When Christ said Judge not that ye be not judge, what did he mean?
only that if you are judging weather a person is going to heaven are hell, then that's something you can not judge.
That comment was directed against the Pharisees, who thought themselves qualified to judge who will make it into Heaven and God's presence. But it's something that we would all be well advised to heed. Although Jesus did tell us that we should make disciples of all nations, it is still only ourselves who we can be sure whether we are going go Heaven or not. And really, it's God who makes the decision, no matter who we're talking about!
I'm thinking that this is saying, that we are going to be judged with the same amount of visiousness that we use upon others.
Total human concept. Fear fear fear to appeace the masses
Well, you're both right. It says in the Bible many times that we are not to judge who will make it into the "kingdom of God" because it is for God alone to judge who is worthy and why. But by the same token, by the stick we measure with so it will be measured back to us.
He meant stfu and pay attention to how you yourself are affecting the world and very few christians follow the guidelines.
Very simple- All men are created equal. You are not better than your neighbor. Judge someone and you will be judged. This can be weight , height , looks, job, wealth or anything else. It will come back to haunt you.
It means he's not a fan of 'American Idol' ?
Apparently he wasn't talking to the fundamentalists or perhaps they simply considered it a suggestion.
If you're judging another person, you're subjecting yourself to be judged as well. Christ said it well when He advised that we treat other people the way we want them to treat us - including our decision to judge or not to judge others.
Judgment is talking about where the person is going, heaven or hell, not judgment on their action, or their decisions. By their fruit you shall know them, this is what God said. God is saying look at their action or what they do and that will tell you weather they are christian are not. A good tree can only bare good fruit and a evil fruit can only bare evil fruit.
- Emile Rposted 12 years ago
0I'm sure those who fervently believe in divine retribution can find a lot of cosmic stuff in that saying. I took it more down to earth. More inward, when I read it. Sometimes I wonder if those who claim to abide by the New Testament wouldn't be better off incorporating a little of that take into their philosophy.
Everything involved in judgement is hypocrisy. No one is perfect. So, when you judge others, they will judge you. The more rigidly you look at others and condemn them if they don't live exactly as you do; the more minutely, and harshly, others will judge your life and the way you live it. It's proven to be an ugly thing, at times, here on Hub Pages.
Secondly, it involves judging yourself. If you are consistently judging others. Such as appearance. You become self critical. You judge yourself unworthy when you are a person of value. Fat, when you are of normal weight. Ugly because you think your boobs aren't big enough or your nose is too big. The list is endless and judgement becomes the focus of your life.
Both of these create disharmony for society at large, and the spirit within.That's not bad, but remember that Jesus lived in a time and place where the "religious big-shots", the Pharisees and the Scribes held sway over people in ways that most Americans can't imagine today. They felt entitled to decide who was going to make it into Heaven and thought they had it all together and even entitled. Jesus was pointing out to them that it was for God to judge people, and they should be more worried about whether they were living the way God wanted them to than whether they could tell other people how to live.
Yes. But we are neither Jesus, or God. I can't help but note that your description of the Pharisees sounds spookily like the religious today.
I realize it is easy to see this on a cosmic scale. Very easy. And viewing it cosmically keeps you from truly taking the admonition to heart.
Yes and no. I'm Protestant, not Catholic, and I get the feeling that most nonbelievers are thinking of Catholic priests when talking about "the religious." Of course, there is hierarchy in different Protestant denominations, and the scandals that break out from time to time often involve a pretty fair amount of hubris (Ted Haggard comes to mind.) But the average pastor (and I suspect the average priest here in America) doesn't have anything like the sort of power that was enjoyed by the Pharisees in the 1st century or even the priests in the 13th century.
The cosmic scale is that it is God's to judge, as the Bible pointed out often. Jesus meant us to take it to heart. Very much so.Most comments I make concerning the religious are a by product of reading comments online. So, no. The catholics aren't who I am speaking of. From the posts, I would say I am referencing mostly pentecostals and other evangelists. Maybe a Calvinist or two.
You reference the cosmic scale. I would answer the words in the New Testament, paraphrased. Love God, love your neighbor. Commands are meant to be acted upon for the benefit of both.Wholeheartedly agreed. It's a pity that more Christians don't keep that in mind, and I'm ashamed that I'm guilty of that.
I got from it that yet another so-called christian can't quote properly, or maybe spell.
"Judge not lest ye be judged" - is the simplest form that I recall seeing. and a very different meaning from the way it is written in the OP.
Very clear advice that being judgemental from a position of ignorance is only passing judgement on yourself.The idea that Matthew 7:1 says "Judge not lest ye be judged" is a myth of American collective consciousness. It is never translated this way in any major version of the Bible. Neither "spare the rod, spoil the child" nor "God helps those who help themselves" are in their either.
Visit this link and use the pull-down at the top of the page to verify that it's not written that way if you wish: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=KJV"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
So, that's the translation to which you directed us. Either way, the meaning remains the same. Judge not.
Regardless of the reason, we have indeed been told by Christ not to judge others. I am of the opinion that judgment is the exclusive prerogative of God.
Unfortunately, as human beings, we feel it necessary to judge others...by our standards. God judges according to His.
I'm so grateful for that - because His mercy far outshines anything humanity is able to offer.Your interpretation that this verse essentially means "Don't judge anyone about anything ever" is wrong. I'll show you why and then help you understand what the verse means when it is taken in context.
Exhibit A) Immediately after this Matthew 7:1 passage Jesus gives instruction on how to tell who is a false prophet in verses 15-20. Verse 20 is "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." How are you suppose to actually discern when a false prophet is teaching what its heresy if you abstain from judging? Also, read the section and notice that it says nothing about judging their words, but instead directs us to judge their LIVES! Read it for yourself here: http://tinyurl.com/7matt15-20
Exhibit B) Jesus says in John 7:24 "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." How are we suppose to judge with righteous judgement if we, according to your interpretation, are not suppose to judge at all?
Exhibit C) In 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 the Apostle Paul rebukes the Christians at Corinth because they are suing each other in civil court and giving the name of Christ a bad name. He specifically says in vs 4 "If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church." He tells them in this passage that they should be judging between each other and settling issues before going to court. How can this be if nobody is to be judging anything? Read it for yourself here: http://tinyurl.com/6cor1-8
Exhibit C) In regards to leaders in the church at Ephesus, Paul COMMANDS Timothy (the young pastor) in 1 Timothy 5:20 "As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear." Notice that Paul has ALREADY judged these people, is commanding Timothy to do so, and tells him to do so in an open manner so that the rest of the church can be scared straight! Is the Apostle Paul violating Christ's own command not to judge anyone about anything and then telling another believer to commit such as sin as well? Not if that interpretation of Matthew 7:1 is incorrect.
There are many more of such examples. The fact is that Matthew 7:1 does not preclude Christians from calling out sin where they see it and naming it as such. Let's find out what the verse really means by reading it in context.
Matthew 7:1 AND 2 "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
When verse two is paired with the second particle in verse one (that ye be not judged) we find that what Jesus is refering to is not being quick to RASH judgement because IF you are dragged before some form of judgement seat, they will use the same type of judgement against you. If you were harsh on others, then you'll receive the same so be sure to follow John 7:24 and judge with righteous judgement so that if the roles are flipped you can be shown charity as well.
Now that you know the truth, don't ever again make the claim that the Bible tells us that nobody is allowed to judge anyone on anything ever. That is the thinking of moral relativism (everyone has their own truth) which is grounded in post-modern thought which people try to inject into scripture. It is not there and it is always wrong to try and make the Bible say what we want it to mean.Your exhibit A: Interesting that you would note that. Because, the woman in the street was clearly guilty of adultery. Jesus didn’t chastise the crowd for wrongly, or rashly. accusing her. By law, the judgment they stood ready to mete out was fair. So, your claim of not being quick to RASH judgment is simply an excuse to judge. An attempt to rationalize behavior patterns that go against a clear teaching.
Your exhibit B: John 7:24 cannot be used in the manner you are attempting. He was talking about himself. He was talking to the religious leaders. He was chastising them for condemning him for performing miracles on the Sabbath. He was attempting to reason with them. Now, they were nitpicking the law to find reasons to condemn him. Isn’t that what Christians do, on a daily basis, in order to condemn the non believer?
I often wonder why the Christian doesn’t read the text and take it at face value. Why attempt to turn admonishments that are clearly against certain behavior patterns within your own heart and turn them upside down to use them against others?
Your exhibit C: 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 appears to be an admonishment to settle differences within the church and not embarrass the church by washing dirty laundry in public. Judgments of who is right, or wrong, according to the law has nothing to do with judging others. It has everything to do with what is legally allowed. And the court of secular law is, by common agreement of those who live within a society, allowed to judge what is correct under the law. You, as an individual don’t have the right to judge someone guilty under the secular law. This passage has nothing to do with judging right and wrong on a spiritual level.
1st Timothy appears to be speaking about the manner in which overseers and deacons should oversee their congregations. It has nothing to do with you sitting in judgment of the world at large; but how those who have been placed in a position of authority within the church should act. You can’t use this passage as reasoning behind your right to fabricate a high horse to sit in judgment of your fellow man. The world, at large, is not the church or the congregation.
And, I would submit that for every example you attempt to use to justify sitting in judgment; you are attempting to turn the initial command not to do it against itself. If you want to sit in judgment, now that you know the truth, simply admit that you wish you hadn’t been commanded not to do it.It is amazing to me how people can try and weasel their way around what we see demonstrated in scripture in order to cling to this adulterated "judge not" idea.
How many clear examples do we have in scripture of the Apostles judging sin and calling it what it is yet people today insist that calling people out for openly sinning somehow violates Jesus command.
What does it matter that Paul's command to Timothy was in regards to leaders in the church? He still told Timothy to judge them. So we're not suppose to judge people at all according to Christ's words but that principles doesn't apply to leaders in the church? They are somehow free game for judgement?
I suppose that Peter was wrong for calling Ananias and Sapphira liars in front of the whole congregation of the church in Acts 5 then. Doubly so for invoking the power of the Holy Spirit to have them drop dead on sight. Then we see that this caused everyone in the church to stand in fear. Wait a minute, that seems to be the very result Paul was hoping to see when Timothy obeyed his command to rebuke in the presence of all!
Or how about when Peter shuts down Simon the Magician in Acts 8:20-22? I'll go ahead and quote them for you:
"But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money! You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Repent, therefore, of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you."
Here we have Peter not just judging someone's actions but the thoughts of their heart as well! He calls out sin and then commands this unbeliever to repent! Imagine that.
Finally, back to the woman caught in adultery thing. The fact that she was caught in adultery and that the punishment for that was death does NOT mean that Jesus was standing against the Law of Moses. Jesus never violated the Law and never commanded anyone else to do so or else he would NOT have qualified to be the Messiah as the Christ was required to keep the whole law in order to be a qualified substitute for all of mankind.
People who like to play fast and lose with this passage forget that the Torah forbid mob violence such as we see here. The process for prosecuting capital crimes was to have the accused brought to the assembly of elders at the city gate where the accounts of two or more witnesses would be evaluated descently and in order and the accused could mount a defense. This was a REQUIREMENT and not an option. The mob of Jews brought the woman to Jesus, not because they cared about justice, but because they wanted to trap Jesus because they knew he was compassionate.
We see then that Jesus was NOT going against the law in forbidding the judgement of the woman, but was actually UPHOLDING the law by not allowing a mob trial. Furthermore, once the crowd dispersed, there were NO WITNESSES left against the woman! The Torah required the testimony of two or more witnesses in the case of a capital murder trial. Again, since there were not witnesses and Christ himself was not an eyewitness, he was UPHOLDING the law by not allowing the woman to be stoned.
Jesus did NOT establish a precedent in the story of the woman caught in adultery that sin should not be called out as sin. People just like to write that concept into the story because it seems to justify allowing them to live in sin and to be able to have to "Bible reason" to tell anyone else not to tell them that what they are doing is wrong. Sad...very sad.A precedent was set and simply because it doesn't fit the religious ego is no reason to pretend that it wasn't set.
Look to the mote in your own eye. Let others worry about their own. If you are somehow elevated to the position of Christ.....we'll all see it clearly in your words and actions and your judgment of the way we live our lives will carry more weight than simply the weight of your ego.What you said makes absolutely no sense. Christ never set any precedent for refusing to call sin what it is....sin. Mark it where you see it. It was Christ himself that laid out the guidelines for marking out sinful people in the Church and how to properly deal with them. Just so you know, step 3 was kicking people out of the church. Read it for yourself:
“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."
You must not read your Bible every day or so, do you? Only someone that doesn't know what the Bible says could possibly insist that Matthew 7:1 means "don't judge anyone about anything ever".You simply don't get it. How, exactly, does that reference fit the conversation? How has the non believer sinned against you? How has a woman in the inner city in need of an abortion sinned against you? How has the person you deem hell worthy sinned against you? How has someone you've never met sinned against you?
I know it is fun to sit in judgment, but just admit it's what you enjoy doing. Admit you'll turn any reference into justification.....whether it is reasonable to do it or not.
God bless your heart!
Bravo!
And double that post. I'd quote it verbatim. It's beautifully explained.
Unfortunately vector, insisting that judgment is cosmically mandated plays to the ego. I think there is enough of that to go around without jumping through hoops to pretend you've invoked the name of a god to back it up.
Show me one place in your scriptures where it does give you clear mandate to go against the simple words outlined in the OP. Not what girl did. None of those clearly imparted the lesson she is trying to push.
You guys are so good at insisting you have the right to judge us. Unfortunately, even a blind person can see it is simply your ego demanding that right.I have commented on your objectiveness before and I think most of your comments are openminded to both Christians and non-Christians alike.
But I have to disagree with you on this one. Read carefully what girl is saying and you'll see the wisdom behind it.
Do we not judge the inhumane treatment of women in the Mideast, should we turn the other way when we see physical abuse of children,and who says which is more abusive, spanking a child or letting them play video games 24/7? Do we not judge dictators who decide to kill whomever they please? We have to discern right from wrong, good from evil, and have some basis and standard for those criteria.It's the standard that is argued. So if we don't agree on the standard? Do we let go of standards altogether? I think that's exactly what we've done in the name of non judement. Don't offend, don't state you beliefs, don't stand for anything- because someone will disagree with you and call you judgemental.
I think our society has confused "tolerance" with "there is no right, and there is no wrong". So now when someone brings up their criteria for a belief in what is right and what is wrong- for instance, the bible- they are attacked simply because they bring into play something that in it's very essence, is judgemental.
Some believe today that gay marriage needs to be supported, for instance, but would not endorse legalization of child pornography. Why? Isn't that "judging" what is right and what is wrong? Who is allowed to have sex with whom? No! of course not! You are stepping on that child's rights by taking advantage of them! But what if "enlightened" future generations decide that an adult should have the 'right" to do what he/she is compulsed to do sexually, as long as, say, the child is consenting?- Then are we to embrace that new morality/tolerance as a society? Why and what standard are you basing that on? And why should I adhere to your standard of right and wrong. Over time, societies and cultures have embraced every kind of abnormal, warped and twisted and wicked behavior. We could hypothetically justify ANYTHING.
At some point total tolerance embraced by a society does not work simply because we cannot maintain a society without having right and wrong. The verse you use about taking the log out of your own eye is in very essence a judgement
I think of the old saying, if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. I think the MAJORITY of people today do not stand for anything more than "tolerance". You might offend someone by stating what you believe. Yet, I think as a society, and if you look around on hub pages, it's the very people who claim to be most tolerant, liberal and open to everything that do the most attacking with the most hatred and anger against those who believe or stand for something they do not.
I understand what you mean, originally,Emile. I think that Jesus meant we are not to sit in judgement as God sits in judgement or we will be judged by the same criteria. But I have to agree with girl about expounding on that concept, especially to today's society because I think much of the bible is simplified and watered down by people now to the extent that it means nothing.It means whatever you want it to mean. Whatever right is to you...I've heard it all and I was indoctrinated with it by almost every professor I had going to university in the 1990's.I had one professor make everyone bring their bible to class (sociology) and underline the things Paul said that she didn't agree with. Then told the women in the class that we ought to have the right to walk around nude and men should be enlightened enough to not gawk or bother us.
The bible is not just a book to make people feel good about themselves and be nice to everyone and tell everybody they can live anyway they please and we'll all go to Heaven because God loves you. It's inspired and difficult and contradictory and harsh at times, and yet simple enough for a child to understand. It is the word of God and no matter what society or age we live in, those of us who call ourselves Christians will try our best to do what God wants us to do, not what society tells us is politically correct or tolerant. Just putting in my two cents, here..You are mixing levels of judgment here. We determine what is right as a society. We, as a society, have an obligation to maintain standards of conduct that ensure freedoms; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But, the admonition not to judge was directed at individuals. Not the Roman government. If Christians worked to get their own houses in order first...showed that their houses were in order....at that point this constant need to judge the lives of other individuals might make sense.
Everyone claims this is a Christian nation. Statistically....judging by what faith most profess, this is true. So, the ills within society can reasonably be argued to be Christian ills. But you attempt to project them onto others. You ignore the mote to rail at the sliver. It's insanity.
Prove your words and your faith by your actions. Stop judging others. Judge yourself. Clean up your own house. It is in no less disarray than is mine, or anyone elses.Why did the Apostle John call out Diotrephes for talking wicked nonsense in 3 John 10?
Why did Paul tell Timothy that the Cretans were "liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons" and then command him to rebuke them SHARPLY in Titus 1:12-13?
Why does he go on to call out false believers who profess to know God but deny him by their work are detestable and disobedient in Titus 1:16 if Jesus told Paul not to judge anyone?
How can God's word be effective for both reproof and correction as stated in 2 Timothy 4:16 if we're not suppose to judge anyone about anything? How do you reprove someone with the scripture if you don't judge their actions as wrong and in need of reproof?
Why does Paul chastise the Church at Corinth for winking at sin in allowing a man who has decided to take his step-mother as a mistress in 1 Corinthians 51-2? In your world, the Apostle Paul should stick to picking the mote out of his own eye instead of calling out a sinner for his sin.
The entire BOOK of Jude is written as a condemnation of the sins of unbelievers!
Again...I have to wonder how often you actually read the Bible...because this "don't judge anyone about anything" nonsense falls completely apart in the context of the entirety of scripture.I use the sieve of the words in the gospels to attempt to determine the meaning of the words in the gospels. When the other New Testament writings appear to deviate.......I am forced to let the words written in red in the gospels take precedent over other writings when attempting to understand the point being made in the gospels.
But, then again, that's a whole other debate.
Suffice it to say, I don't consider your rebuttal a valid argument, or reason, to bypass what was pretty clear. In the gospels. You are a Christian. Correct? I've always wondered why Christians don't give the words of Christ respect.Could this be a word issue?
As a verb, judge can mean 1: to form a critical opinion of 2: to pass sentence. Telling someone their actions are contrary to a moral code, is judging in the first sense. Condemning someone whose actions are contrary to a moral code is judging in the second sense. Could it be that the second sense is the one that's problematic, but people use the same word to mean both?
For example those warm hearted men who were going to stone the woman for adultery, were judging in the second sense. The woman - and let's not forget the man's involvement (assuming it wasn't another woman) - did commit adultery, but their accusers were not told to stop having a critical opinion, they were told (more or less) to move away from the piles of stones! As far as I understand it - which isn't that far admittedly - they were told not to condemn.
So could the message of that story have been don't be quick to judge (condemn), rather than don't be quick to judge (form a critical opinion of). What if they had sat the woman (and her co adulterer) down and said "We are your friends, we care about you both and want to support you. For that reason we must tell you that what you are doing is causing emotional suffering to other people we care about. That goes against our community values and the moral code we live by. What can we do to help you resolve this difficult situation?" They would have judge in the first sense by forming a critical opinion, but not condemned. Would that have been wrong?Warm hearted men. Cute.
I get what you are saying, but religious judgment goes further than simply commenting that behavior patterns are harmful to the community. It is an attempt to be God on earth and pass judgment on a cosmic scale. It's pretending that they know what is in the heart of an individual.
If Jesus told the woman accused of adultery that he did not condemn her, I think that is a clear lesson in itself.
You reference sitting down and discussing how behavior patterns affect others. That sounds great, but how is that the solution? Many of the religious judge with strokes too broad to invite discussion. Women are murderers for making life choices. Homosexuals will burn in hell for following their hearts. Women who remarry after divorce are adulterers.
The list changes depending on the sect, but these statements are made against people who aren't members of their community. They would find justification for someone they had to look in the eye, someone they knew, but people they don't know aren't afforded the same courtesy.
So, from where I stand, religious judgment used in line with definition one causes more harm to the extended community than those whose behavior patterns are being judged have caused. It might be more harmonious if we stopped looking at each other with a more critical eye than we use on ourselves.I agree some religious do judge with strokes too broad to invite discussion, and that's an issue. I'm not sure discouraging critical opinion of others is the answer though. That maybe throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Common values do exist, even in a pluralistic society, which transcend the boundaries of the groups within it. The protection of children, for example, is almost universally accepted in civil society as important and worthwhile. Is it wrong to form a critical opinion of those whose actions go against that value? If it is, how does a society collectively 'frown' on behaviour contrary to its common values? If it isn't, then there are exceptions to the 'don't judge others' rule.
There could also be a problem with consistency. If judging others is considered wrong or unacceptable, doesn't that imply you have formed a critical opinion of those who judge others, which is itself judgemental? If judging others is wrong, wouldn't the only consistent behaviour be to not say anything about it. And doesn't that make any expression of the idea self defeating?That's a nice post. And, I agree that there are plenty of common values. We recognize these values with our laws. Laws exist in order to allow each of us the right to pursue our goals in peace and harmony. We can certainly make a judgment call as to whether someone has broken the law. We have court systems that hopefully determine a fair and equitable punishment when a crime has been committed.
But this thread is a religious thread. The discussion, as I understood it, was about judging from a religious standpoint. It was asking what was meant in the text when Jesus said 'judge not, lest you be judged.' And that is the extent of what I have been commenting on. Passing judgment from a religious standpoint.
The religious attempt to judge the hearts of others. Not only that, they also attempt to condemn actions that are well within the parameters of the laws of our land. And, when they condemn, they make it clear that the punishment for actions they don't, personally, approve of will be the fires of hell.
My whole argument is that you can't see into the heart of another. You can't see what motivates them to act the way they do (assuming actions are within the boundaries of the laws of our land). Nor can you see into their heart to know if they have recognized their error (if there was one), and suffered remorse. So, any attempt at judgment within the parameters of religion will always be skewed by your own prejudices.
Assuming you aren't breaking any laws; the best anyone can do past that point is to live by what they feel in their own heart to be right. I find that many things I consider wrong are not in line with what others think. I could be woefully misguided and missing out on some good stuff for no reason. But, I can't do things I think are wrong. Neither can I assume that these same actions are wrong for others. They have to make that judgment for themselves.
We each have to learn our own lessons in our own time. If God exists, we were given free will in order to learn those lessons. I can't learn them for you and you can't learn them for me. But, neither should anyone attempt to condemn me for the learning process.
I don't see evidence that anyone has been handed a cosmic gavel. So, I can't reasonably accept any human attempt to judge me on a cosmic scale and that is what I assumed the text was refering to. Chastising people for trying to arrogantly stand in for God on earth.Passing judgement from a religious standpoint doesn't automatically mean condemnation. It's possible to have a critical opinion of a person's behaviour for religious reasons, but still be loving to the person. The problem, as you've said, is that some Christians try to wield that cosmic gavel. I wonder if it's better to deal with that by encouraging the sensible, loving approach, rather than discouraging all expressions of critical religious opinion?
Martin Luther King and his supporters in the sixties is one example where some Christians expressed a critical opinion of something that was legal at the time, but deemed wrong by them. Were they wrong to express that criticism? They did it moderately, and it led to racial equality being seen as beneficial to civil society, and become a common value to be protected by law. Would those Christians have done the same in a society where Christians are discouraged from voicing critical opinions from a religious perspective?
Likewise, a CEO today can run a corporation with no consideration for social responsibility, perfectly within the law. Would a Christian be wrong to express criticism of that CEO? Or could that discussion lead to social responsibility being seen as beneficial to civil society, and a common value to be protected by law?
I agree that the text refers to not trying to judge on that cosmic scale. I don't think it means refrain from all expressions of critical judgement though. I think it's possible for Christians to express critical opinions, based on their values, in a moderate and sensible way. That makes for a richer societal discourse which is how we identify those things that eventually become common values protected by law. Would be nice to see some more examples of Christian opinions expressed in a moderate, sensible way.Ok. You can't compare a judgmental Christian to a CEO. It isn't the right of the individual to attempt to guide the rest of us. We didn't hire them to do it and we certainly didn't vote them in.
I take some offense to your example of Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement since a large chunk of Christianity stood against it.
However, I think you and I are in agreement on most points. I think we may be labeling it differently. I think we can judge the actions of others, (how they affect us and society as a whole), and speak out. I think religion is the wrong thing to use for justification. Saying ' I said, because God said' is always followed with ' and God hates this type of behavior'. Which, to me, makes it a form of hate speech and little else.
If you have a Christian who screams against abortion because it is murder in their eyes, but a scientist shows me that a three week fetus has no awareness and no pain....I listen to the scientist. Because that is backed by facts that have been verified. It isn't his opinion of what a god meant when I think he spoke. Do you see the difference?The point about some Christian attitudes towards civil rights is well taken. But MLK was a prominent leader in the civil rights movement, and was a Christian. He expressed a critical opinion of others (including Christians) who supported segregation, and discouraged hate. This helped effect positive change and is why I don't think religious judgement is always followed by 'God hates this type of behaviour' and expressions of religious judgement can't always be seen in negative terms.
I don't think religion is the wrong thing to use for justification, I just think in some cases it's unhelpful because it's meaningless to those outside the religion. Doesn't mean arguments based on Christian beliefs have no value. Just means the argument needs to be translated into something accessible to non Christians. For example there may be societal benefit in using effective information and outreach (not fear and intimidation) to help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, therefore reducing the number of women who go through the emotional trauma of an abortion for that reason. This isn't a religious justification, it's based on common sense, but the outcome would ultimately be fewer abortions which is something Christians desire. I have yet to see a Christian make such an argument. The usual argument is emotive and vitriolic.
So I don't oppose Christians making judgements based on their religious beliefs, but I do think some need help expressing their views in a way that that is universally accessible. I don't think some even realise that this is even necessary.I agree on most points. Of course then you run into the problem of 'Christian beliefs'. Christians don't always agree. Which, of the myriad opinions, is God inspired and which is simply an opinion, just like mine? Am I to assume anyone who shares a'Christian view' is guided by the 'holy spirit'? No matter the view?
Sorry. I don't see any way to verify which beliefs are inspired and which are personal prejudices. And most Christian beliefs that attempt to inhibit freedoms which are not currently against the law are prejudices passed off as righteous judgment. Prejudices that the Christian refuses to examine because they are convinced they are inspired by God.No, you shouldn't. That's why we need to read the Bible. We need to judge anyone who claims to be a Christian by that standard.
Some of us do examine those "prejudices." You might be surprised!
But much of Christianity also stood with it. So what's your point? That because of some Christians doing what is wrong, all Christians are wrong? Because ironically, that would include...The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
But the thing that the scientist does not say, for whatever reason, is that human beings are made in God's image. That doesn't mean that they are some unformed blob made in no image until month six when, whammo! all of a sudden they are made in God's image. They are that way when the sperm and the egg come together. And quite frankly, how does the scientist know? For decades, maybe centuries, scientists believed that babies just born felt no pain.Chris, many who stood up for civil rights were those with something to gain. It had nothing to do with God, but everything to do with the stated objectives of our government from its inception. Religion was used as a binding force on both sides of the debate, but it was not faith in God that drove the civil rights movement and to say it was is ignoring history.
I did not mean to imply that all Christians are incapable of introspective thought. Yet, I do believe that religion inhibits this process. You are used by humans who push their idea of what 'God said' and that can override common sense and compassion. Believers have a tendency to draw a foolish line in the sand and refuse to think how their actions affect others because they believe it somehow pleases God. And I think the Christian God addressed this as abhorrent behavior.That depends on which people you're talking about. Of course everyone had something to gain. But tell me, what did Northern Republicans have to gain? Yet they helped get the Civil Rights Act passed.
Mmm, yes and no. Frankly, I take an even dimmer view of the human condition than you do. What you seem to be limiting to the religious I would extend to all groups. Believers are not the only ones (not by a long shot) who "draw a foolish line in the sand," but they become a convenient scapegoat for all kinds of things. Even in these forums (where almost by definition you would be getting mainly people who have actually thought their positions out) there are people on both sides who don't seem to have real answers, just keep repeating the same thing over and over. And the badly-kept secret (badly kept because no one on our side is trying to keep it, secret because so many people don't seem to understand it anyway) is that conservative Christian thinkers are all too aware that there are many manipulators and try to get people not to go along with it. But most people who seem to be okay with that (on both sides) are people who, for whatever internal need they have, have found a status quo that they like and want to keep it that way.
And you're right. Jesus talked about how many people are going to be surprised on Judgement Day to find that what they thought would be pleasing to God will not hold any water with Him. I try to examine myself and see whether I'm one of those.
Chris, when the sperm and egg come together, it is simply a sperm and an egg. A woman isn't even considered pregnant at that point. Many, many, many sperm spend a magical moment with their counterpart. That union does not make its way into the womb to become a bun in the oven.
There is where the religious should stop and think. Your line in the sand is misplaced. Your desire to do what you think is cosmically mandated is so twisted by religion that it pushes truly compassionate people away.It says in the Bible that we are made in the image of God.
It says in the Bible that God knit us together in the womb.
It says in the Bible that God knew us before we were even born.
Either the Bible is lying (and there is no other way to view it) or it is not. You know my experience and why I trust the Bible. Either it's wrong or it's right. There is no other way, at least in this debate.
However....
As I've said often, everybody is made in God's image, even people who I don't like and even people who don't like me. There is no Biblical mandate for killing abortionists (and yes, some of them are that. It's all they do.) I have strong feelings about this, and they are not twisted by anything. But that does not mean I hate people who disagree with me about it. But it does mean that, if the Bible is right, then the baby is still made in God's image, which makes the baby valuable, even if medical science doesn't consider the mother to be pregnant.I've read the Bible Chris. God said a lot of things. If you believe God inspired the whole thing I think it is incredibly sad the parts Christians ignore. I would honestly think you'd want to resolve those things before drawing ridiculous lines in the sand that end up hurting other living breathing human beings who we all agree can feel and understand.
I would hope that you remember past conversations better than that. But then again, maybe I haven't been clear enough. Being pro-life means that you want to take care of both the baby and the mother. It should be a package deal.
And please don't make assumptions about the "hard parts" of the Bible. There are a good many evangelicals (conservativbe Protestants) who take good hard looks at these parts. We understand fully that you have to deal with it all.
Well said. In fact, although I would be slow to say that religion (and specifically Christianity) is muzzled to a greater degree than other groups, it is true that groups like Occupy can pass moral judgements with great volume and drama but if a pastor dares to say something in passing then it's a sign of how judsgemental we Christians are. I liked what you said about critical comments not necessarily equalling condemnation. It's just a fine line because if you criticize something someone is doing, for whatever reason, it is seen as a personal attack. That's not always the case.
Judge not lest ye be judged, for by the stick you use to measure so you too will be measured...
It's a basic philosophical question, are there times when you must violate your own philosophy? In Christian theology, ultimately it is God who will judge everyone, but at the same time humans must make judgements because not to do so would simply allow anyone to do anything.
The Pharisees who were attempting to trick Jesus would have stoned the woman because they felt that their knowledge of Mosaic Law gave them authority to judge who would and would not enter the Kingdom of God. Jesus saw the woman's heart and also the hearts of the Pharisees, and He judged them by their motives, not simply their actions.
It's sometimes very difficult for us to do the same.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, Emile.
And I want to tell you that I divorced my ex-husband because of his hypocrisy about religion.I do not follow the typical "religious right" profile. I am an artist and a divorced mother of two. I grew up with two psychologists as my parents- not known to be a conservative profession. I question my own beliefs, I don't judge or preach to non-believers and I have non-believers as close friends and relatives.
But in response to our country being Christian, although it started as a Christian nation, is absolutely no longer a Christian nation and hasn't been for a very long time. And when you look statistically at when America began to disentegrate morally, there is a direct correlation between the rise of humanism, free sex, love and "peace", and - no standards of morality. The rebellion of a country against what generations had stood for previously caused our country to decline as a whole... (my opinion)
I am not saying that as a "Christian" country we did not create our share of horrible sins against mankind. Beginning with murdering innocent women in Salem, Massachussetts. Dishonestly and forcefully taking an entire people's land and killing them off in the name of progress and greed. Selfishness, rape, murder, slavery, hypocrisy. So I am not trying to project any of our problems, new or old, on non-Christians. Christians have not historically done a great job in promoting what we profess to believe, if you ask me. The Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, for example. But God's own Chosen, the Jews, have not done so well either, nor did they lead a shining example in the Bible.Yet they never have become "unchosen". So apparently, we all have a lot of room for improvement, Christians and non Christians alike.
But what I am saying is, as a democracy, our government was made to be an outgrowth of the people. What the people believe, the government will become. We believe nothing. And we encourage belief in nothing. We teach it to our children. We believe in "me" maybe,or some vaque spiritual being larger than ourselves, perhaps....
So our government-
reflecting people who believe nothing and stand for nothing and tolerate anything -
Is at present and will continue to be void of the ability to determine right and wrong because the people have lost the ability to see right and wrong.
Ben Franklin said, and I am not quoting here- that when the morality of the people is disgarded, democracy as a working concept will cease to be. I truly believe that's exactly the spot we find ourselves in today in America.
I don't believe in judging others myself, because I know that I am far from perfect, I know I have been judged by people, and I don't think that as one of Gods creations, I have the mind of God to judge his other creations.
But will I judge whether a law is good or bad based on my standard of morality, the Bible? Yes, by my vote and by using the freedoms of expression we have in the U.S. Many would say that I am judgemental for holding and expressing views and voting for laws that I believe God would have us do as a country. Here are some issues facing the country that I will not vote for: see how you judge me-
I believe in Jesus Christ as my savior
I will speak against and not ever vote for legalizing gay marriage.
I will speak against and not vote for healthcare mandated for everyone by the government
I will speak against and not vote for abortion, ever, to happen after 3rd month unless a woman's body is in danger.
I don't think that public schools should hand out condoms and will vote against it.
I do think public schools should have the right to say a prayer over the loudspeaker, and to invoke the name of God in the Pledge of allegiance and I do think they shoudl be allowed to post the 10 commandments. And I will vote that way.
These are not the sentiments you will hear on NPR, which I listen to, by the way, Unitarian churches, schools or universities across our land. They are not popular because they are definitive, judgemental statements in their essense to someone who does not believe the same way, yet, what I believe will come through in my voting, and the voting others who believe the same. Laws that are produced from "the judgemental ones" will be percieved as judgemental, unfair, bigoted, etc.
Those that believe the opposite of everything listed will vote the other way and laws come of those votes that allow for anything and everything, disregarding morality, the Bible, and the Constitution. Because they don't share my beliefs in those things.
Will I judge those people? No. Will I vote against them and give my opinion. Yes. Does that make me a judgemental person in their eyes? I think so, today, in America, those statements above make me a prime target.
I'm saying as a nation we have lost the ability to have standards, or make judgements,because the majority of people don't have standards of morality that mean anything or are based on anything meaningful. That is at the heart of the problem.
So they are swayed and stand for what is politically correct. What sounds good. Tolerate, don't offend, believe whatever you want to, it's okay. And anyone who says anything differently is an egocentric religious right fanatic trying to push their religion on everyone else.
The reason you think that I am confusing the two- individual and collective judgement- is because the outgrowth of no belief, no standard of morality, and therefore no place from which to judge what is right and wrong as individuals is no belief, no standard of morality and no place from which to judge what is right and wrong as a country -Wow. That was a long post. But I agree with you on some counts. I think we should all vote our consciences and not apologize for doing it.
However, I see a lot of hypocrisy that I find irritating within the religious community of America. We are none of us perfect. The average Christian is the average American. What they complain about is their own reflection. And I find it abhorrent to be judged by a different measuring stick than the one used by the one those who judge me use on themselves.
I argue often with religious women who are adamantly against abortion. They had abortions in their youth. Because it was convenient at the time. I doubt I could have ever made such a choice if faced with it, but I'm the bad and sinful one because I believe, as you do, that in the first trimester it is a woman's right.
You say you support faculty led prayer in schools. I don't. Not because the idea of prayer offends me. But because if the religious can't raise their own children to follow their own beliefs, without group participation, what have they taught them? Is that faith?
I know you think I'm advocating that life be a free for all. I'm not. We have to live our conscience. Raise our kids to be strong enough to do the same. And stop blaming everything but ourselves for the fact that things are the way they are. So many people allow themselves to be led and then blame others for the path they have followed because they don't have the guts to go their own way. And then attempt to show remorse by condemning others for doing exactly what they have already done.
The mistakes each of us have made have molded us into who we are. Hopefully, we are better from the process of taking our licks and learning from them. Most of us think we are. And I think that is the crux of my problem. We make mistakes, we learn, we find forgiveness for ourselves and we move on; but we can't give others the leeway to do the same.You are right, that was a long post- And I don't think you believe life is a free for all. I like the way you think and write. I just want to set the record straight. All Christians are not any more alike than all Muslims are all alike or all Hindus are all alike. We each have our own story, our own issues, our own mistakes and I think when it comes down to it, most people in the world are just trying their best.
But what I see infiltrating our media, our homes, our lives, is a total loss of what is good and right and true. And that scares me for my children and our future. There is so much going into their ears each day from society that it is difficult for parents and churches to have a chance at competing for their attention. At the heart of it, that's why I get so heated when I discuss this. I wish my kids were growing up in a time when society upheld morality and right and wrong.I wish they were growing up in a time with less noise so that they could "hear" more clearly what I want them to know.
So maybe I expanded this discussion into other realms, but I believe, as you do, that judging others is not only in and of itself wrong, it does exactly the opposite of what we are supposed to be doing as Christians. It turns people off and closes them up to what true Christianity is about. It's not about judgement, it's about the things Jesus taught, love and forgiveness and mercy for sinners. And very rarely will you see someone who lives this way. But I have seen a few, and the genuine believer will not turn people away,because of judgement or hypocrisy; they will make them want to follow and find out more. That is how I try to live my faith.
I have never been able to get behind the idea that people are not to judge at all. Do not judge at all is to say we should have not judged the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor, we should not have judged the South and their treatment of Black Americans, we should not have judged the Ku Klux Klan for the hatred they spread across the country, we should not judged the bomber Ted Kaczynski, we should not have judged Timothy McVeigh, we should not judged the tragedy of 09/2011 etc.
http://www.capalert.com/judgenot.htm
This website addresses that question Just Not.This is simple and yet you guys are making it a big thing! This phrase means dont look down on others for their sins because you will be judged for your sins in the time to come.
I would not want to be standing in front of God, asking for love and forgiveness, Having my heart full of hate, unforgiveness,
It is fitting that I be measured by my own measureing stick.Hi Jerami
We have this as a concrete, real, situation in teaching in the argument for and against subjective testing of students. An objective (outside) test prduces a measure of the ability of the student - and - in total it provides a measure of the teaching.
Subjective tests - measuring yourself - leads only to bad teaching, poor student performance, and cheating lying lazy teachers rising to the top. If this maxim is a christian way then this may be why so many church leaders are obnoxious human beings.
If we still lived in a Perfect world?
It would be wise to kill sin before it grew so-to-speak.
We do not live in a perfect world.
All we can do at this point; each and every individual. is to attempt to clean up our own immediate enviroment. And hope it grows.Oh Crickets.
It is often I abstain from the Xian Forums anymore, for possibly this very reason.
Stuff like this pops up and makes you feel like Al Pacino.
Judgment:
It is necessary, inevitable and unavoidable, should a person be breathing.
But judgment in a very different manner than most perceive.
Know the saying: "Take the plank from your own eye before you notice the speck in another?" Or this one: "Whomever is without 'sin' be the first to cast a stone?" Neither one pertains to judging, but rather prudence -self analysis, yet are often tossed into the salad with judging people.
Y`shua ben Yosef made the point clear: judge them by their fruit.
What then is in question?
What then is judgment?
What is it to judge righteous -or by righteous(ness).
That which is produced by the action/evidence is what is in question.
Judgment (complete inspection) of the product is necessary for others to avoid the same trifles.
To judge by righteous(ness) is to see that product from the perspective of its effect on the individual and collective.
Sadly, human tendency toward judgment is based on law -be it civil or moral.
I suppose the term 'hate' the 'sin' applies. Judge the outcome, certainly -for good or bad- and recognize what effect it has. But, to judge the individual person immediately puts one in the spotlight for equal judgment (condemnation or reward according to the twin-rules of civil-moral).
Oddly enough, Y`shua ben Yosef sat, talked, drank, laughed, cried, ate, traveled with, bled, fought with and eventually died next to 'sinners'. Not once did he judge them, but rather their works. Exactly what he said for his followers to do -judge the works of faith, not the works of the mind or body. Even the teachers of those laws he didn't judge according to their rules -which is one thing that really pissed them off! He judged their fruits. Which made them even more furious! He judged the result of their years of following the rules, for the sake of following the rules... Keynote; He judged the Law and the fruit of it.
One could easily judge an Xian individual, by not following the rules of their own book, as equally as one could judge other individuals who squawk about the book, but also do not follow its rules, when in reality, the real judgment of both is the fruit of their labor. In the paraphrased works of Jerry MaGuire: "Show Me The Harvest!"
People have asked repeatedly, if I hate Xians, Hebrews, Muslims, Scientists, Capitalists, etc because of what they believe/disbelieve. My answer is always the same: I dislike all Theos, because of the effect (fruit) it has had on humanity since the Inception. And until I see evidence of good fruit, I will continue to despise Theos for its rot, but never the individual caught in its web...
JamesInternal and external consistency seems to me to be the crux of this.
Whatever criteria you use to make judgments on others -- harshness, intolerance, love, forgiveness, etc. -- know that the same criteria will be used on/against you.
The harder they judge, the harder they fall, one and all.
(love that Jimmy Cliff!)I'm not "big" into religious definitions, books, etc. etc.; but the thing about "judge not.." is something with which most of us are pretty familiar.
I've always interpreted it as meaning two things:
1. That no human being should be making assumptions about who else is "a sinner" in God's eyes. I suppose there's the factor that someone like murderers or child molesters will be judged by other people as "bad" or "evil", and I suppose, maybe, that's where the "..so too shall ye be judged" thing comes in. I'd assume that (assuming there is a God) if we judge something God thinks is "a sin", then when we're being judged the question would be whether we've been guilty of whatever that thing is.
2. I more take those words, though, as "words to live by" separate from who is judging what's a sin or evil. I take them more to mean judging what others do in general. For example, judging someone who gets a divorce by assuming "they just didn't take their vows seriously enough" (and essentially "condemning" them for their choice). What can often happen when people do that kind of thing is that someone (or life) comes along, makes them aware that they'd either do the same thing in the same circumstances (as the divorced person happened to be in), or else makes them aware that their judgment is based on ignorance and a sense-of-superiority that isn't warranted; and - voila - the person who judged has been judged (by someone) or revealed (by life/circumstances) to actually have inferior thinking to the person s/he judged.
3. A lighter example of the same kind of thing might be the kind of thing that "went on" in the song, "Harper Valley PTA", when people judged the mother in the song; and when she turned around and pointed out all the things about all of them that made them look a whole lot worse than she did.The actual context of the statement is Jesus telling the religious leaders of the day not to judge who would be entering the Kingdom of Heaven because the yardstick they used to exclude some, God would use the same yardstick to measure them. The implication being that they would be found wanting.
Of course, we can apply this to our lives today. The point is that we should not judge others but should focus on our relationship with Jesus, making sure that we understand what is necessary to make it into Heaven. We should still avoid sin, both externally (other people's) and internally (our own.)
I'm not "big" into religious definitions, books, etc. etc.; but the thing about "judge not.." is something with which most of us are pretty familiar. Since I'm not someone who thinks a lot of people trying to guess what someone else meant when they said something (because that can amount to trying/presuming to be a mind-reader), but since I think "the judge-not thing" isn't such a bad policy, here's how I've always interpreted it.
I've always interpreted it as meaning two things:
1. That no human being should be making assumptions about who else is "a sinner" in God's eyes. I suppose there's the factor that someone like murderers or child molesters will be judged by other people as "bad" or "evil", and I suppose, maybe, that's where the "..so too shall ye be judged" thing comes in. I'd assume that (assuming there is a God) if we judge something God thinks is "a sin", then when we're being judged the question would be whether we've been guilty of whatever that thing is.
2. I more take those words, though, as "words to live by" separate from who is judging what's a sin or evil. I take them more to mean judging what others do in general. For example, judging someone who gets a divorce by assuming "they just didn't take their vows seriously enough" (and essentially "condemning" them for their choice). What can often happen when people do that kind of thing is that someone (or life) comes along, makes them aware that they'd either do the same thing in the same circumstances (as the divorced person happened to be in), or else makes them aware that their judgment is based on ignorance and a sense-of-superiority that isn't warranted; and - voila - the person who judged has been judged (by someone) or revealed (by life/circumstances) to actually have inferior thinking to the person s/he judged.
3. A lighter example of the same kind of thing might be the kind of thing that "went on" in the song, "Harper Valley PTA", when people judged the mother in the song; and when she turned around and pointed out all the things about all of them that made them look a whole lot worse than she did."God" inspires everything. 'The part christians ignore' everybody is ignoring. Ignoring is denying. Denying the spirit makes them anti-christian.
Related Discussions
- 46
Morally, we understand that judging others is a sin, but is it still a sin when
by backporchstories 11 years ago
Morally, we understand that judging others is a sin, but is it still a sin when we judge silently?We have been taught that when we let judgment of others roll off our tongue, we have committed a great sin. However, we all have opinions! Some, we keep in our heads and to ourselves. ...
- 70
As a Christian do you think it is your duty to judge others?
by SandCastles 10 years ago
From what I've read in the bible, we are to identify wrong behaviours and speak up but we are not to play judge because that makes us prideful and reluctant to take the beam out of our own eye. Many Christians insist that it is their duty to judge and they end up judging everyone about everything....
- 31
Is it o.k. 2 judge, long as you judge righteously? IJN, Jas
by Jas Unspoted 11 years ago
Is it o.k. 2 judge, long as you judge righteously? IJN, Jas
- 23
Believers aren't suppose to judge others ,so why judge an athiest?
by nightwork4 13 years ago
Believers aren't suppose to judge others ,so why judge an athiest?it seems one hubber is going full out to make athiests look foolish on here by judging what an athiest thinks without actually thinking before they question. is judging us ok because we don't believe?
- 16
Why do many Christians say that others will face their judgment day?
by Matthew Dawson 11 years ago
Why do many Christians say that others will face their judgment day?I have been torn by the word forgiveness and judgment. If you where to stroll over to my profile you will see that I write a lot of Christian "stuff" however I cannot figure out why many hard core believers love to say...
- 30
What right do we have to judge either it be in a church or in the world what mak
by Matthew Harvey 8 years ago
What right do we have to judge either it be in a church or in the world what makes you have the rite