<whatthefat: Yes, by definition.>

Not good enough. Who says?

<If Iranians are less likely to "find the truth" than Americans then you need to explain why. There are two possibilities:

(1) The effect is genetic. In other words, if an Iranian and an American were raised in exactly equivalent circumstances in the same country, the American would still be more likely to become a Christian.

(2) The effect is due to different cultural exposure. In other words, an Iranian is significantly less likely to become a Christian (2% probability) than an American (78% probability) because of their different experiences *after* birth. But if they were raised in exactly equivalent circumstances in the same country then this effect would go away.

If you say the difference is due to (2) then that fails to account for why you would be immune to this effect. >

What was it you said yesterday? <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).>

Logic says. Either the effect is congenital or it is the result of things that happen after birth, or both. Clearly there are no other possibilities.

<Yawn. Seriously, do you ever stop and think about what you post?>

<OCF: After your vitriol directed at me the past week,...>>

What you call "vitriol" is criticism of your stated position, with reasons given and instances cited. This is in stark contrast to the many unsupported accusations you've made toward me, even though I've ASKED you to support them.

<OCF: I am very hard pressed to accept at face value your claim you would not have a problem with me comparing an unbeliever to Satan. While much of your problem with me is over a myriad of issues, when push comes to shove, you retreat back to one and only one point-judging those outside the church.>

First of all, I've disagreed with you on a number of issues that go beyond "judging". For example, there's basic understanding of science, age of the earth, evolution, and how to logically and fairly conduct a debate. And I've "retreated" from none of them.

Therefore, your attempt to simplify the debate to "one and only one" issue is flatly false, and your claim that I've "retreated" can go straight to the large and growing pile where I keep your other unsupported accusations.

However, I would say that my *main* disagreement with you has to do with unjust and unbiblical judging on your part -- a behavior that damages the reputation of Christianity.

<OCF: Now that I've shown apostolic examples of treating those outside the church in anything but a lovey dovey manner, you're stuck with that.>

Which brings me back to the debate-related issue of your <failure to process>. This issue shows up when:

(a) you make a claim,
(b) I present a refutation to your claim,
(c) you restate your claim without bothering to deal with the refutation.

You believe that your judging is Biblical. Over the past few days, you asked me all those yes/no questions about your Biblical examples, and for all of them (except the "unequally yoked" passage in 2 Cor 6) I answered "Yes they were judging" and I explained that they were examples of <judging *within*>.

I even went beyond your questions to explained how I see the distinction between judging within vs judging outside.

Here, I elaborate on judging within: OhioChessFan chessforum

Here, I elaborate on judging outside: OhioChessFan chessforum

Here, I offer reasoning for the distinction: OhioChessFan chessforum

Now, AFTER ALL THAT, you come back and baldly refer to your examples as <judging *outside*>!

It's fine if you disagree with my understanding of within vs. outside, but within the context of a debate, you are obligated to read and process my posts, and if my post refutes your claim, you must counter that refutation before reasserting your claim. Otherwise, your argument is nothing more than repeating refuted claims.

Then again, you've been doing that throughout this whole debate, so why start now?

<It's very easy for me to think that drives your response of "no" to this matter more than the reality at hand.>

Yes, you've demonstrated all along that its very easy for you to reach conclusions when you fail to process rebuttals.

To help narrow the deficit, perhaps you would be so good as to respond to the questions below from days ago. Also, please provide Biblical justification (but to make it easy, I won't ask you to reference the Greek sources).

From June 26, pertaining to how you've judged others:

<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?

And perhaps you can explain Biblically how those unprovoked and unsupported accusations constitute treating people with gentleness and respect and kindness? There are some around here who are on the receiving end of your accusations and have been followed your comments. I have my doubts that they are feeling the love.>

From June 28, concerning the early church:

<<OCF: The early church was 100% Jewish converts to Christianity.>

Yes, but they converted from what to what?

Which would you say is true about these Jewish converts:

(A) After their conversion, they no longer considered themselves to be Jews.

(B) After their conversion, they considered themselves Jews with a better understanding of the laws and prophecies of Judaism, whereas the religious leaders had distorted the laws and neglected the prophecies.>

(Of course, on the question above, feel free to add a response (C) if you don't think my (A) or (B) work.)

Also from June 28, concerning judging outside:

<What exactly to you make of verses [1 Cor 5] 12-13? Do you think the bit about leaving the judgment of unbelievers to God is somehow limited by the idea of disfellowshipping? Are there are other contexts where God's judgment of unbelievers isn't enough, and that Christians should be helping with it?>

If the newer textbooks still include mistakes discovered and corrected by scientists, then it would seem that your derogatory reference should not be directed at the science, but rather at the book publishing.

<This is what it looks like to me: you think it's Christians' own fault that the culture hates them, and that if they were to change their behavior in certain ways, then they wouldn't be despised.>

Well, then I don't think you have been reading my responses carefully.

There are 2 broad reasons for why the world may despise Christians:

(1) Because they hate the message Bible spoken of and portrayed by Christians.

(2) Because they hate behavior that the observe in many Christians, which is genuinely hostile, gullible, arrogant, backward, hypocritical, etc.

For case (1), that is the hatred that Christians are to expect. They should respond to with a "turn the cheek" attitude of kindness, repaying evil with good, and loving one's enemies.

For case (2), that is the hatred that is *deserved*. It is the hatred that should compel Christians to "remove the log from their own eye". It is the behavior that Christians are expected to judge *within* their own ranks and expel.

I only fault Christians for hatred resulting from type (2) reasons -- not type (1). If Christians could change their behavior by removing the type (2) reasons, then they would be hated *less*, and they would only be hated for acceptable type (1) reasons.

From your comments, I get the impression that you've blurred the distinction between these two cases. Never the less, this is the way I see it, and I think my position is entirely Biblical.

<for instance, if I find Bill Maher's wallet on the sidewalk, God requires me to return it to him with its contents intact. Being still in the flesh, I would really hate doing that! But I would do it. And Bill Maher would still despise my beliefs and publicly mock them at every opportunity (more fool him).>

And if all that happened, then good! You will have had an opportunity to show kindness to someone despite their hostility toward you. Consider it all joy! Right?

<What do you think I am doing here *other* than trying to understand the basis for a correlation? Along similar lines, were you born this dense, or was it a result of things that happened to you after birth?>

Therefore, your attempt to simplify the debate to "one and only one" issue is flatly false, and your claim that I've "retreated" can go straight to the large and growing pile where I keep your other unsupported accusations.>

Here is a post you made, in its entirety.

<YouRang: As an extra added bonus, I'll offer an answer to the parallel question: <"Why would a scientist who knows about Christianity be motivated to REJECT it?">

Our scientist is a bright person familiar with making observations and inferring conclusions from them.

Here are some of the observations that our scientist might make about Christians.

== Christians are money-grubbing:

Our scientist is aware that TV evangelists are constantly begging for money, and they live like kings. Consider Robert Tilton, whose "ministry" brought in $80 million a year, until it was exposed that he was taking advantage of vulnerable people who mailed him their money with prayer requests. His staff took the money and tossed the requests. (Today he is the star of youtube videos called "farting pastor"). There are and have been many others living lavishly like him going back decades.

== Christians are corrupt hypocrites:

Our scientist is probably aware of high-profile preachers caught in scandals. Oh, there's Jimmy Swaggart, Paul Crouch, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, Peter Popoff, Mike Warnke, and the list goes on and on.

== Christians are gullible:

Our scientist has probably seen thousands of Christians line up to see charlatan "faith healers", like Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Oral Roberts, etc.

On a smaller (and funnier) scale, our scientist may also be aware of young-earth creationist Kent Hovind who created an absurd little theme park called "Dinosaur Adventureland" (http://roamingiomi.blogspot.com/200...) [you should check this link - it's hilarious]. It's closed now, but it got enough business from Christians (and a few who came to laugh at Christians) to last from 2001-2009. Hovind is currently in prison having been convicted on a number of tax evasion charges.

== Christians are ignorant:

Many Christians accept the creation science arguments and try to defend them without having even a basic working knowledge of science. They make mistakes about scientific terms (e.g. theory, fact), and misrepresent the positions of science so that they are unwittingly making strawman arguments. They confidently make claims even though they literally don't know what they're talking about, which makes them look stupid.

== Christians are hostile:

This one hits home for our scientist, since she finds herself (and most other scientists) being accused of dishonesty by Christians [such as yourself] she has never met. The basis of the accusation is that she supports the prevailing scientific views of cosmology and biology.

== The impression that the Bible is incompatible with science:

This also hits home. On the side of popular science, people like Richard Dawkins say that the Bible is false because it disagrees with science. On the Christian side, Christians [such as yourself] actually *affirm* Dawkins' logic by also arguing that the Bible disagrees with science (the only difference is that they conclude that science is false).

Our scientist, seeing that both sides agree that the science and the Bible are incompatible, assumes that it must be true. Unfortunately, she started off on with the perspective that science was true, so she concludes that the Bible must be false, without considering the possibility that they could both be true.

~~~~

Our scientist probably realizes that these observations don't apply to *all* Christians, but shes sees enough evidence to conclude that there is nothing special (in a positive sense) about Christianity. Consequently, she takes no interest in the Bible or the God it reveals.

<OhioChessFan: Here's your points in a post you made allegedly, about Christians judging outside the Church:

1 Christians are money-grubbing:
2. Christians are corrupt hypocrites:
3. Christians are gullible:
4. Christians are ignorant:
5. Christians are hostile:
6. The impression that the Bible is incompatible with science: >

<YouRang: No, those were points about Christians judging those *inside* the church. >

I challenge you to find any sentient human being who agrees with you that those were points about Christians judging those inside the church.

<That is, Christians may judge another Christian (or at least one who claims to be) when he/she acts in a manner that brings disgrace to Christianity.>

On page 174 of the forum. In response to that, here is a further post:

<YouRang: Biblical support for my position:

== Regarding your claims about scientists:

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

Not about judging those outside the church.

<== 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>

Not about judging outside the church. In fact, it was addressing judging inside the church, but about motives. Such distinctions don't concern you though as long as it provides some semi-related ammo to use against me.

<== 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>

Hooray. Got one out of four points anyway.

<== 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

<27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you> Lk 6:27>

Amazing. If you'd like I can build you a comprehensive list of every point you've been unresponsive on in this debate.

<So, how about that correlation issue?>

What correlation issue? I responded to your last post on the issue of the NAS statistics at great length (see OhioChessFan chessforum) to which you never replied.

Now, would you care to respond to the following outstanding points from just the last day or two?

1. Where is the justification for your personal attack: <When you start calling people who don't agree with you intellectually inferior for not accepting theories predicated on an unproveable foundation, then I think there's a problem>? Or do you no longer feel the need to justify your words?

2. Is the difference in likelihood between Americans and Iranians becoming Christians in their home countries due to congenital or cultural differences? To ask the same question another way, if both were brought up under the same circumstances in the same country, would they be equally likely to become Christians, or not?

<whatthefat: Logic says. Either the effect is congenital or it is the result of things that happen after birth, or both. Clearly there are no other possibilities. >

I was using the word "You" in a magisterial sense. I am sorry that appears to make a charge against you. On a related note, do you think such things?

<2. Is the difference in likelihood between Americans and Iranians becoming Christians in their home countries due to congenital or cultural differences? To ask the same question another way, if both were brought up under the same circumstances in the same country, would they be equally likely to become Christians, or not?>

Again, that's a description of the behavior (people being "good" or "bad"), not an explanation of the behavior. It doesn't go any way towards explaining why Americans are "good" more often than Iranians.

Let's go back to the context in which this was said.

<OCF: Is that really so outrageous?>

<whatthefat: No, everyone is entitled to an opinion about matters of faith. But when you start calling other people intellectually dishonest for disagreeing with an opinion that by its very nature is unprovable, then I think there's a problem.>

<OCF: When you start calling people who don't agree with you intellectually inferior for not accepting theories predicated on an unproveable foundation, then I think there's a problem>

That's a good start, even if it's insincere.

<I understand why you cherry picked out the question I posed.>

I guess you wish to major in the minors. I don't bother to address your charge of me being dense, but you draw a line on this? Yes, discussion does come to a screeching halt in such a case. Anyway, here's what you said: <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.>

<What are you talking about?>

Okay, so? That is ONE post. Are you suggesting that it represents all issues that we've disagreed about? Or that it represents some sort of retreat on my part?

On the relatively rare occasions when you do respond, you have a habit of neglecting to explain how your response supposedly defends your position, argues against mine, or is even relevant at all.

~~~~

<OhioChessFan: Here is the followup:

<OCF: Here's your points in a post you made allegedly, about Christians judging outside the Church:

1. Christians are money-grubbing:
2. Christians are corrupt hypocrites:
3. Christians are gullible:
4. Christians are ignorant:
5. Christians are hostile:
6. The impression that the Bible is incompatible with science: >

<YouRang: No, those were points about Christians judging those *inside* the church. <>>>

You made quite a mess of the context regarding that post, so let's back up a moment to get it straight:

Those claims I made about Christians being money-grubbing, hypocritical, gullible, etc, were first mentioned in my original post: OhioChessFan chessforum, which *obviously* was presented in the context of <"Why would a scientist who knows about Christianity be motivated to REJECT it?">. In other words, it was NOT originally about Christians doing the judging at all. It was about <how an *unbeliever* might judge Christians>.

YOU then responded (in the post you quoted above) by framing my comments in context of <Christians judging outside the Church>, which is exactly BACKWARDS from the context of my post. (Cite another failure to process and cite another instance of misrepresenting my position).

Since YOU altered the context to be Christians judging those outside, I correcting it as to be <Christians judging those *inside* the church>, since clearly *Christians* are the ones being judged.

Of course YOU had also changed who was doing the judging (I had an unbeliever doing the judging, and you changed to to Christians doing the judging). I didn't bother to correct that since it doesn't really matter. Both Christians and unbelievers can and should judge professing Christians who are guilty of those things. In fact, Christians *especially* should be doing that judging -- but that wasn't the point of my original post.

<I challenge you to find any sentient human being who agrees with you that those were points about Christians judging those inside the church. >

If you read my original post (the link given above), you will see that I gave a number of examples of behaviors exhibited by professing Christians which DO cause many people to believe that Christians are money-grubbing (e.g. TV evangelists), corrupt (e.g. Swaggart), gullible (e.g. followers of faith healers), ignorant (e.g. those who argue against science with no science understanding at all), and hostile (e.g. those who make unprovoked attacks on scientists).

Fortunately, there are also some of us Christians who do pass judgment on the professing Christians who exhibit those bad behaviors. And when they do pass judgment, it constitutes <Christians judging those inside the church>.