The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[El_Machinae]

I think you're mischaracterizing, Gori. We need to be able to say whether someone is a Christian or not. The Bible gives instructions on how to treat fellow Christians differently from everyone else. So, words like 'probably Christian' make sense

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

In 30 years AI will tell us what to do anyways so everyone just has to wait around until Nerds build God.

You cant replace human consciousness in thousand years let alone build superhuman one. Dream on...

 

[Crackerbox]

Already tried, B-man:



Crackerbox doesn't regard himself as that Pharisee. He can determine from outward appearances whether someone is authentically Christian (like him) or not.

(But I like it that you and I immediately thought of the same passage. It's part of what Farm Boy means in the beer-rant thread about you and me being right and left hand.)

I wonder whether Crackerbox will take any spiritual benefit from the fact that two people thought of the exact same scriptural passage in connection with his posts.



Nah, I don't either.

Wow, how hypocritical. So I'm a Pharisee because you who don't know me from Adam are condemning me from afar. You say I have a log in my eye and condemn others when I've lived a life pretty free from condemnation and spent in the fields of the Lord, in humbleness and sacrifice, not to glorifiy myself, wretched sinner that I am, but to glorify God in my weakness.

Wow, just Wow. Do you criticize your pastor and the youth group leaders at your churches for that kind of commitment too?

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'll try one more time.

I've never claimed you've condemned anyone. I'm not condemning you. It is you who are hung up on that word.

I've claimed that you presume to know, and confidently declare, the authenticity of other people's relationship with Christ, and that there's a Biblical passage that advises us not to make such assessments.

You're free to do whatever you like with my observation and that Biblical quote.

I haven't had occasion to offer such an observation to my pastor or youth minister, because they haven't told me they can tell which people are authentic Christians and which not. But if they said something like that to me, I would gently point them toward the same verse I have provided for your consideration.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I've lived a life pretty free from condemnation and spent in the fields of the Lord, in humbleness and sacrifice, not to glorifiy myself, wretched sinner that I am, but to glorify God in my weakness.

Wow maybe this is pile-on but I have to +1 the sentiment that this statement sounds exactly like the Pharisee loudly proclaiming his virtues that Jesus admonished people should not imitate.

 

[Crackerbox]

I'll try one more time.

I've never claimed you've condemned anyone. I'm not condemning you. It is you who are hung up on that word.

I've claimed that you presume to know, and confidently declare, the authenticity of other people's relationship with Christ, and that there's a Biblical passage that advises us not to make such assessments.

You're free to do whatever you like with my observation and that Biblical quote.

I haven't had occasion to offer such an observation to my pastor or youth minister, because they haven't told me they can tell which people are authentic Christians and which not. But if they said something like that to me, I would gently point them toward the same verse I have provided for your consideration.

I guess you've failed to read about church discipline then?
Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Galatians 6: 1

Or this from Mathew 18?
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed[a] in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

You see the New Testament in it's entirety is comprehensive. We're not to judge or condemn, but we are to especially notice the actions of a Brother and Sister in Christ. That's also found in the Old Testament.
"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid. Proverbs 12:1.

We're to be watchful of ourselves when we fall into error and miss the mark, and we observe when a brother or sister publicly is missing the mark, and then discuss with them ways to improve.

It's not to judge or condemn. It's a kind process, especially say when someone rarely comes to church. You get them on the Men's Breakfast Team so that they find a ministry for them. You become their friend and go on a mission trip together.

If we fail to observe which politicians who claim to be Christians then vote for some horrendous abortion issue, then we're ignorant. We gave our vote to the wrong person, didn't we? I mean some groups like the Amish are so concentrated on, "Be ye not of the world, but transformed by the renewal of your mind..." that they pull out of politics alltogether. Over and over they'd witness alleged Christian politicians voting for all kinds of legislation that very negatively affects the Christians in their district who put them there!

We have compassion for all people. We don't judge them. But to not mention what the Bible teaches in order to make it palatable is insipid and weak.

And honestly, if you think I'm a Pharisee, why not PM me instead of public ridicule and a pile-on???

I'm curious what you think pastors and youth workers should do? Should they just ignore the actions of the believers in their charge, or should they approach and facilitate their return? No wonder the church is screwed up if some members think they get carte blanche freedom to do anything.

Maybe a perusal of this sound article would be instructive.

 

[Plotinus]

The verses you quote are about how followers of Jesus (the word "Christian" is so anachronistic in this context!) were supposed to behave towards other members of the same community. The Matthew passage makes that quite explicit, and it's implicit in what Paul was writing, which was directed towards a specific group of Christians who all knew each other. They are both about personal relations between community members. They're not about how Christians should treat Christians who are complete strangers, let alone how they should think about Christian politicians - after all, the notion of a Christian politician would have been unthinkable in the first century. And they're certainly not about how to identify Christians. I think it's almost impossible to apply the instructions given in these passages to a modern Christian context, but if you want to try, I'd say the obvious criterion for telling who they apply to is: does this person attend my church or not?

Besides, why shouldn't a Christian politician vote for issues that negatively affect Christians? Sometimes that might be the right thing to do. If it were legal for Christians to enslave non-Christians, it would be right to repeal that legislation, though it would be against the interest of the Christians. Any politician, Christian or not, should be in the business of improving society and doing what is right, not in the business of self-interest.

 

[Tigranes]

Things diverted from science and religion big time, sadly. Looks like debate came to inglorious stalemate of personal back and forths...

 

[Crackerbox]

The verses you quote are about how followers of Jesus (the word "Christian" is so anachronistic in this context!) were supposed to behave towards other members of the same community. The Matthew passage makes that quite explicit, and it's implicit in what Paul was writing, which was directed towards a specific group of Christians who all knew each other. They are both about personal relations between community members. They're not about how Christians should treat Christians who are complete strangers, let alone how they should think about Christian politicians - after all, the notion of a Christian politician would have been unthinkable in the first century. And they're certainly not about how to identify Christians. I think it's almost impossible to apply the instructions given in these passages to a modern Christian context, but if you want to try, I'd say the obvious criterion for telling who they apply to is: does this person attend my church or not?

Besides, why shouldn't a Christian politician vote for issues that negatively affect Christians? Sometimes that might be the right thing to do. If it were legal for Christians to enslave non-Christians, it would be right to repeal that legislation, though it would be against the interest of the Christians. Any politician, Christian or not, should be in the business of improving society and doing what is right, not in the business of self-interest.

In Christ there is no free or slave, Plotinus. Though justified in the US (and elsewhere like England) in history, upon reflection and by contending with the Scriptures we determined slavery was awful. All slavery. So your example is a poor one.
...
Your words are at odds with the link to a church discipline article, Plotinus. There are other opinions besides your own, and frankly while I am certain you're a learned man, your lack of faith is disturbing when considering you discuss theology.

Would I walk up to a total Christian stranger and then make some criticism about their depth of sincerity? Of course not. Would I go up to an allegedly Christian politician who I'd voted for who then helped pass some legislation that was harmful to Christians? You BET! I'd even rebuke him in the name of Jesus if it was really bad.

Take this example, not as a criticism, but why I think it's an incompatibility to exist especially as a teacher when there are significant issues of bias.

Would it be possible for me as a Christian to teach a class on Queer Theory? It would be wrong to do so. It's not that I couldn't do it, it's that I have a bias due to the spiritual system I believe in. While I have compassion for gays and lesbians, how could I ever set myself to teach this subject?

See what I mean? By the same token, no matter how scholarly a person is in some field, to do this within the context of a faith-based system seems improbable.

But worse, for teachers are cautioned in Scripture for taking on such a call:
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. James 3:1

 

[Tigranes]

People who like to bring forth the "do not judge" verse forgetting the other one: "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

 

[bhavv]

Don't forget to stone your rebelious kids and not to grow more than one type of crop in the same field!

 

[Plotinus]

In Christ there is no free or slave, Plotinus. Though justified in the US (and elsewhere like England) in history, upon reflection and by contending with the Scriptures we determined slavery was awful. All slavery. So your example is a poor one.

Not at all, I chose it precisely because most Christians today would agree that slavery is bad. In which case it would be right for a Christian politician to vote against it, even if doing so is contrary to the interests of Christians.

Or if you prefer an alternative, suppose there were a law saying that Christians don't have to pay tax, but everyone else does. (Maybe Christians can use a special currency that doesn't have Caesar's head on it!) That would be an unjust law and a Christian politician would be right to vote against it, although it would be against the interest of Christians.

My point is that your criterion for judging Christian politicians - whether or not their actions are in the interests of Christians - is unbiblical and, I'd say, straightforwardly immoral. Your criterion for judging any politicians should be whether their actions are right. But rightness is not identical with the interests of any single group. A politician is there to serve the whole of society.

Surely the whole tenor of New Testament ethics, to the extent that there is one, is towards denial of self and love for others. Those who work for their own interests or for the interests only of the group with which they identify are working counter to that tenor.

Your words are at odds with the link to a church discipline article, Plotinus.

No, I don't think they are. That article also seems to be entirely concerned with issues within local church communities. It doesn't say a word about dealing with Christians who are strangers, let alone public figures, and it doesn't say a word about how to recognise who is a Christian. And this is hardly surprising given that the article is simply trying to systematise New Testament teaching, and the New Testament doesn't talk about those things either. (The Didache does, but I assume you're not so bothered about that.)

There are other opinions besides your own, and frankly while I am certain you're a learned man, your lack of faith is disturbing when considering you discuss theology.

I'm interested that you should say that. Why? Do you think it's wrong to discuss a topic you don't believe in? Does this only apply to Christianity?

Take this example, not as a criticism, but why I think it's an incompatibility to exist especially as a teacher when there are significant issues of bias.

Would it be possible for me as a Christian to teach a class on Queer Theory? It would be wrong to do so. It's not that I couldn't do it, it's that I have a bias due to the spiritual system I believe in. While I have compassion for gays and lesbians, how could I ever set myself to teach this subject?

See what I mean? By the same token, no matter how scholarly a person is in some field, to do this within the context of a faith-based system seems improbable.

Your analogy is flawed. Let's assume just for simplicity's sake that, as a Christian, you're bound to think homosexuality immoral. (This is obviously a very contentious issue, and my colleagues who are Christians and who do teach queer theory precisely from the viewpoint of Christian theology would be amused to see me say this, but we'll pass over this for the sake of argument.) Obviously then you would feel it wrong to teach something that you think is immoral. But I don't think Christianity is immoral. I just don't think it's true. That's not the same thing. Why shouldn't I teach something that I don't think is true?

I find it odd that you keep on talking about "bias". It's not "bias" to have an opinion about something. "Bias" is prejudice, pre-formed opinion that ignores the evidence. I don't think I have a "bias" on theological matters, though I certainly have opinions which may or may not be right. But so does absolutely everyone. A Christian who teaches theology has no less "bias", or "opinion", than an atheist who does so.

But worse, for teachers are cautioned in Scripture for taking on such a call:
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. James 3:1

Obviously I don't set much store by that, but if I did, this is clearly referring to an office of religious instruction, not academic teaching.

 

[Crackerbox]

Don't forget to stone your rebelious kids and not to grow more than one type of crop in the same field!

It's sad how little you know of the New Testament. Have you not seen the passages in which we are not under the old Judaic law, but we have been freed by Grace? Could you be bothered to read it before criticizing it? Such criticisms only demonstrate your ignorance of what it says.

23Before the coming of this faith,j we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3: 23-29

 

[bhavv]

Don't touch the shellfish!!!!! Or you will go to hell.

 

[Crackerbox]

Well Plotinus, you sound supremely prejudiced against Christianity.

 

[Borachio]

Again, that's not part of the NT.

that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.

 

[Plotinus]

It's sad how little you know of the New Testament. Have you not seen the passages in which we are not under the old Judaic law, but we have been freed by Grace? Could you be bothered to read it before criticizing it? Such criticisms only demonstrate your ignorance of what it says.

23Before the coming of this faith,j we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
26So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians 3: 23-29

Paul's attitude towards the Law is notoriously complex and probably inconsistent. But even in Galatians, Paul never says that the Law no longer holds; he's concerned only to say that the Law doesn't save. He stresses the continuity of salvation history between the promises to Abraham, the giving of the Law, and the coming of Christ (Gal. 3:16-19). His criticism here and elsewhere (e.g. Rom. 2:17) is of people who think that keeping the Law is what will save them; he still thinks that it's good to keep the Law (Rom. 2:27).

That's even without citing Matthew 5:17-19, which is a straightforward denial that any part of the Law is abrogated by Jesus. Matthew's attitude to both the Law and works in general is pretty much at odds with Paul's.

Well Plotinus, you sound supremely prejudiced against Christianity.

In what way? (This is a genuine question.)

 

[bhavv]

Well Christianity is a cult of lies, I fully support prejudice against such an evil demonic thing.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Well Christianity is a cult of lies, I fully support prejudice against such an evil demonic thing.

Prejudice is never a positive thing. Its easy to say something is evil becouse it feels contrary to ones stand. But wise thing is to realise that the worst evil is usually inside ones own ignorance.

 

[Arakhor]

That's even without citing Matthew 5:17-19, which is a straightforward denial that any part of the Law is abrogated by Jesus. Matthew's attitude to both the Law and works in general is pretty much at odds with Paul's.

Why do people insist that the old cleanliness (etc.) laws of the Torah no longer apply if those verses (allegedly from the mouth of Jesus himself) are so emphatic that this is not the case?