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? >

<Tell that to Paul, Jesus, Peter, etc. lol.>

namely, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

But if you go on biting and devouring one another,

beware that you are not consumed by one another.

I say, then: live by the Spirit

and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh.

For the flesh has desires against the Spirit,

and the Spirit against the flesh;

these are opposed to each other,

so that you may not do what you want.

Jews can become members of the church.>

Fascinating. After all this debate, this is probably the most surprising position I've seen you take.

While it's nice that you think Jews can become members of the church, I think you're badly missing the fact that the early church was 100% Jewish, let alone founded by Jews. It would be much more accurate for you to remark that "Gentiles can become members of the church".

And BTW, that was not originally an easy thing for the Jews to accept. Read Acts 10-11 -- It took a miraclulous vision and a remarkable sequence of events involving Gentiles for Peter to reluctantly accept that Gentiles could be receivers of the Holy Spirit too. And then Peter had a job ahead of him to convince other Jews in the early church to allow Gentiles.

Christianity is a branch of Judaism. If the majority of Jews had believed in Jesus, you and I might not be calling ourselves Christians -- we would be converted Jews.

I put "baseless" in there mostly for these reasons:

1. Your original post (and some the followed) accused scientists of deliberately lying, offering no proof or explanation to support that accusation.

2. I doubt that you have the power to see into the minds and hearts of scientists, such that you can know with *any* certainty that they are telling deliberate lies, nor could you know their alleged motive for lying.

3. In the debate that followed where I (and others) tried to get you to defend your position, it turned out to be based on misconceptions about science and various logical fallacies (e.g. strawmen and bald assertions).

But if you want to remove "baseless" before answering, then please do so. I suppose I shouldn't have put it in there since you probably still believe there is justification for your position.

While you're at it, perhaps you can answer the earlier questions too (I've edited them to remove my editorial adjectives):

<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?>

<OCF: 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.>>

The "superior attitude" comes across when you adopt the postion that you have "The Truth" with the assumption that it should be obvious to others. It comes across when you start off by casting insults upon those who don't believe "The Truth". It comes across when when you start off by disrespecting the the views that unbelievers hold.

<The world> here as in even more ignorant than the majority of "Christians" I reckon ...>

Yes, well I was just using "the world" in order to be contextually consistent with <pgp>'s use of that term in his earlier post.

I think <pgp> and I both understood it as a reference to the unbelieving world -- specifically those who know what the Bible teaches but reject it.

Regarding Jews/gentiles/appointed time for the nations/modernday Jews/ethnic Jews/Judaists - I think the positions and decors have both changed enormously in the first century AD, and - as even follows from the scriptures - in the 20th century, where there have taken place indeed huge (paradigm) shifts with regards to the spiritual Israel, the New Jerusalem that will come down from the heavens etc. Point being that in what I feel is a communication issue with OCF, you've got to keep track of (as close as possible to) exact dating and synchronicity with the scripture as even Paul, at *that* time, in the early years before the Romans destructed Jerusalem, with his interpretation and explication took time to fully grasp... His letters to the congregations, how and when Gentiles were to be accepted into the congregations, could be baptized, the requirements, etc... and even when some of those might even be chosen rule *as* "kings", by Jesus side... Actually Peter and John address and try to explain that. But never mind that last bit of exegesis ;)

As for "judging"... We see Paul telling the members of the church in Corinth not to sue each other in pagan law courts, but to judge within the church. So certainly righteous judgment within the church is allowed.

But of all the elements of Pop Theology, "judge not" has probably done the most harm. Some Christians take it to mean we mustn't recognize wicked people when we see them.

The problem is that we are stuck here in this fallen world. We can't appease the world, although some misguided Christians try to. It's easy to find churches doing their level best to conform themselves to the world... and still the world hates them.

It's funny, but I think if you defended Christianity with the same fervor with which you defend science, you'd hear yourself called a lot of unflattering things by a lot of people.

John 17:14-17 (Young's Literal Translation)

< 14 I have given to them Thy word, and the world did hate them, because they are not of the world, as I am not of the world;

15 I do not ask that Thou mayest take them out of the world, but that Thou mayest keep them out of the evil.

16 `Of the world they are not, as I of the world am not;

17 sanctify them in Thy truth, Thy word is truth;

>

< James 4:4 Adulterers and adulteresses! have ye not known that friendship of the world is enmity with God? whoever, then, may counsel to be a friend of the world, an enemy of God he is set. >

And evidently this fiercely opposing view and Huge Divide is demonstrated again in the Creationist and ID movements opposing the Science Community and Atheist naturalists...

Why not "dig in"? - is what they're saying, as we were taught to:

< 1 Corinthians 3:19 (21st Century King James Version)

6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

7but [a]emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,

10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

Yes or no. Was Paul judging when he identified Alexander as someone he wanted God to repay?

2 Corinthians 6:14-17 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell in them And walk among [them]. I will be their God, And they shall be My people." Therefore "Come out from among them And be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, And I will receive you."

In some sense, yes.

<Do you think that your 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? >

<Christianity is a branch of Judaism.> That implies too strong of a tie, IMO, but some will disagree... Christianity is a forceful split-off from Judaism, may I say a partition?, which as announced in the scriptures teaching and fulfilling the prophecy of the greater Moses, Jesus, to do away the Mosaic Law, and:

"Be saved from this <perverse generation>" - Acts 2:40

Christianity's central piece is a partition (the most forceful possible) from Judaism's central piece, namely the Mosaic Law. But there's a lovely internal paradox there and some "proprietary constraints", heh.

Are we talking months? Maybe years?

Obviously there's a relationship; how that relationship should be interpreted is the issue at stake. As I earlier pointed out with the obesity/snoring issue, a correlation between A and B tells you nothing about whether A causes B, B causes A, or C causes A and B (or any combination of the above). One perfectly valid interpretation of the correlation is that religious people tend to be discouraged from independent thought at a young age, and thus don't make up a significant proportion of the scientific population. I'm not saying that is the case - it's an example designed to illustrate that A correlating with B is a pretty meaningless observation by itself.

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