother me at all. All the deaths God caused (by actually saying such and such should be killed) is balanced by this verse that says their breath went to be with God.
Ec:12:7:
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:
and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

Tempered even more when their final fate was that they were not lost to salvation, unlike what is usually promoted by some Christian doctrines.

Hope that makes some sense. I will admit that on more than one occasion I did think that something that seemed just plain cruel just didn't blend in because it conflicted with something I had already ready read that said that 'thing' would not happen. Punishment but no forgiveness conflicted with Hebrews 12. A few verses compared to what a whole chapter said, I stayed with what view had the most verses.

February 27th, 2008, 02:59 AM

There are phenomenological arguments that a god could exist (I am using this term in the freest possible way) and indeed, I am even capable of making them myself. If you examine Parmenides arguments, for example, it is probable even that a creature like god could exist if we exist. That is to say, that we exist means anything could exist. The problem however, that such a divide would necessarily be between what is created and what isn't, that for the created to know the not created is simply an impossibility.

Now herein lies the problem with religion: it is a demonstratively socially evolved phenomenon of human creation. This is to say that, no matter how religion is explained there is a slow progression of events that will clearly demonstrate how that religion came into being. Even the religions tenants and teachings are easily demonstrated as existing prior to the religion and the prophet has assembled these into his own body of work; re-framing them into a new context.

We know gods do not exist because of Parmenides argument is so solid that they can not exist. If a god existed then his very existence would mean he wasn't a god. As a result Zeus and Shamash have been cast to the realm of myth. Unfortunately a better understanding of ancient mythology seems to have escaped current scholarly thinking and a great argument for gods is actually quite possible, however, that isn't my point here. Even with such an argument it is quite correct to say the gods do not "exist."

The problem is that the existence of a prophet does not decrease the argument. There is still no way for that what-is-not (which by very definition does not exist) to possibly act as a womb for that which-is and moreover, what-is-not can not possibly be a place of habitation for that which-is. So the prophet, using already existing human knowledge, creates a new context for that knowledge; sometimes eloquently, sometimes less so. They do this while claiming to know and commune with what-is-not.

In the western religious tradition the typical creation myth is that god created the world and universe. This means that he must have existed before the world, universe and even time. So god must be what-is-not or he could not exist. We are told that he created what-is.

So here we are (what-is) pretending we can communicate with what-is-not (and never has been)! We see a natural and expected evolution of belief; we see nothing new being offered by the prophets except a retelling of current beliefs (for their time); we see religion transforming in our own times!

I might remind people that at one time when the religionist wanted to pray to his god they would face the forest and leave offerings there. They didn't look to the sky. God it was thought must walk the earth with us. At other times they looked to the sun and called it God or turned to the ocean and said He is there. How woefully wrong they were! We all know that now. So people looked to the sky and said He is there, beyond the stars, or his light shines through the covering of the night sky and the stars are proof He is there! Then some pesky fellow invented a telescope and proved God was as likely there as he was in the forest - he paid with his life for his heresy.

So how is it that the evolution of god has entered the realm of spirit? I would argue this is yet another social evolutionary adaptation trying to explain the proximity of what-is-not, except really the soul and spirit are what-is not what-is-not. They are just re-framed into something invisible and told have the same attributes as what-is-not, which is entirely not possible! If it exists then it is what-is, visible or not.

The thing is: God (the eternal timeless being he is said to be) is what-is-not. If he showed himself or communicated in any way he would cease to be what-is-not and be what-is - which means: not God. In order to be God over what-is He must not exist - not only that, he can't exist! Merely existing would mean He wasn't God!

God can not bring himself into existence or he was never god, he can't communicate whatsoever or he isn't god, he can't ever answer a prayer or he could never exist!

There simply is no god. It is not possible.

So it is easily demonstrated that prophets are teachers of current thinking of their times, they bring nothing new in the way of knowledge, science or otherwise, they talk in cryptic rhymes or tell incomprehensible fortunes that every generation can claim as their own and breath new relevance into. Even their histories and actions are liberally borrowed from more ancient myths. Sometimes they are murderers or pedophiles. Their teachings change and morph over time. Sometimes they are attributed with great miracles but even these are borrowed from older myths.

In short there is not one shred of evidence that religion is anything but a man made effort to explain the exact same things that were explained before in the light of what was current for their time.

I need to go one step further: the very existence of a religion or a prophet means they are false. If they were true then it would not be God they were talking to, or sent from, or created by.

February 27th, 2008, 08:11 AM

Religion must be a natural device to select and separate fatal psycology from an accending species. We can consider it's development as colinear with rational thought its diametric opposite. It's function must be tied ultimately to species survival. Therefore it (religion) will entail further splitting into new sects as we can see in its developement thus far. This branching effectively diffuses the core dogma and ultimately leads to irrational multiplicity of perspective and promotes further cultification of practice which inevitably leads to sectarian violence and group breakdown.
It is therefore perhaps a dangerous but certainly very beneficial occurance in that it effectively selects out the unfit. We may mourn the rigors that the religious inflict on mankind but at the same time realize that life springs from death and so tolerate innane dogma while making sure it does not rule. For the afflicted there will always be a hidden mysterious power figure that assumes responsibility for those individuals psycologically unable to do so.
I see no crime in contemplation and reverance for the unknown forces of the universe but religion is not like that, religion gives description to the undescribable and that is as fraud, cousin of faith. Religion is the ultimate lazy persons short-cut to psycological comfort, the easy way, why work to illuminate when you can capitulate to dogma and the made to order finished explanation of all.
The religious will invariably display pity for the unconverted and lament thier incomplete condition. What an insult to the thinking when exactly the same peer pressure is applied in the recruitment of drug addicts.

February 27th, 2008, 08:19 AM

Beve

Someone famous once said something along the lines of "weed is the "Hockey Night in Canada" for everyone in the world".....might have been Don Cherry.....

Blessed be the believer for they will weave and form the crucible of extinction for all of humanity.

February 27th, 2008, 11:20 AM

If mankind have been making gods out of things in the heavens, earth and beneath the waters, then there must be something in mankind that makes it think that there is something higher than self.

How is it expressed, this thought? Is it an emotion that swells up in one that causes us to seek, to study, to labor, to wrestle to find that elusive something we can identify with it that is not human but a spirit?

Was it and is it knowledge of God meted out over a period of generations progressively gaining stature as truth?

Are we today the recipients of such travail of past generations with the such knowledge gained that we can tell who or what God is yet?


It seems to me, that God is one subject that will never die, never be left alone and a necessary comfort to humanity in the midst of this hellish environment.

Now, if I can find emotional comfort, and believed assistance from a God whom I trust, I will have lived in this life a better man, despite the evils that beset me.

I therefore chose and have experienced the presences of this God in whom I believe and trust, and can only share with you how wonderful it is.

But only you can experience God on your own terms, for each one of us have different experiences that either help or defuse the desire to seek God.

Unfortunately, it happens, and for those of us who have found God, our mercy and compassion go out to those who are still struggling to understand the very essence of God in their troubled lives.
According to the wiseth man who ever lived, who searched out everything about god and life had these words to impart:
Ecc 9:11 I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

The time for us is now, the chance for us to find God is also now, but the chances of us doing so, depends on circumstances, war, peace, times of plenty, times of depression, destroyed marriages, destroyed families, poverty, our religious up bringing, our choices in life, our work, who we work for, who we vote for on and on.

All these things come into consideration, but the main ingredient in all of those things that all of us have, is the ability to feel an emotion of something higher than our selves which should comfort us during these times.

Some find it sooner than later,

So compassion is the key to our survival, helping one another.

Peace>>>AJ

February 27th, 2008, 02:38 PM

This doesn't seem to be anything more than a variation of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Did man create God to be the explanation of things unexplainable of did God create man and give us the answers so that everything is explained. Even if that explanation is only that 'goddidit'.

I'm a little unsure about if you are referencing the very first 'thought about God', man's creation, or what is currently presented as 'who is God' which is the 10th generation from when God was first thought up. Something that would be akin to a man building a house from scratch with no instructions. The 10th house built should be an improvement over what was house #1. Could he then say to somebody this is what a house looks like, the 9 structures you can see in the background are not houses they are shacks even though I did call them a house when I was building each and every one of them. The workman may have created the house but he did not create the things that he used to build the house.

This argument would not seem to include any argument of who would do such a thing, basically, set up man to believe in 'god' yet make sure there would be many different gods that would eventually fall into the realm of myth so that when God did finally make Himself known man would already be familiar with the concept that this God was just a passing fantasy as all the other gods had ended up being eventually. Satan could never set himself up as being the 'visible god' because he would be shown to not be god when the real God began to do the things on earth that needed to be done so salvation was a 'shoe-in'.

A perfect example how sneaky Satan can be, create enough myths so reality will also be viewed as being a myth just based on every other god before turned out to be a myth. In reality, a myth about about reality being a myth is itself a myth and not a reality, myths are myths, always were and always will be, reality is just that, something that is more than just a myth.

That only means He existed outside the universe, in that what is created is not greater in size than what it was created from, like the void. Our universe is expanding yet existing so it is consuming some part of something that is larger than itself.

And you fully expect this current God to fall into the realm of myth, as He has for some already. Do you then arrive at truth or is it just the beginning of another myth? Science already promotes that our sun is about halfway through it's like-cycle, a fairly recent discovery. At some point if man is to survive we will have to leave this place, that being easier than stopping the end of the sun as we know it. That knowledge was given long ago, only then it was said only certain people would be leaving, the rest being left to the flames.
Isa:51:6: Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Actually they were all correct but they were looking at a portion of God, not the whole of God.

They must have gotten tired of looking for for proof of the physical, an exercise in futility from the start. The only proof of the physical today can be held in one hand, it's called a book. God didn't have to leave anything else. No 'large numbers of signs' were given to Israel, they were given one sign,even though I would classify being dead for 3 days and coming back to life as a pretty big sign. The world was also only given one sign, for God that is enough. If He gave 100 signs there would still be some that wanted 101signs before they believed.

When you look up at the sky with the naked eye you can count a certain number of stars. Do the ones you cannot see not exist? Do the ones you cannot see with our best optics today nor exist


See now you could have cleared up the whole issue with that one little statement.

That would be a fine thought if it were not for the fact that most Prophets of the OT were explaining about new things or things that would happen in the future. That info wasn't pulled from texts that predated them.

So a prediction that Jesus would be born within a certain number of years was somehow rigged so it would happen? All drawn from something said long before that, wow.
LOL, was that a prophecy?

February 27th, 2008, 06:12 PM

It might seem like that but in context of creationism this question is all consuming. The "which came first" question is humerus to a scientist but not to the religionist. In the world of religion there must have been a chicken or an egg first since no other process is recognized. The hand of god decided the facts for the relkigionist. So it is clear that you do not even understand the "which came first" question. If you did you would realize that it's central to your argument not mine.

My point is that if "God" handed down teachings to these prophets then there would be no need for incremental little steps (your little houses). The little steps are, however, exactly what we should see if religion is man made i.e. fiction.

Your confusion about the chicken and the egg is showing again. The point is that if "God" created all things, even religion, then there is no need for small incremental steps. That is the intelligent design argument after all. Irreducible complexity states that some systems could not have grown out of small steps. Evolution proves that they did. Here now your arguing for small steps which would mean there is no god. The irony is funny. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Now there is the standard argument that god could create something so heavy he could not lift it, and if he could not lift it then he isn't god. Perhaps you are confusing my argument with that one? I wouldn't make that argument because it presupposes human limitations on god and I find it lacking because of that. This isn't what my argument is meant to do. I am putting the limitation on humans and examining that we can not know god because we (humans) are what-is and god is what-is-not. In my argument one would expect to see your little houses. In the religionist "creationist" and irreducible complexity arguments there should be no little houses at all - it should just be and it should just be perfect; like the universe. We don't see that in religion however, we see incremental steps of little houses, which is exactly what we should see if religion is man made (which it is).

Then it is fair to say that Satan created the universe in the same exact way he created myths of gods because both have the same effect. If you look at the universe then clearly you see Satan's devilish hand at work because there is also no physical evidence that the universe was created by anyone, which in turn, must surely test the faith of any clear thinking religionists.

If Satan created the gods he too then must have created the universe because both have the exact same purpose in context to your argument. If it is a test of faith and necessary to disbelieve in gods then too the universe must be a test of faith because it too demonstrates there is no god. If you mustn't believe in gods then too you mustn't believe in the universe or even your own existence! Great is the power of Satan indeed that he could create a universe to test you!

Your argument is easily demonstrated thusly as depending on yet another fictional character; this time Satan.

Again: you know a myth is a myth because it challenges your belief. So too the universe must be a myth because, for a lack of evidence there is any god, it must be the greatest challenge; either Satan created the universe as a challenge to you or the universe does not exist; it is just a myth.

So to believe in your own existence is to deny god! To believe in god is to deny your own existence!

You can claim the devil made the universe to challenge your beliefs and therefore you must not believe in it (or yourself) or you will be denying god! I think this is dangerous though and may be a fast track to a padded cell.

I think you missed the central point of my argument:

There can be nothing outside of the universe except more universe. What-is-not can hold no place, time or mass; it is what-is-not. Place and time is reserved for what-is. Anything that occupies a dimension of place and/or time is created - it is part of the universe not separate from it (even if it is invisible). There is nothing outside of the universe and if there is it is simply more universe by reason of its existence. If god is part of the universe then we are back to facing the forest as gods habitation and also the very huge question must necessarily be asked: if god is part of the universe then who made him? Someone must have made him if there is a god, but god can't be a part of what-is, so the god your talking about must have been created. Who created your god then? Man did. Man created religion in small demonstrated incremental steps. I recommend you study history for a demonstration of those steps. You won't find them in the bible because it is a man made deception based in wish thinking. I don't mean to ascribe any malicious intent to the authors. I'm sure most were just as well meaning as you are.


Again you have missed the point of the argument. This time I must give credit where credit is due: Parmenides. He correctly argues that what-is can not find solace in what-is-not. He has made a case for the conservation of energy (a concept way ahead of his time) and this scientific principle validates what he says. When you die or the world dies it does not disappear but the state of its energy changes. It does not nor can it become what-is-not and neither can you! You are eternally bound to what-is. Even your "soul" is what-is and thus bound to the universe; if it actually exists at all.

The leap your quotation takes is in that it seeks to circumvent logic, evidence and what is clearly impossible. These are the very tenants of wish thinking. This is the crux of a leap in faith against all logic and evidence and is why religion fails. I understand the need for it because the prospect of death is very scary to some people. The solace in death however, is that no one was uncomfortable before they were born and they won't be once they are gone; in fact they won't even know they are gone.

Now your quotation can be interpreted another way too once wish thinking is left behind. Prophets seem to be very clever people and I think it is reasonable to speculate that they themselves are not wish thinkers. If Jesus means that what-is can never die (conservation of energy) then it is reasonable to say what he did. Wish thinkers will interpret his words as meaning an everlasting consciousness (eternal life) but what he probably meant is that your star stuff (which is what your made of) will continue forever in some way. This is absolutely correct. The people that dwell here will die but his followers can rest in the knowledge that their matter will continue, not in the wish thinking way, but rather in the way of conservation. He is very correct in what he is saying but not in the way you think.

There can not be a "whole of God" because that would mean he is what-is. Even portions of god would mean he is what-is and therefore not god. Once again he would thus need to have been created and that would mean he isn't god.

At the outset of my argument I said that I could make a case for god. In all fairness to you I think I need to bring this up again since I am not seeking to convince you of anything but rather I am exploring your belief. I am also quite confident that religion is man made. I have put a lot of thought and work into these concepts and can make an argument for god complete with experimental evidence that has been reviewed by a peer. My argument reworks many basic concepts of science which I think are incorrect and have demonstrated to myself and my peer that they are. This journey began once I finished reading A Brief History Of time by Stephen Hawkins wherein I found fundamental errors. Anyone who has been following my posts will know I have alluded to these already. Once again I will state that I am not prepared to discuss what I have found because, given the current state of the world, such findings could be used for great acts of evil (things not in our species best interest). I have the model of the atomic bomb which came from relativity as evidence that I am correct in my assumption. My great uncle played a fundamental role in developing that weapon and regretted his actions to his death. I am not interested in making his same mistake. Though I lack the engineering skills necessary to create anything from my discoveries I do not doubt there are many people that do have such skills.

I have told you this so that you can understand that I am sincere in my arguing against religion and the current concepts of god. I am not arguing anything that I do not believe. When I say there is no god I mean it. Though what I just said above would seem to contradict that, it does not, but I won't explain why or demonstrate how for the above mentioned reasons.

I would remind you that many of the signs you would give as evidence were also given by Horus to validate his existence. Am I to believe in Horus also? What am I to make of the fact Horus gave his signs first? What am I to make of the fact that most of these signs are deeply rooted in ancient thoughts on astronomy?

I suppose your beloved Satan the trickster will make another appearance in your argument?

"We are never only persons, we are also Mothers and Giants and Victims and Heroes and sleeping beauties. Titans and demons and Magnificent Goddesses have ruled our souls for thousands of years; Aristotle and Descartes did their best, and the analytical minds that followed them are still at it, but the mythic forces have not been slain." - James Hillman

Many of them and indeed, the better the optics become, do not exist at all but died millions or billions of years prior to their light reaching us. As our optics get better we become better at seeing what does not exist, we only see what did exist, and the assumption is that they continued to exist. So though we can not see them as they are we see them as they were and conclude that there is some current incarnation that we will not see for a few billion more years. So to answer your question: logic and reason would let us presume they exist though not as we now see them.

Not at all. If I did then it would be a baseless belief. I believe in that I have reason and evidence to believe as I do. Given new evidence I would change my mind. This is the difference between "faith" and evidence: faith requires no argument but belief does. This is why those that rely on faith do not really believe.

You need to read up on history. Your statement is simply false.

As it so happens yes. This is the beauty of cryptic "revelations" in that they can be construed to mean anything and given relevance as needed. I know many enemies of Jesus could demonstrate that he didn't actually fulfill any prophecies. Who is right? The big question though is who cares? It is all exercise in the esoteric, in that, it is meaningless if it is cryptic, void and empty if it will not be specific.

You tell me? Your the expert on prophecy. All I know is that I arrived at my conclusion with logic and reason to the best of my ability. If you can demonstrate with evidence that I am wrong then I will accept your argument - that doesn't sound like prophecy to me.