The Judging Contest Winner is...

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Just as well that "judging" is in the title of this thread..

I'm still trying to work out what is acceptable. Within the culture of this website, invective is considered OK. Heck, we cheer it on. So I assume that people won't be offended by it if we're all logging on here with the same understanding. Ironic that you would appeal to civility as a trans-cultural moral norm, Justin. Ironic that I would not.

We can all do "better" than the cultural norm. Indeed, it would seem that Jesus encouraged just such behavior. However, I do feel compelled to point out that just because I normally choose to eschew invective does not make me feel that I am "better" or "more moral" than those who indulge. Frankly, such an evaluation would be "above my paygrade."

So let me ask you this, ilyatur: yes, invective may "considered OK" for this website. But in your own conscience, is it the right thing to do?

Justin

 

[Mr. Coffee]

So let me ask you this, ilyatur: yes, invective may "considered OK" for this website. But in your own conscience, is it the right thing to do?

Justin

Outside of TOL, no. But inside? Oh man. I'm starting to doubt what I've been doing. The Bible says, "Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever doubts stands condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith, and everything that is not from faith is sin." (Rom. 14). The issue there had to do with food that had been offered to idols, but the principle is relevant to our discussion. I feel bad about some of the things I've said here.

 

[Mateo]

He said "failed, miserably". Chile Ice made something thought-provoking, and Opie farted. That's about it.

:darwinsm: (about spit my drink on the monitor)




BTW both enteries are shy of the mark by Christ's standards...

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Outside of TOL, no. But inside? Oh man. I'm starting to doubt what I've been doing. The Bible says, "Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever doubts stands condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith, and everything that is not from faith is sin." (Rom. 14). The issue there had to do with food that had been offered to idols, but the principle is relevant to our discussion. I feel bad about some of the things I've said here.

:Nods: And that is precisely why I normally eschew invective. There are exceptions: for an example, I called another member a liar a couple of days ago ... not to dismiss him as untrustworthy, but to sharply and strongly bring home a point that I honestly do not think he was aware of. Was he deliberately lying to me? I strongly doubt it, but if he had behaved that way with someone who is actually hostile towards Christianity (I am not), they would have used his behavior as "proof" of the "evils of Christians." But even at that, I had to be backed into a corner before that member saw my teeth.

One guiding principle I have learned ... it may be of help to you, it may not, but I'll offer it to you for you to decide. If an action is wrong under a specific circumstance, it is probably wrong all the time. For instance, it is ethically wrong of me to cast malefic magic against people. Does that mean that I can break that boundary if someone is really ticking me off? It does not: malefic magic is morally indefensible. Again, there are exceptions--for instance, if it was self-defense, then malefic magic could be used (though in all honesty a gun is much more effective at close range).

It's the same thing here. If invective is not appropriate in the real world, then it is not appropriate here. However, we are all human, and we all make mistakes. If you honestly feel that you have done wrong, then you have your Bible's guidance on how to rectify the wrong done.

This is where the conversation drifts back within the topic of the thread: sound ethical judgement--based on your Biblical standards, or on my Wiccan standards--is not something that we do just for contests, or when it's convenient, or when it's easy. Sometimes it's hard to do the right thing, especially when something that is wrong looks so tempting.

We all make moral judgements. And we all occasionally fall short of our moral judgements. But we all have the capability to pick ourselves up, confess our wrong-doing, and call on our Gods to help us avoid such wrongdoing in the future.

Justin

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

BTW both enteries are shy of the mark by Christ's standards...

I know. Christ very specifically said "Do not resist an evil man," and the robbers definitely qualified as such. However, this was a standard of justice--Christ did not call solely for "justice," but for mercy as well.

Justin

 

[Mateo]

I know. Christ very specifically said "Do not resist an evil man," and the robbers definitely qualified as such. However, this was a standard of justice--Christ did not call solely for "justice," but for mercy as well.

Justin

Your warm...


While raising the bar for the individual to go from controlling their thoughts rather than just their actions (ala the Pharisees) we were also admonished to "judge one another no longer" (as in punish) which should not be confused with judgment (as in discerning). The only punishment set forth for the believer is disfellowship, that I have been able to discern, shy of the first resurrection. The world is to deal with their own.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Your warm...


While raising the bar for the individual to go from controlling their thoughts rather than just their actions (ala the Pharisees) we were also admonished to "judge one another no longer" (as in punish) which should not be confused with judgment (as in discerning). The only punishment set forth for the believer is disfellowship, that I have been able to discern, shy of the first resurrection. The world is to deal with their own.

Hmmm. I think that's only looking at it in one context, not as a complete picture. Unless you feel that Jesus insisted that His followers completely refuse to participate in government, there are times when--as a citizen--you will be called upon to judge a person's actions. From Jury duty to deciding who you vote for, all of these are (at least in part) moral decisions based on the foundation of our morality, within a framework of the Law (either secular or Mosaic).

Justin

 

[Mateo]

Hmmm. I think that's only looking at it in one context, not as a complete picture. Unless you feel that Jesus insisted that His followers completely refuse to participate in government, there are times when--as a citizen--you will be called upon to judge a person's actions. From Jury duty to deciding who you vote for, all of these are (at least in part) moral decisions based on the foundation of our morality, within a framework of the Law (either secular or Mosaic).

Justin

Yes, I am looking at it from a Christian context (this being a "christian forum"). I assumed ,perhps incorrectly, that this was what was being solicited. I pains me to affirm that likely most Christians would agree with you and march off to jury duty to not only judge their fellow man prior to being authorized to but likely swear an oath in the process thus compounding their error.. and then they could likely kiss mercy goodby as they thereby assured that they would be judged in the same manner they themselves did.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Yes, I am looking at it from a Christian context (this being a "christian forum"). I assumed ,perhps incorrectly, that this was what was being solicited.

Mateo, while I am not a Christian, I am not speaking from a non-Christian context. I have enough discernment of the Bible to be able to understand what is, and what is not, appropriate within a Christian context.

I also have enough discernment to understand sarcasm, and would ask you to refrain from it in the future. It adds nothing substantial to the conversation, and makes you sound either peevish or dyspeptic. (If the problem is the latter, some antacid might help.)

I pains me to affirm that likely most Christians would agree with you and march of to jury duty to not only judge their fellow man prior to being authorized to but likely swear an oath in the process thus compounding their error.. and then they could likely kiss mercy goodby as they thereby assured that they would be judged in the same manner they themselves did.

Jesus commanded not only his followers, but all people, to judge others in John 7:24, provided that the judgement was righteous. It is not the act of judging that leads to condemnation, but the act of judging unjustly.

If the act of judging (justly or not) was the problem, then by condemning those Christians who report for jury duty, you become hoist by your own petard.

Justin

 

[Mateo]

Mateo, while I am not a Christian, I am not speaking from a non-Christian context. I have enough discernment of the Bible to be able to understand what is, and what is not, appropriate within a Christian context.

I also have enough discernment to understand sarcasm, and would ask you to refrain from it in the future. It adds nothing substantial to the conversation, and makes you sound either peevish or dyspeptic. (If the problem is the latter, some antacid might help.)



Jesus commanded not only his followers, but all people, to judge others in John 7:24, provided that the judgement was righteous. It is not the act of judging that leads to condemnation, but the act of judging unjustly.

If the act of judging (justly or not) was the problem, then by condemning those Christians who report for jury duty, you become hoist by your own petard.

Justin

You apparently failed to note, for whatever reason, that I earlier differenciated between the two most common usages of one word (judge); those being handing down sentence and discernment. If you understood the bible with the clarity you claim you likely would not have blurred the two in the manner that you have. In discerning error in one handing down sentence on another prior to the resurrection I have not passed sentence on anyone. The Petard you smell is likely your own

BTW, Sarcasm is my raison d'etre and in light of the fact you're not God nor my daddy you don't get to tell me what to do. If you wish to effect change within me you'll likely have to take another tact...

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

You apparently failed to note, for whatever reason, that I earlier differenciated between the two most common usages of one word (judge); those being handing down sentence and discernment.

I disregarded the distinction as a false bifurcation, irrelevant to the discussion. Jesus was speaking to people who had the (secular) authority to judge. He did not tell them that they lacked authority--instead, he gave them the principles under which they were supposed to operate.

Additionally, if (for instance) you are called for jury duty, you are called by what your scripture defines "ordained by God." (Rom 13:1) It is therefore your duty to obey that power. Now, fortunately for you, the law in all states that I am aware of allows for conscientious objection to jury duty, and therefore declining to make a judgement as a member of a jury does not incur a legal penalty.

If you understood the bible with the clarity you claim you likely would not have blurred the two in the manner that you have. In discerning error in one handing down sentence on another prior to the resurrection I have not passed sentence on anyone.

The Petard you smell is likely your own

Projection avails you no more than sarcasm.

BTW, Sarcasm is my raison d'etre and in light of the fact you're not God nor my daddy you don't get to tell me what to do. If you wish to effect change within me you'll likely have to take another tact...

Then I'm guessing the antacid probably won't help.

The first fundamental error in your thesis is the statement "we were ... admonished to "judge one another no longer" (as in punish)." Go back and re-read Rom 14-15. The admonishment here was that Christians are not to judge one another's salvation, based on "doubtful disputations." In this particular case, those Christians who also held to Judaic Law looked down on those Christians who did not. Paul states that such division between Christians is wrong, "for God hath received him."

Yet even Paul makes no bones about the need to reject wrong-doing. He even stated that those who teach another Gospel should be "eternally condemned." Now, if that's not a "judgement," I'd like to know what is?!?!

The second fundamental error of your thesis is the statement "The world is to deal with their own." You are in the world, and as someone in the world, you are subject to the world's laws. One of those laws, in this case, is jury service: this is not an option, but a requirement. Fortunately for you, there are "outs," but the fundamental principle of obedience to the law is paramount.

Justin

 

[cattyfan]

maybe the Admin staff can come up with some contests for subscribing members. They may not be able to offer the same kind of prizes, but even the kudos of winning with no prize can be a motivator.

contests are a regular feature here. There have been storytelling competions using smilies, recipe contests, avatar showdowns, predict the details of :emarie:'s baby...all kinds of fun stuff. the prizes have ranged from personal smilies to items from the TOL store...sometimes it just braggin' rights, but people like that, too :chuckle:

erinmarie's smilie :emarie: and my husband's smilie CleverDan are both the result of contests.

 

[Crow]

:Clete: is a result of a bidding war. I won a shirt in a recipe contest.

 

[cattyfan]

Oh! that reminds me...we've had auctions, too.

 

[Crow]

We had TOL Survivor as well.

 

[BillyBob]

Sadly, he didn't survive........:sozo2:

 

[SOTK]

:first: Justin (Wiccan)! :thumb:

Feel free to discuss the posts in this thread. And thank you to the two people who took the time to participate. :bow:


There were 2 entries in our judging contest. The following post won, based on showing the best understanding of application of the principles of criminal justice outlined in scriptures. Congratulations, Justin (Wiccan)!

Congrats, Justin!

 

[Mateo]

I disregarded the distinction as a false bifurcation, irrelevant to the discussion. Jesus was speaking to people who had the (secular) authority to judge. He did not tell them that they lacked authority--instead, he gave them the principles under which they were supposed to operate.

Jdub, when the woman caught in adultry was brought before Jesus do you remember what He said. More importantly, do you remember what he did?

Additionally, if (for instance) you are called for jury duty, you are called by what your scripture defines "ordained by God." (Rom 13:1) It is therefore your duty to obey that power. Now, fortunately for you, the law in all states that I am aware of allows for conscientious objection to jury duty, and therefore declining to make a judgement as a member of a jury does not incur a legal penalty.

We (and by we I mean Christians) are called to obey the laws of the land unless and until they conflict with the Laws of God. America, being a nominally "Christian" nation, has provisions within most states laws for someone who is so inclined to obey the word of God as it concerns both swearing oaths and passing judgment on another... at least for a while longer.

Projection avails you no more than sarcasm.



Then I'm guessing the antacid probably won't help.

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here?

The first fundamental error in your thesis is the statement "we were ... admonished to "judge one another no longer" (as in punish)." Go back and re-read Rom 14-15. The admonishment here was that Christians are not to judge one another's salvation, based on "doubtful disputations." In this particular case, those Christians who also held to Judaic Law looked down on those Christians who did not. Paul states that such division between Christians is wrong, "for God hath received him."

One of my favorite passages... and one which deals with receiving a fellow brother in Christ despite their doctinal shortcomings... and not for the purpose of arguing. There are many other more appropriate passages regarding the subject at hand. I was thinking more of a pastiche of, say, Mat 5-7 and James 4-5.

Yet even Paul makes no bones about the need to reject wrong-doing. He even stated that those who teach another Gospel should be "eternally condemned." Now, if that's not a "judgement," I'd like to know what is?!?!

That's discernment, dear heart. Here's another example of it:

Jude1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

2 Pet 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

The second fundamental error of your thesis is the statement "The world is to deal with their own." You are in the world, and as someone in the world, you are subject to the world's laws. One of those laws, in this case, is jury service: this is not an option, but a requirement. Fortunately for you, there are "outs," but the fundamental principle of obedience to the law is paramount.

Justin

1Cor 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

John14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.





a parting thought...



1Cor 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Jdub,

Makes me sound like a radio station. "J-Dub 105.5 ... Classic Rock, all the time." :chuckle:

when the woman caught in adultry was brought before Jesus do you remember what He said. More importantly, do you remember what he did?

Absolutely. That situation is, however, not parallel to the one you propose: the scribes and teachers of the Law were not bringing the woman to Jesus for "righteous judgement," but to trap Jesus. Was the woman guilty? We can assume so. Yet those who brought her were far guiltier than she.

We (and by we I mean Christians) are called to obey the laws of the land unless and until they conflict with the Laws of God. America, being a nominally "Christian" nation, has provisions within most states laws for someone who is so inclined to obey the word of God as it concerns both swearing oaths and passing judgment on another... at least for a while longer.

I am aware of the distinction. The point we are discussing here is not whether or not America lets you honorably refuse jury duty (it does). The point here is not even whether such objection because of conscience is honorable (IMO, it is). The point here is whether or not it is Biblical. Mateo, I have absolutely no problem with your decision if you cannot in good conscience serve on a jury: indeed, if that is what your conscience dictates, I would defend your decision. My only problem with your statement is that you seem to feel that such refusal is supported by your scriptures.

(As a further note: I am also quite aware of the Biblical injunction against swearing oaths: this is the purpose of the choice that jury members are offered, to either swear or affirm.)

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm here?

Sauce for the goose....

One of my favorite passages... and one which deals with receaving a fellow brother in Christ despite their doctinal shortcomings... and not for the purpose of arguing. There are many other more appropriate passages regarding the subject at hand. I was thinking more of a pastiche of, say, Mat 5-7 and James 4-5.

Both worthwhile passages, with Matthew being my favorite between the two. Yet even here, Mateo, the Biblical support for your thesis is lacking. Matthew says nothing about serving as a judge: indeed, Matthew advises the believer to not resist judgement of the law, or of people who may use the law and the courts to take what is yours. The passage in James--especially James 4:11-12--is not speaking of jury duty, but of slander and division.

That's discernment, dear heart. Here's another example of it:

Jude1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

2 Pet 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.
2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

Again, nothing in here about serving as a judge.

1Cor 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

For this passage, your are placing the emphasis on the wrong sentence. The clause "But them that are without, God judgeth" is support for the clause "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." In this case, Paul is speaking solely of those who are called brothers--if they don't act like a follower of Christ, they are not to be retained in the church membership.

Yet even this does not eliminate jury duty, for if God has ordained the government, then He has also ordained the jury system. Therefore, to serve on a jury is to serve God ... provided that you can do so with a clean conscience (more on that later--it's important).

a parting thought...

1Cor 4:1 Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.
4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.

Again, this speaks of the faithfullness of Paul's stewardship. Remember: Paul is writing to a church wracked with division, and some of those men derided Paul. this passage lets us know that he is not concerned about the judgement of the schismatics: his judge is God.

Mateo, none of the verses you cited allow a person to evade jury duty with honor as a Christian. Instead, you should have looked at the passage I cited: Rom 14-15, especially Rom 14:22-23.

22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23 But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

Whether it is eating meat, or serving on a jury, the same principle applies: if doing so causes you to have doubts in your faith in God, then it is condemnation upon you to do so.

Yet I would also encourage you to remember another verse within that passage: Rom 15:1-4.

1 We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. 2 Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. 3 For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." 4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Now, I cannot tell you if serving on a jury is the act of a "weak" Christian or a "strong" one. But to you--and to all Christians who read these words--I can tell you this: this is an issue of conscience, not of scripture, and I would encourage all of you to bear with one another's weaknesses. In truth, this is a relatively minor issue in your scriptures, and I would pray you all that you not allow it to become a cause for disunity.

Justin

 

[Mateo]

Makes me sound like a radio station. "J-Dub 105.5 ... Classic Rock, all the time." :chuckle:

...or an evil, despotic,wouldbe dictator, son of a former president... but hey, I'm willing to give ya the benifit of the doubt....

Absolutely. That situation is, however, not parallel to the one you propose: the scribes and teachers of the Law were not bringing the woman to Jesus for "righteous judgement," but to trap Jesus. Was the woman guilty? We can assume so. Yet those who brought her were far guiltier than she.

Very good...so why do you think they were trying to get Him to say something clearly within the bounds of the law? I would submit that He was telling them something different. He was calling them to the next level... as He does all who would hear. On that level we do not pass sentence on one another... yet.

I'm reminded of a comic book that was popular in "head shops" in my youth. In it was a feature that depicted the scene in question. When Jesus uttered His famous advice concerning the woman one of the bystanders offered Jesus their rock and replied, "Sorry, I didn't know you wanted the first shot"....

I am aware of the distinction. The point we are discussing here is not whether or not America lets you honorably refuse jury duty (it does). The point here is not even whether such objection because of conscience is honorable (IMO, it is). The point here is whether or not it is Biblical. Mateo, I have absolutely no problem with your decision if you cannot in good conscience serve on a jury: indeed, if that is what your conscience dictates, I would defend your decision. My only problem with your statement is that you seem to feel that such refusal is supported by your scriptures.

Okay, what do you think they infer?... and while your at it, how do you think a person who has passed sentence on another will be judged, biblically speaking and to put the cherry on the soda... how would you like to be judged?

(As a further note: I am also quite aware of the Biblical injunction against swearing oaths: this is the purpose of the choice that jury members are offered, to either swear or affirm.)



Sauce for the goose....

A gander at the defintion of the term "affirmation" in Black's Law Dictionary shows said term to be "an oath of a religeous nature".


No can do.... goose cooked.

Both worthwhile passages, with Matthew being my favorite between the two. Yet even here, Mateo, the Biblical support for your thesis is lacking. Matthew says nothing about serving as a judge: indeed, Matthew advises the believer to not resist judgement of the law, or of people who may use the law and the courts to take what is yours. The passage in James--especially James 4:11-12--is not speaking of jury duty, but of slander and division.



Again, nothing in here about serving as a judge.

Well, it's evident that we see these passages in a somewhat different light. I have long seen the sermon on the mount as humanity's call to puberty. That awkward period between childhood and adulthood where we are called to aspire to something greater yet outside our grasp. This coupled with the andmonishion not to carry out sentence on another would seem to me to be indicative of a transitory period in the people of God's growth from childhood to adulthood. Only when we are vested with the bodies and the spirit of the resurrection will we then be properly equiped to judge (both ways) with autonomy and righteousness.

For this passage, your are placing the emphasis on the wrong sentence. The clause "But them that are without, God judgeth" is support for the clause "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." In this case, Paul is speaking solely of those who are called brothers--if they don't act like a follower of Christ, they are not to be retained in the church membership.

...and are therfore by defintion cast out and of the world to be judged of God... you're not being deliberately obtuse on me here are you?

Yet even this does not eliminate jury duty, for if God has ordained the government, then He has also ordained the jury system. Therefore, to serve on a jury is to serve God ... provided that you can do so with a clean conscience (more on that later--it's important).

As Jesus noted, God empowered both Ceasar and Satan. I wouldn't want to be in either of their shoes. He sets up and puts down temporal authoity but what temporal authority there is exists as a direct result of His Lordship being insufficient for those called His people and if I have understood what I have read of His word aright He is not entirely pleased with this situation...

Again, this speaks of the faithfullness of Paul's stewardship. Remember: Paul is writing to a church wracked with division, and some of those men derided Paul. this passage lets us know that he is not concerned about the judgement of the schismatics: his judge is God.

OUR judge is God. Not Paul. Not you... or me....

Mateo, none of the verses you cited allow a person to evade jury duty with honor as a Christian. Instead, you should have looked at the passage I cited: Rom 14-15, especially Rom 14:22-23.

Otay let's have a look at it...


22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.



I would submit that this is an extrapolation of what was discussed earlier. As we will be judged as we judge others so we will be judged by how we lived in relationship to what it was we said we believed. Said another way, if we belived it to be a sin to eat meat and did, as hippy critters we shall so be judged.

Whether it is eating meat, or serving on a jury, the same principle applies: if doing so causes you to have doubts in your faith in God, then it is condemnation upon you to do so.

yeah buddy....

Yet I would also encourage you to remember another verse within that passage: Rom 15:1-4.

I'm all for it.... but that ain't you now is it?.... yet?

Now, I cannot tell you if serving on a jury is the act of a "weak" Christian or a "strong" one. But to you--and to all Christians who read these words--I can tell you this: this is an issue of conscience, not of scripture, and I would encourage all of you to bear with one another's weaknesses. In truth, this is a relatively minor issue in your scriptures, and I would pray you all that you not allow it to become a cause for disunity.

You say the issue is not scriptural. I would suggest that our conversation and the word of God would bear witness to the contrary... and disunity in the body was ordained with Paul's departure... having said that I must note that I have few quibbles with those who have read the word for themselves...it's the doctrines of men that give me gas...