God is not more merciful than most humans.

[DanieltheDragon]

In order for humans to forgive we go through an emotional state and move past the slight.

In order for God to forgive he has to have a ritualistic blood sacrifice involving torture of a pure being to forgive even the slightest of offenses.


How can God be all powerful if he is restricted in his ability to forgive?

How can God be all merciful if there is a sacrifice restriction on his mercy?

Why does God have a lower capacity of forgiveness than humans?

[JehovahsWitness]

But the problem with claims like Christ's supposedly virgin birth and resurrection is that there are no verifiable facts that support such beliefs.

Yes, which is why there are two other items in my list. Since not everything that is true is verifiable, one might miss out on many truths, even possibly essential life saving truths, if one restricted oneself to only verifiable facts.

JW

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 90 by Mike Boone]




[center]God from the machine
Part One[/center]

Blastcat you stated that JW's 2nd criteria for indicating that something is true: "i) my knowledge of verifiable facts" is very reliable. But the problem with claims like Christ's supposedly virgin birth and resurrection is that there are no verifiable facts that support such beliefs.

He might have a reliable test for that.

I think I also said that if I call something a fact, that I have a test for it. If, say, JW claims a virgin birth for Jesus is a FACT, then I would ask for his tests.

If we cannot test for a virgin birth of Jesus, then.. well, how do we know its a fact? I would say that then, JW is mistaken. What he has is not a fact, it's something else. Perhaps he has a belief or a conviction, or a hypothesis, but not a fact.

If he has a reliable test that can have reproducible results, then yeah, maybe the virgin birth IS a fact !!

Weird things DO happen.

But without a reliable method to find out if a reported phenomenon is true or not.. we should SUSPEND our judgement on it. At best, we should remain agnostic or neutral as to the reported phenomenon. And since I cannot believe what I do not KNOW is true, as far as gods are concerned, I am an atheist, too.

As far as the virgin birth is concerned, yeah, I don't know of any reliable tests for that. I am skeptical of the claimed phenomenon.

People everywhere, throughout history, have never seemed to tire of making up tall tales, which are more commonly known as miracles.

"Magic" is another word... Plain old "contrivance" works for me, too.

In some theaters, they suspend a person playing the role of a god who resolves a tricky bit of dramatic mess. The god came OUT of the machine, as it were.. the machine here, being the pulley. Deus ex machina.. or "simplistic contrivance".

Deus ex machina.. or "a person or thing (as in fiction or drama) that appears or is introduced suddenly and unexpectedly and provides a contrived solution to an apparently insoluble difficulty" is another trick of the trade.

Whenever in doubt,
Goddidit! they shout.


I'm waiting for JW's reply to the post.
Let's see what kind of test for the truth of X he recommends.

Once we deal with the general case ( X, in our example ) we can perhaps move to the specific case ( in your example, the specific case would be "virgin birth". )

[marco]

Jesus also said he (not Buddah, Allah or Krishna) is the way to life and that nobody gets to the Father (meaning God) except though him.

When Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life he was speaking figuratively since it is clear that Jesus is not a roadway. Jesus adds: No one gets to the Father except through ME.

And what is meant by ME? The way, the truth and the life, the means of getting to God.

Thus Jesus is saying that no one gets to the Father except by following the true path towards a life of grace. And Jesus said he personified those qualities but it is those qualities (ME) that get people to God. Jesus himself is simply indicating them, but many others - including Buddha - may indicate these methods as well. It is absurd to believe that people who have never heard of Jesus are thereby denied access to God, even though they lead exemplary lives. But one can take this meaning only when one misunderstands Christ's metaphor and one attempts to take a literal meaning from what is clearly figurative.



Metaphors are tricky things to negotiate but when one is keen to follow Scripture one must delve deeply into the meaning of biblical verses.

[JehovahsWitness]

And what is meant by ME? [...] qualities (ME) that get people to God.

Like I said earlier, what I really admire about you is you don't interpret scripture (or impose an alternative less obvious meaning to words) but simply take the words at their most obvious meaning, going strictly by what scripture says. Since Jesus said the word "me" I see how taking that approach we naturally conclude he meant "qualities".

I however tend to extract some less obvious meanings, for example, "me" I take to be mean an individual person talking about himself, rather than "qualities". I know it might seem absurd to conclude that when Jesus said "me" he was refering to himself as an individual rather then qualities that can be displayed by a multitude of individuals, but that's how I interpret the word.

I know, I know, here I go again with my own benign interpretations (interpreting "me" to mean... "me") I hope those who go strictly by what Scripture says will not be too confused.


JW

[marco]

I however tend to extract some less obvious meanings, for example, "me" I take to be mean an individual person talking about himself, rather than "qualities".

I think, JW, you have misunderstood my post. The personal pronoun ME indubitably means the first person singular.

Jesus says I am X. But that is literally impossible, so he means I am figuratively X.
Follow me then means follow the path, for he means I am the path. Follow me then means follow truth and find life.

Why should we take "me" in this figurative sense? Because Christ presented it as such. To do otherwise is to accept figurative language in the first half and then jump into literal language in the second. This is an error.

It is then obvious that Christ is saying that those who follow the true path towards life will reach God, be they Catholics, Buddhists or green men. In addition, this interpretation is the common sense view, that good people will find their way to God, regardless of whether Jesus has taught them or someone else who preached along the same lines. People who lived before Jesus certainly found God - Moses, for example. Your interpretation makes this a problem. Mine explains it.

[tam]

Peace to you both!

I understand His words to be literal as well, and his reference to "me" being about Himself and not qualities.


Christ is the Way (to the Father, to eternal life, etc).

Christ is the Truth (of God, of everything really).

Christ is the Life. (He is the source of life, granting us the water of life- holy spirit; that His Father has given to Him without end)


No one come to the Father except through Him.


Even if some do not know Him in this life, some will be known BY Him because of what they DO. (see sheep and goats parable) But no one enters before the Father except through Him. Just as no one could enter the Most Holy Place (the Most Holy One, Jah) in the Temple, without first passing through the Holy Place (the Holy One, Jaheshua).


Just as no one could come before Pharaoh and receive grain from Pharaoh during the famine. One had to go through Joseph, who had been placed in charge over all of Pharoah's possessions by Pharaoh himself, including over the grain (equivalent here to life/holy spirit).

So I don't think it is quite accurate to state that it is impossible that Christ could have meant that He is literally the Way, the Truth, and the Life.


Peace again to you both,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Mike Boone]

[Replying to post 92 by Blastcat]

Blastcat, our fellow debater here, JW, would have an awful tough time establishing that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ is a fact when the very bible that he reads undermines that claim. Because, as you know, only 2 of the 4 Gospels state that Christ was born of a virgin, and even Paul, in all of his writings that he contributed to the bible, never mentions that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Now these various biblical writers would have to be awfully poor biographers, concerning Jesus, to neglect to mention such a vital fact IF THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVED IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH.

I mean, Blastcat, how could someone who is trying to present the person that they are writing about as being a unique individual who is very different from all other people, ever fail to point out one of the foremost things about him that separates him from all other human beings? (well, except maybe for several human beings, like Alexander the Great, whose mother, 300 years before Mary's time, was also believed to have been a woman who was supernaturally impregnated by a God)

Anyway, it certainly seems much more likely that Paul, as well as the authors of those 2 Gospels, rather than forgetting to ever mention the virgin birth, simply didn't believe in it.

I understand that a great many of the earliest Christians did not believe that Jesus was born of a virgin either, but that as time went on, that particular part of the Christ story gradually became more and more popular.

Sure seems to me that it's very possible that the virgin birth is nothing more than an embellishment of the Christ story. After all, when it was a new religion, Christianity was competing with other religious beliefs, like the many Gods believed in by the Romans, so the Christian religion needed all the "special sauce" that it could muster, if it was going to successfully compete against beliefs that already presented so "many claimed wonders" to a superstitious populace.

Just as many people in today's movie audiences expect to see great special effects, the simple, generally poorly educated people of Christ's time, expected any religion that they would follow to feature many mind blowing miracles.

[marco]

I understand His words to be literal as well, and his reference to "me" being about Himself and not qualities.


Christ is the Way (to the Father, to eternal life, etc).

Christ is the Truth (of God, of everything really).

Christ is the Life. (He is the source of life, granting us the water of life- holy spirit; that His Father has given to Him without end)

Yes, Tam, I understand the meaning of Christ's metaphor. However, taking the meaning to be that people can only get to God through Jesus alone completely ignores the fact that people did and do get to God without knowing Jesus. You have to use subterfuge to explain this.

However, there is no problem when you take the meaning as
Christ is those things (X) and no one gets to the Father except through (X) where X, as Christ has said, means "those things." And those things can be found in people who do not know Christ. Otherwise Christ's lessons about neighbours being Samaritans are all in vain. The message is:

I am selling these commodities. You can't get to heaven without them, and I have them. And it is only through these commodities that you get to heaven.

This is EXACTLY what Jesus said, but in figurative language.

Go well.

[tam]

Peace to you Marco!

I understand His words to be literal as well, and his reference to "me" being about Himself and not qualities.


Christ is the Way (to the Father, to eternal life, etc).

Christ is the Truth (of God, of everything really).

Christ is the Life. (He is the source of life, granting us the water of life- holy spirit; that His Father has given to Him without end)

Yes, Tam, I understand the meaning of Christ's metaphor

.

Why understand these words to be metaphor? The examples with regard to Joseph and Pharaoh, as well as the Temple set up, show this to be more literal than metaphorical.

However, taking the meaning to be that people can only get to God through Jesus alone completely ignores the fact that people did and do get to God without knowing Jesus. You have to use subterfuge to explain this.

Did and do they?

From the past tense (as in, before Christ came in the flesh), I am not so sure that they did not know (or acknowledge) Christ. From the present tense (since Christ has come in the flesh), Christ did not teach that there was another way except through Him.

"No one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son reveals Him."

Not that this means that one cannot be known by Christ (and so also by God) because of what one does (again, see sheep and goats parable) to even a least one of His brothers.


But like I said, I am also not so sure that those before Christ came (in the flesh) did not ALSO know (or know about) the Son:


Moses acknowledged Him. Christ said that He was known by Abraham, that Abraham had seen His day. He was with Israel in the desert (the Rock, and in the cloud). He is the Word of God, and most of the prophets begin their preamble with 'the Word of the LORD" came to me (word has just not been capitalized in the text). Daniel certainly saw Him (Daniel 7:13), as well as spoke with Him (the last 'one like a man' to come and visit Daniel to explain a vision that Daniel had received). Compare the appearance and voice of that one with the appearance and voice of Christ speaking to John in the book of revelation.



From Daniel:

A man dressed in linen, with a gold belt around His waist, body like chyrsolite (I don't know if this is referring to a facet or a color), face like lightning, eyes like flaming torches, arms and legs like burnished bronze, voice like the sound of a multitude.


From Revelation:

One like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching to his feet, with a golden sash around his chest. His head and hair were white like wool (describing the color), as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace and his voice was like the sound of rushing water.




Certainly Daniel saw Him in an earlier vision:

In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples , nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.


David also knew Him and called Him, Lord:

The LORD (God), said to my Lord (Christ)...

Christ is the One who said that this is referring to Him.

However, there is no problem when you take the meaning as
Christ is those things (X) and no one gets to the Father except through (X) where X, as Christ has said, means "those things." And those things can be found in people who do not know Christ. Otherwise Christ's lessons about neighbours being Samaritans are all in vain.

Love can certainly be found in people who do not know (or know about) Christ. As even Paul said:

When people of the nations who do not have the law, do NATURALLY the requirements of the law, they show that the law is written upon their hearts, and they are a law unto themselves.



What lessons of the Samaritans are you referring to please?

The message is:

I am selling these commodities. You can't get to heaven without them, and I have them. And it is only through these commodities that you get to heaven.

This is EXACTLY what Jesus said, but in figurative language.

But that is not what He said. I understand that this is what some teach and take His words to mean.

But His words are EXACTLY,

I am the Way, the Truth, the Life.

There is nothing in the context to suggest another rendering. Christ even says in the next sentences:

If you really knew ME, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know Him and have seen Him. (John 14:7)


And elsewhere, speaking to other people, He also states:

“Where is Your Father?� they asked Him. “You do not know Me or My Father," [Jesus] answered. “If you knew Me, you would know My Father as well.� (John 8:19)



And also,

No one who denies the Son can have the Father; whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well. 1John 2:23

Go well.

[

And you also Marco!

Peace again,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Mike Boone]

[Replying to post 94 by JehovahsWitness]

JW, I would think that with every human being on earth facing a possible fate as infinitely serious, and awful, as eternal damnation, and with all of us supposedly being God's children, that God would want to make sure that he clearly communicates with all of his children that he is definitely real so that as few of his children as possible end up suffering in Hell.

Because if God largely leaves things up to people knowing him through faith, as Christians believe HIS PLAN does, then God has to know that the end result will be that the vast majority of his children will end up having their souls go to Hell.

And I thought that the 1st duty of a good father is to protect all of his children. But it's obvious that Christians believe that their Heavenly Father has no interest in protecting all of his children.

But honestly, JehovahsWitness, the reason I don't actually consider that there is even the slightest possibility that after death I could face a judgment, is because the very idea that a being with the infinite power needed to be responsible for this limitless universe, actually creating relatively petty little creatures like humans, so he can then judge them, seems about as incredibly stupid as any idea I have encountered in my 65 years. A genuine Supreme Being that created everything would be way beyond the petty, and insecure, human habit that some people have of requiring that their egos constantly be fed by having others worship them. Kings may expect worship in having people bow to them, and a Pope may want someone to kiss his ring, but any God that could create this immense universe, would not care at all about what relatively trivial beings like us, might think.

And it's not that I think that people who believe in God are stupid, but it does seem that most people who worry about a God judging them are filled with the kind of fear that just leads their minds to a disorganized state of confusion, which usually manifests itself as a quite illogical, and often contradictory, way of expressing their point of view.