MrDeets
TOL Subscriber
Wait, what? Explain please, ghost.
toldailytopic: Judge not! Some say Christians shouldn't judge, what say you?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Wait, what? Explain please, ghost.
What is there to explain? Nang is lost.
assuranceagent
New member
My sister likes to tell me that Christians aren't supposed to judge others. She says that I'm a hypocrite because I tell her that homosexuality is wrong. I told her that I'm not being a hypocrite because homosexual actions are the same thing as sex outside of marriage, in my opinion, and I think they're both wrong. Because I'm straight and think that sex outside of marriage is wrong, I'm not hypocritical by saying that homosexual actions are wrong. I also told my sister that I wouldn't be able to judge homosexuals if I didn't know they were homosexuals. I don't talk about my own sexuality to anyone. Why would anyone think I want to hear them talk about their sexuality?
This statement is very much abused by those that twist scripture. I'll paste an example from one of the threads in the politics forum. This grotesque post was made in reply to Romans 1: 26-28.
Here is what the bible has to say about judging others.
Matthew 7: 2-4
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Basically don't go after people for the same sin that you commit. So someone should not go calling others a liar if he himself is a liar. Or if someone has trouble with excessive drinking he should not be condemning others for the same. He needs to clean up his own life first.
Just following advice.lain:
I would advise you otherwise, so that I don't have to fight the urge to hurl!
assuranceagent
New member
The testimony that comes from somebody's mouth tells us where their heart is.
For example, Chrysostom has declared he is not seated in with Christ in heavenly places, not dead to sin and risen with Christ. He says he has work to do. He insists that Jesus did not die for his sins.
Nydhogg
New member
You seem to have a penchant for random and base slander about people you don't know and you also routinely bear false witness on issues you're simply ignorant about (I know simple ignorance is an understatement, but bear with me.)
Isn't slander, like, a big sin or something (slanderers being routinely compared to adulterers and idolaters, IIRC)?
If you go around judging "proud sinners" while proudly, constantly and unrepentantly committing a huge sin, aren't you a massive and deliberate hypocrite?
Isn't hipocrisy itself sinful? By being a proud and unrepentant slanderer and hypocrite, aren't you to be judged WAY more harshly than the sinners you "rebuke" (quote-unquote because I question your moral standing to do such a thing)?
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Many use Matthew 7:1 to argue eschewing all forms of judgment, all the while ignoring the whole counsel of God, for example, John 7:24. In that passage, our Lord made it clear we must judge according to the truth of the things we are judging.
A good read on the matter and manner of judging:
What is Biblical “Offense” or Scandal?
AMR
A good read on the matter and manner of judging:
What is Biblical “Offense” or Scandal?
AMR
OKNo.
That's not how I'd describe them at all.
Just curious about why you would ask such a question.
There's a saying among American Indians; "Great spirit,grant that I not judge my neighbor until I have walked a mile in his mocassins".
Don't rush to judge people until you know all or enough of the facts. You don't know what the extenuating circumstances might be. But do most Christians do this and give other people the benefit of the doubt? Hardly. Many think they can speak for God, which is the height of arrogance a presumptiousness.
Don't rush to judge people until you know all or enough of the facts. You don't know what the extenuating circumstances might be. But do most Christians do this and give other people the benefit of the doubt? Hardly. Many think they can speak for God, which is the height of arrogance a presumptiousness.
You should do infomercials! :up:
Maybe you shouldn't judge abortion as acceptable until you've been chopped into pieces and sucked through a vacuum. Deal?
Buzzword
New member
Didn't Jesus basically say that if we judge others, we shall be judged according to the same standard?
I dunno about ya'll, but I fail to do the good I know to do (and fail to refrain from doing the bad I know not to do) as often as the worst "sinner."
I don't judge people because I know I would fail if measured by the same stick.
However, there is a difference between judging people and acknowledging that their actions do not measure up to our personal moral standard (even as we acknowledge that OUR actions do not measure up).
This is the difference between saying "You lied. Lying is bad." and "You are the sort of person who lies."
In the former instance, we are stating that an individual action is immoral.
In the latter, we are stating that a PERSON is immoral, that everything which makes them who they are is flawed, degenerate, etc.
We are called to do the former, in love, acknowledging that while the action is immoral, the person who did the action has the capacity to, with God's help, rise above the tendency to commit immoral actions.
We are forbidden to do the latter, especially online.
God alone knows the heart, God alone knows each and every one of us in the totality of our being.
Hate the sin: acknowledge the failure to live up to divine standards.
Love the sinner: embrace each and every person as a child of God, and allow His love to move through you to make a difference in their lives.
I dunno about ya'll, but I fail to do the good I know to do (and fail to refrain from doing the bad I know not to do) as often as the worst "sinner."
I don't judge people because I know I would fail if measured by the same stick.
However, there is a difference between judging people and acknowledging that their actions do not measure up to our personal moral standard (even as we acknowledge that OUR actions do not measure up).
This is the difference between saying "You lied. Lying is bad." and "You are the sort of person who lies."
In the former instance, we are stating that an individual action is immoral.
In the latter, we are stating that a PERSON is immoral, that everything which makes them who they are is flawed, degenerate, etc.
We are called to do the former, in love, acknowledging that while the action is immoral, the person who did the action has the capacity to, with God's help, rise above the tendency to commit immoral actions.
We are forbidden to do the latter, especially online.
God alone knows the heart, God alone knows each and every one of us in the totality of our being.
Hate the sin: acknowledge the failure to live up to divine standards.
Love the sinner: embrace each and every person as a child of God, and allow His love to move through you to make a difference in their lives.
I wonder why?
Luke 6:37
Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Pardon, and you will be pardoned.
Romans 14:10
But you, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Romans 2:1
Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judges: for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge do the same things.
James 4:11
Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He who speaks evil of his brother and judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law: but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.
James 4:12
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who are you to judge another?
Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Pardon, and you will be pardoned.
Romans 14:10
But you, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.
James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Romans 2:1
Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judges: for wherein you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge do the same things.
James 4:11
Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He who speaks evil of his brother and judges his brother speaks evil of the law and judges the law: but if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.
James 4:12
There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who are you to judge another?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aSeattleConserv
I'm not sure what you mean by "unfounded accusations", but as it's been shown throughout the new thread, righteous judgement is expected of Christians.
I think you're confusing slander with libel, but I'll give you a break, as one is spoken, the other written.
So tell me where I've libelled you Nydhogg? Have I you called you an unrepentant former meth addicted junky and current dope smoker, when you really aren't?
Being you're from the world where the mindset is that there is no sin (unless it's not consensual), I guess hypocrisy would be about the only sin that there is in your world.
Selwyn Duke wrote a couple of articles on hypocrisy, and I'll share some of his words of wisdom from both articles, the first being "Are Christians Hypocrites?":
"There are many factors, such as that when you hold up a high standard for everyone else, you had better bet your bottom dollar that you will be held to it. It's also true that when that standard condemns practices that people have a great affinity for and are loathe to dispense with, they will feel attacked and seek a way to justify themselves. And, of course, in an effort to validate themselves they will seek to discredit the standard and its adherents. Or, I could mention the fact that hypocrisy is often misunderstood, for it's not when one says one thing but does another — it's when one says one thing while fully intending to do another. However, I have no intention of expanding upon these matters, but not for want of material because I could get writer's cramp doing these issues justice. No, the reason I won't address them is that I'll cede the point: Christians may not live up to their ideals as much as others do."
Later in the article he writes:
"So, are Christians hypocrites? Or, to be more precise, are Christians inordinately hypocritical? Well, if you confuse hypocrisy with weakness, you might say yes. If you subscribe to the idea that you shouldn't preach anything you can't or haven't always practiced, then you also might say yes. But, of course, if that were our criterion then we wouldn't be able to uphold even most of the values that the vast majority agrees upon. For instance, most would teach their children not to lie, yet, it's safe to say that all who offer such counsel have themselves lied in their lives. Should we refuse to set the bar high for our children and cease to try to cultivate virtue in them because we ourselves have been found wanting at certain times? Of course not — that would be an abdication of our responsibility to lead properly. It would make no more sense than refusing to teach someone the proper technique in golf simply because you yourself never had the discipline to master it. That would not be love, but rather the very antithesis of it. This is because true love means having a sincere desire for others to not make the same mistakes you did — the desire for them to be BETTER than you are.
And this is precisely why true Christians hold up for everyone else high standards that they themselves have trouble adhering to. A true Christian says to himself, "Even if I have to go to Hell, I don't want to take you with me — I want you to be BETTER than I am." And, it's important to know something else about a true Christian: he knows that it's not about him. He doesn't say, "Do this because I do it, and I am such a paragon of virtue that I am worth emulating." No, he makes no bones about the fact that he's a sinner. What he does say is, "Do this because Christ would have you do it, and He is perfect."
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/duke/040615
Duke's second article, entitled "When Hypocrisy is a Good Thing", covers what I said about hyprocrisy being worse than the sin itself, at least in the world of moral relativist's like you Nydhogg:
"Many leftist partisans are licking their chops over the revelation that Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig solicited sex from a male undercover detective in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. This scandal is reminiscent of that involving Ted Haggard, the disgraced preacher who had relations with a male prostitute. You may remember Haggard: he was the Distraction du Jour the Shill Media conjured up right before the 2006 election. (I keep my finger on the pulse of our culture and I had never heard of this Haggard fellow. But fixating on this minor story served well the purposes of demonizing the "right" and distracting people from the real issues -- always useful during an election cycle.)
What is interesting about our time, though, is that these men are castigated not because they have been living an immoral lifestyle but because they have been living an immoral lifestyle without also sanctioning that immoral lifestyle.
Certainly, as far as politicians who toe the left's line go, they can't seem to flaunt their Liberace leanings enough to register on the radar screen. Homosexual congressman Barney Frank (D) owned a residence out of which a call-boy operation was being run, and the late Congressman Gerry Studds (D) once spirited a 17-year-old boy off to Spain for a sexual liaison. Studds won re-election until his retirement in 1997, and Frank is still in office. Of course, both represent Massachusetts, and there has just got to be something in the water up there.
What interests me, though, are not the obvious double standards, but identifying the correct standards. You see, it's interesting how the Studds and Franks of the world are often cast as superior to the Craigs and Haggards merely because it was they -- and not someone else -- who thrust open their closets and dumped the contents in the public square. The idea is that it's worse to espouse a standard you cannot live up to than one you can and do live down to; second, it's always implied that an individual's position cannot be credible if he lacks personal credibility. And such tacks certainly are rhetorically effective.
They're also nonsense."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/when_hypocrisy_is_a_good_thing.html
Originally Posted by aSeattleConserv
I'm not sure what you mean by "unfounded accusations", but as it's been shown throughout the new thread, righteous judgement is expected of Christians.
I think you're confusing slander with libel, but I'll give you a break, as one is spoken, the other written.
So tell me where I've libelled you Nydhogg? Have I you called you an unrepentant former meth addicted junky and current dope smoker, when you really aren't?
Being you're from the world where the mindset is that there is no sin (unless it's not consensual), I guess hypocrisy would be about the only sin that there is in your world.
Selwyn Duke wrote a couple of articles on hypocrisy, and I'll share some of his words of wisdom from both articles, the first being "Are Christians Hypocrites?":
"There are many factors, such as that when you hold up a high standard for everyone else, you had better bet your bottom dollar that you will be held to it. It's also true that when that standard condemns practices that people have a great affinity for and are loathe to dispense with, they will feel attacked and seek a way to justify themselves. And, of course, in an effort to validate themselves they will seek to discredit the standard and its adherents. Or, I could mention the fact that hypocrisy is often misunderstood, for it's not when one says one thing but does another — it's when one says one thing while fully intending to do another. However, I have no intention of expanding upon these matters, but not for want of material because I could get writer's cramp doing these issues justice. No, the reason I won't address them is that I'll cede the point: Christians may not live up to their ideals as much as others do."
Later in the article he writes:
"So, are Christians hypocrites? Or, to be more precise, are Christians inordinately hypocritical? Well, if you confuse hypocrisy with weakness, you might say yes. If you subscribe to the idea that you shouldn't preach anything you can't or haven't always practiced, then you also might say yes. But, of course, if that were our criterion then we wouldn't be able to uphold even most of the values that the vast majority agrees upon. For instance, most would teach their children not to lie, yet, it's safe to say that all who offer such counsel have themselves lied in their lives. Should we refuse to set the bar high for our children and cease to try to cultivate virtue in them because we ourselves have been found wanting at certain times? Of course not — that would be an abdication of our responsibility to lead properly. It would make no more sense than refusing to teach someone the proper technique in golf simply because you yourself never had the discipline to master it. That would not be love, but rather the very antithesis of it. This is because true love means having a sincere desire for others to not make the same mistakes you did — the desire for them to be BETTER than you are.
And this is precisely why true Christians hold up for everyone else high standards that they themselves have trouble adhering to. A true Christian says to himself, "Even if I have to go to Hell, I don't want to take you with me — I want you to be BETTER than I am." And, it's important to know something else about a true Christian: he knows that it's not about him. He doesn't say, "Do this because I do it, and I am such a paragon of virtue that I am worth emulating." No, he makes no bones about the fact that he's a sinner. What he does say is, "Do this because Christ would have you do it, and He is perfect."
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/duke/040615
Duke's second article, entitled "When Hypocrisy is a Good Thing", covers what I said about hyprocrisy being worse than the sin itself, at least in the world of moral relativist's like you Nydhogg:
"Many leftist partisans are licking their chops over the revelation that Idaho Republican Senator Larry Craig solicited sex from a male undercover detective in a Minneapolis airport bathroom. This scandal is reminiscent of that involving Ted Haggard, the disgraced preacher who had relations with a male prostitute. You may remember Haggard: he was the Distraction du Jour the Shill Media conjured up right before the 2006 election. (I keep my finger on the pulse of our culture and I had never heard of this Haggard fellow. But fixating on this minor story served well the purposes of demonizing the "right" and distracting people from the real issues -- always useful during an election cycle.)
What is interesting about our time, though, is that these men are castigated not because they have been living an immoral lifestyle but because they have been living an immoral lifestyle without also sanctioning that immoral lifestyle.
Certainly, as far as politicians who toe the left's line go, they can't seem to flaunt their Liberace leanings enough to register on the radar screen. Homosexual congressman Barney Frank (D) owned a residence out of which a call-boy operation was being run, and the late Congressman Gerry Studds (D) once spirited a 17-year-old boy off to Spain for a sexual liaison. Studds won re-election until his retirement in 1997, and Frank is still in office. Of course, both represent Massachusetts, and there has just got to be something in the water up there.
What interests me, though, are not the obvious double standards, but identifying the correct standards. You see, it's interesting how the Studds and Franks of the world are often cast as superior to the Craigs and Haggards merely because it was they -- and not someone else -- who thrust open their closets and dumped the contents in the public square. The idea is that it's worse to espouse a standard you cannot live up to than one you can and do live down to; second, it's always implied that an individual's position cannot be credible if he lacks personal credibility. And such tacks certainly are rhetorically effective.
They're also nonsense."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/when_hypocrisy_is_a_good_thing.html
Last edited:
Nydhogg
New member
Historical Heathens drank unholy quantities of beer and are reported to be quite fond of mushrooms and weed. If I sin, I sin in the best company. If the place of my tribe is in Hell, I'd join my tribe in there. I am, after all, just a man of my tribe.
Just for the record, many things are "sinful" in Heathenry: Hipocrisy. Treachery. Unfair dealing. Wanton cruelty. Avarice. Tyranny and abuse of authority. Lack of hospitality. Dishonesty, cowardice, neglect of your folks. If you avoid all those things, you can be described as an overall good guy. That's all that can be hoped for, after all.
On slander: You have said things about me you cannot know and that are false. Mostly snarks about my past amphetamine use, but that's a non-issue. Words of worthless things are to be ignored, mostly.
What DOES bug me is your constant and wanton misrepresentation of what I believe in: You're completely ignorant about Asatrú, and yet you don't hesitate to misrepresent EVERYTHING we believe in. Worse, you persist after you're corrected, proving your slanderous ways are willful.
Other members of this board are also fundamentalist christians. Still, those that know nothing about Heathenry generally steer clear from speaking about it. If they say something about Heathenry that is blatantly false, and I point it out, they accept the correction and stop, because they might be fundies... But they're not slanderers.
You, however, keep bearing false witness without as much as a second thought.
So I would be fair in saying that your (false) religion, unlike mine, doesn't require it's "tribesmen" to be alert and sober at all times?
In hindsight, I should have written "few" instead of "no" in the following sentence:
Being you're from the world where the mindset is that there is no sin (unless it's not consensual),...
So let's discuss the sins that you've mentioned:
Hypocrisy: Already discussed extensively. Obviously the hypocrite in your religion is worse than the sin that he or she is committing.
Treachery: violation of faith; betrayal of trust; treason.
Being that your faith obviously has few things that can betrayed (it's a moral relativist religion if there ever was one, hence me referring to it as the "27 gods of convenience"), I'd say you're safe with that one.
Unfair dealing: You mean like if I sell you a nickle bag of dope and tell you it's a dime bag, that kind of unfair dealing?
Wanton cruelty: Being that you espouse sins that you claim are "victimless crimes", when in fact there are all kinds of victims, I'd say you're guilty of that sin.
Avarice: I suppose greed could be considered a subjective word. It's how you get your wealth and what you do with it that really matters. For instance: if a greedy professional football owner used taxpayer money so that he and his football team could make HUGE profits, that would be wrong, wouldn't it Nydhogg?
Tyranny and abuse of authority: You're kidding right? Need I pull up your past posts where you say that you DESPISE authority? You are aware that your views on government (anarchist views) leads to a totalitiarian government, one which (based on history) is tyrannical?
Other than mocking your unrepentant drug use, your false religion, the fact that you support the use of taxpayer $ for entertainment, and your horrid taste in music, I think you're a jolly ole fellow Nydhogg.
If what you believe in is based on your 27 gods (or is it 32?) of convenience, and I'm thinking that it is, you're living a lie. Sorry bud, but the truth hurts. (Aside from that, I love the song):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s3BIX0duKs
I thought Exodus 20:3 and the First Commandment were pretty clear. Many Christians have "judgementphobia"; that is something they'll have to deal with when it comes to explaining to Him why they haven't stood up for His Word.
Last edited:
- Status