<OCF: I realize you're making a list of sort of analogous points, but this one isn't close. I think you could have skipped this and the list would have lost no weight. >

Yes, managing to get alive out of that one is very tough (indeed, I certainly don't think that's what happened); but is something that would be completely unique, has never been seen to happen and requires intervention from God really so much more likely as an explanation than both that and a number of other possibilities that it can be called an established fact?

Perhaps considering that some 1.5 billion people who accept God, accept the possibility of divine miracles and accept Jesus as an important and highly respected man of a loving God completely deny that any such thing happened gives us a clue.

I think a careful examination of the evidence should lead to that question being answered "yes".

<Perhaps considering that some 1.5 billion people who accept God, accept the possibility of divine miracles and accept Jesus as an important and highly respected man of a loving God completely deny that any such thing happened gives us a clue.>

Either they or those who believe in the resurrection are wrong. Truth isn't dependent upon numbers of believers. Someone is right and someone is wrong.

<I would indeed like to hear why you're so convinced it happened, for the sake of completeness if nothing else.>

Truth isn't, but for something to be an established fact it's not enough for it to be true. There are loads and loads of things that are true but not established facts - and in all probability quite a few that are established facts but not true.

I think it took about 5 seconds for that to give me a headache trying to get a hold of it. At first blush, I think it's right on both counts.

It is evidence, and can't be discarded unless completely refuted (even if, as so often, there are contradictory accounts), but it's not proof. Eyewitnesses can a) lie, b) be honestly mistaken or c) be deceived (with some overlap between the last two). Even if they offer an accurate account, it may be hard to ascertain that this is the case. If they offer an accurate account on all counts and it can be ascertained as such (which I already can't see happening), then it is proof, but it still has to be worked out how much you can conclude from it.

Muhammad splitting the moon had plenty of alleged eyewitnesses - more than the resurrected Jesus - yet I doubt you're going to argue that proves it happened. Indeed, many Muslims dispute it happened.

Of course it's true those can't be entirely compared, but if you put too much trust into eyewitness accounts you could make quite a case for any religion.

You don't have to limit that to religion. We always need to examine eyewitnesses. I understand that the more significant the testimony, the more the credibility of the witness comes into question.

<Finally, eyewitness testimony that starts with "I saw this happen" is more reliable than "eyewitness testimony" that goes "my second cousin saw this happen".>

Certainly. Take an example from the very opposite of religion: astronomical science.

In the mid-19th century, minor problems were found with the calculated orbit of the planet Mercury. Previously, problems had been found with the orbit of Uranus; there had been a suggestion those were caused by the gravitational influence of a large and as yet undiscovered planet. This planet was eventually found, and named Neptune. It was therefore very natural to suggest the problems with Mercury's orbit were also caused by some undiscovered object.

Not long after, the object was seen: a smaller planet inside the orbit of Mercury. This small planet was given the name Vulcan, after a mythological Roman god. The planet was subsequently seen by numerous other experienced observers, from many locations around the world, over a long period of time.

Some remained skeptical of the planet's existence. After all, the eyewitnesses weren't all <that> many, and many of the accounts contradicted each other. Some non-sightings contradicted all accounts. But the skeptics had to admit they had no alternative explanation to the mystery of Mercury's orbit.

Today, of course, it's an established fact that the planet Vulcan does not exist, and Mercury's orbit has been explained by Einstein's relativity.

Thank you for the invitation to "cite the Greek", but I'll decline. I wouldn't expect you to be impressed if I found an online Greek lexicon, and in return I promise not to be impressed if you do.

But my accusation against you is pretty straight-forward:

You have made the positive claim that most scientists are liars. That is, they deliberately say things (most specifically, their affirmation of evolution theory) that *they* know to be false. You also have stated their motive -- that they tell these deliberate lies because they want to create an excuse to not believe the Bible.

Example: (Mar 9) <<YouRang: But because they *are* aware of the Biblical account AND because they specifically do not want to agree with the Bible, the majority of scientists deliberately suppress these theories and propose other theories (e.g. big bang, evolution) that they know to be false."

If that's your claim, I just find it hard to believe.>

OCF: That's my claim. >

The basis of your accusation rests on your 100% confidence in a specific literal interpretation of Genesis -- an interpretation that even many Christians don't agree with, or at least insist upon.

You have also affirmed that most scientists are non-believers, which is a point on which I would agree. But in my mind, that only makes your accusations worse. The very fact that they are non-believers means that you cannot presume that they hold the Bible as authoritative, or even be familiar with it.

And yet you blame these unbelievers of "intellectual dishonesty" because they don't buy your "many eyewitnesses" argument which depends on the presumption of Biblical authority. Your argument goes something like this:

(a) The creation account in Genesis says evolution is impossible [by your specific interpretation]

(b) The creation account should be believed because it is affirmed by Moses [who was not an eyewitness regarding creation].

(c) Moses should be believed because he is affirmed by Jesus [who might be a witness regarding creation if what the Bible says about him is true, but to expect non-believers to believe it's true would be begging the question].

(d) Jesus should be believed because he was affirmed by many eyewitnesses [none of whom were eyewitnesses regarding creation].

(e) These eyewitnesses should be believed because there are many of them, according to the *four* Gospel writers [who were also not eyewitnesses regarding creation].

(d) THEREFORE: Scientists who affirm evolution are intellectually dishonest for not believing the "many eyewitnesses" of the Bible -- a book that non-believers do not regard as authoritative.

~~~~~

Here is summary of my points regarding your claims about the dishonesty of scientists regarding their affirmation of evolution:

- Your claims depend on a knowledge of what scientists "really" know and believe (i.e. that they are aware of the Bible account and they really know evolution is false) -- I claim that you cannot possibly know this.

- Your claims depend on a knowledge of their motives (produce an excuse to disbelieve the Bible) -- Again, you cannot possibly know this.

- When you make a claim about someone else, and that claim is something that you cannot possibly *know*, that itself constitutes bearing false witness.

- I claim that scientists in fact have reasonable arguments based on evidence by which they might *honestly* believe that evolution is true, but that you came into this debate obviously having made no serious attempt to understand their reasons, let alone science itself.

- Scientists have no reason at all to accept your "many eyewitnesses" argument by which you find them intellectually dishonest. In fact, that argument is so tenuous that it's silly on its face, particularly to a non-believer.

As for the "generally unfavorable reputation of Christianity," that is only to be expected: Christ Himself said the world would hate His followers as it hated Him.

You are absolutely right in saying that literally anything can be turned into an idol--not just science.

But Original Sin accounts for the world hating Jesus and His message. It also accounts for Christians not acting like Christ while they're in the flesh. Really, all we can do is try--and you know that as well as I do.

== Regarding your claims about scientists:

<You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.> Ex 20:16

== Concerning Judging people based on their motives:

<I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.> 1Cor 4:3-5

== What Paul taught regarding judging those outside the church (non-believers) vs. those inside (professing believers):

<12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."> 1Cor 5:12-13

== What Christians are taught with regard to how to treat non-believers:

<15But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, 16keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.> 1Pet 3:15

<14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited. 17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.

18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d]says the Lord. 20On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."> Rom 12:14-20

Sure. But not all hatred from the world can be attributed to following Christ.

<The world> here as in even more ignorant than the majority of "Christians" I reckon ... Point being that Christianity, according to the Bible, will <also> be led to mislead the masses in order to give Satan as much playing room as possible as per the books. He wants to cover up the truth, false bringer of light ("lucifer" translated), it is said, and therefore disguises himself as ... .

So we better do some more of our homework and avoid generalizing in implied terms alike "most/all believers/christianity" ...

This discussion can go on forever if based on wrong/ill-informed premises and uncharacteristic as well as scripture-contrary assumptions and generalizations.

Inexcusability as OHIO (was it PgP ? ;)) mentioned earlier is not only found in what was it, Romans 1:20 ? It is indeed found in many scriptures as Jesus sent most of his instructions to the first century congregations as accounted for and described in the new testament.

That in most part constitutes and generates my contestable yet reasonably founded conviction; you only need an open mind/heart and reading ability, or so it seems at times..

So - Even those persecuted for the sake of Christ, as YouRang mentions, are not guaranteed in any way to represent Christ's true believers, let alone form a basis for determining and generalizing inferences and philosophies...

Move back a little, and do not wish to score any points, unless it really *is* a slam-dunk.

PS - of course my post's foundation crumbles if Jesus as in JESUS, the son and appointed one by HIM didn't instruct/inspire the writers of the New Testament, and therefore provides an important field of study and research, to put it overly simplyfied.

You're right, that post was not really an occasion to judge you. But I would still say that our opinions about how God might judge people are meaningless.

<In fact, you were trying to excuse people for not obeying God by blaming me.>

Not at all. I have no authority to "excuse people for not obeying God".

My point was that Christians who come across as hostile, ignorant, gullible, etc. damage the reputation of Christianity. Non-believers can (and have and will), in their minds find that to be an excuse to reject Christianity. Whether that excuse has any bearing on God's judgment is not my concern. My concern is to treat non-believers as the Bible instructs, and contend with Christians who don't.

<Now, could you post in less than 100 words...>

Sorry for the lengthy posts, but I making an accusation against you, and I am not comfortable with making accusations unless I give evidence and explanations for that accusation.

Evidently, you are comfortable with making unsupported accusations. You've done that to scientists, and you've also brought several accusations against me. Even when I *ask* you to support your accusations against me, you come up empty. Would you like me to give you a list of those recent unsupported accusations?

<... what the word "judge" means in the Bible?>

In the Bible, the word "judge" is used in a number of contexts, with subtly varying meanings ranging from "decide" or "determine" to "condemn". The concept of judging to which I refer pertains to "accusing" or "bringing a charge against".

I assume that you don't have a problem with this because I have brought accusations against you, and you rightly understood that to mean that I was judging you.

But even if you disagree with this idea of "judging", perhaps you can explain Biblically how you can make claims about what scientists know and what their motives are, and state those claims with such confidence that you are willing to bring accusations of dishonesty against them?

1. Yes or no. Was Paul judging to tell someone they were full of deceit and fraud?

2. Yes or no. Was Paul judging when he told someone they were a son of the devil?

3. Yes or no. Was Paul judging when he struck someone blind?

Matthew 23:27-28 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead [men's] bones and all uncleanness. Even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."

Matthew 23:33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?

1. Yes or no. Was Jesus judging when he told people they were sons of hell?

2. Yes or no. Was Jesus judging when he told people they were hypocrites and whitewashed tombs and were full of hypocrisy and lawlessness?

2 Peter 2:21-22 For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known [it], to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them. But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: "A dog returns to his own vomit," and, "a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire."

1. Yes or no. Was Peter judging when he said people were brutes, spots, blemishes, and accursed children?

Before answering your questions, let me give you my understanding of this verse:

<What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."> 1Cor 5:12-13

This verse is consistent with other passages in the Bible that tell us that:

(1) Judgment of nonbelievers outside the church belongs to God, not believers, and

(2) Believers are to judge within (i.e. other believers or nonbelievers who claim to be believers), in order to remove the wicked, which would certainly include false prophets.

Now on to your questions...

~~~~

Acts 13:8-11 -- YES to all three of your questions.

Look at the broader context, going back to v6:

<6They traveled through the whole island until they came to Paphos. There they met a <<Jewish sorcerer and false prophet>> named Bar-Jesus, 7who was an attendant of the proconsul, Sergius Paulus. The proconsul, an intelligent man, sent for Barnabas and Saul because he wanted to hear the word of God. 8But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith.>

This part that you left out reveals that this Elymas was a Jewish false prophet (who also goes by the name Bar-Jesus). This man purported to speak as a prophet, and hence would claim to be a believer. Therefore, this was an example of Paul judging <within>.

QUESTION FOR YOU: Do you think that your baseless judgment of unbelieving scientists who are clearly outside the church can be likened to the spirit-filled Apostle Paul judging one within who speaks for God with false authority?

~~~~

Matthew 23 -- YES to all three of your questions.

Again, Jesus was speaking to who? The *religious leadership* who were teaching *falsely*. Here, even Jesus is judging <within>. (BTW, I think you will find that Jesus is much more gentle in his approach to sinners who are not false teachers).

QUESTION FOR YOU: Do you think that your baseless judgment of unbelieving scientists who are clearly outside the church can be likened to Jesus himself judging the false religious authorities (i.e. false teachers) within?

~~~~

2 Peter 2 -- YES to both of your questions.

Maybe you're seeing pattern emerging, and you can guess what's coming...

Look at the context: Who is Peter judging? He tells us at the beginning of the chapter:

<But there were also <<false prophets>> among the people, just as there will be <<false teachers>> among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies... >

So again, Peter is judging <within>.

I am reminded of our discussion about the word "theory" in that there are different ways a word can be used. I guess drawing that hard a line in the sand over the word "atheism" is fine. It would be a legit usage, though really not the most common colloquial usage. In any case, the point was the relative difference in numbers who believed in a personal God. It's 4 AM and I don't remember if that link ran to the listing of underlying numbers for the general populace. If it doesn't, I will find the underlying paper and list them for comparison. I think that numbers so far outside the ordinary suggest some sort of relationship. We could leave it at this: OhioChessFan thinks there's a relationship between being a member of the National Academy of Science and a disbelief in the Judaeo-Christian God. whattthefat doesn't think there's a relationship. If that doesn't accurately summarize our respective views in your mind, I am open to correction.

<You do well to disguise your superior attitude a lot of the time, but this is a very clear demonstration of you considering your religious views to be superior to those of others.>

I believe my religious views are predicated on truth. If they weren't, I'd discard them. I have had this charge (Usually along the lines of "Christianity has this superior attitude. They think they're the only one who are right and all the ____________ are wrong") levelled against me hundreds of times by unbelievers. I know it's part of the playbook though I've never figured out where this debate point orginated. I still don't get it. It's all about truth. I don't think there's anything wrong with believing you hold truth, and am bewildered why that should be some negative attribute.

<It seems if someone isn't a Christian or at least subscribed to a major religion then you are happy to deride them as Godless heathens.>

I'm not aware I have referenced anyone as a Godless heathen. But if someone is, they is. Some atheists do great acts worthy of human honor.

<You need to get a broader outlook, and understand that your religion has nothing more going for it than any other.>

It has truth going for it. If it didn't, I'd discard it.

<Let's face it, there's a postal worker on the other side of the world who goes by the handle <TehranChessFan> making the exact same arguments in favor of Islam, for no more reason than the fact that he was born in Iran rather than the US.>