Posted on 05/02/2006 3:49:33 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
Regardless of the level of theological sophistication, we can always be sure the critics "know" one thing: The Bible says that we should not judge one another. Anyone who would do so is clearly being un-Christian. Such obtuse reasoning is employed against Christians who offer a negative commentary on certain cultural trends, behaviors or lifestyles. Still, I wonder how many people have taken this concept to its logical conclusion?
We now hear that in our modern times, John 3:16 has been replaced by Matthew 7:1, as the most often quoted scriptural passage. This is clearly because we have taken the focus off of what the Creator has done for us, and placed it on the creatures do for themselves. We have taken the emphasis off of grace, and have instead made the approval of moral pluralism the quintessential virtue of the age.
The very idea that all judging is wrong, is an illegitimate synthesis between Christianity, moral relativism, and the contemporary perspective on "tolerance." These ideas have been wedded together to conjure up witch's brew of self-contradictory sophistry.
Christianity has traditionally viewed "tolerance" through a prism of scriptural precept that parallels the garden variety dictionary definition. The scriptures say things like, "Love endures all things," and "As much as it depends on you, live peacefully with all men." The traditional definition is that "tolerance" is graciously enduring those who you disagree with.
Today, "tolerance" has been reconstructed to mean something entirely different. Essentially it means that all ideas, lifestyles and truth claims, are deemed equally valid. Christian author and speaker Josh McDowell refers to this phenomenon as "negative tolerance"(permission) versus "positive tolerance" (approval). One can readily see how this new definition of tolerance circles back to the claim made about judging. If nobody has a superior moral position, then nobody has the standing to "judge" anything in terms of ethical hierarchy.
But does the use of Matthew 7:1, as a stand-alone quotation, bring contextual justice to the point Jesus is making? Of course not. Later in the passage, Christ refers to certain people unable or unwilling to assimilate spiritual things. He refers to them figuratively as "pigs" and "dogs." That sounds a bit like judging to me! In the book of John, Jesus talks of rendering a "righteous judgement," rather than none at all. The point was never that we should not make moral judgments, or employ an ethical hierarchy in being discreet about evaluating "right" and "wrong." The idea was that there should be no "double-standards." We should not judge others by a standard we would not want to be judged with ourselves. This is how we avoid "judgmentalism" and cronin fault-finding. We are exhorted to correct our own hypocrisies before reforming the world.
Now that is very different from telling someone that they shouldn't dare to call anything wrong. In fact, such reasoning will ultimately lead to calling evil good and good evil. This is because evil cannot be called evil, since such labeling is judgmental. Good is considered evil, because those who are endeavoring to do good by calling something else wrong, are guilty of judging. How could any court of justice operate if all judgment without exception were considered wrong? All criticisms of anything would have to be withheld on the basis that such critiques are judgmental in nature.
Christian apologist Greg Koukl offers us the perfect antidote to this apparent logical dilemma. He says that we must be egalitarian in terms persons, but elitist in reference to ideas. That principle is embodied in the old ecclesiastical adage that we are to hate the sin, yet love the sinner. This is a perfect expression of "righteous judgment," but it is a posture that would be condemned today as grossly judgmental. And yet in effect, is it any different from saying, "We support the troops, but oppose the war(We have concern for the person, but disapprove of the cause)?" The latter position is assumed to be accepted as valid without question, despite the fact that the former is seen as intolerant. Interesting paradox.
Last year an editorial writer to my local newspaper made a preposterous claim. He declared that the only hope for the peaceful co-existence of mankind, was that each of us must accept and respect the other guy's truth. We can't be dogmatic and say the other guy is wrong. But in articulating such a standard, the writer himself is engaged in judging, not to mention being dogmatic. Applying Koukl's axiom to this situation, we might say that all people deserve respect because of their unique position as reflecting the image of God. But in the process of evaluating the cogency of ideas, the writer clearly is confused, as he seeks to reconstruct the term "truth," by making it tantamount to opinion.
The idea that we can never judge about anything is patently absurd. To say that we can never judge is to wander aimlessly. The scriptures tell us that we should reprove each other, speaking the truth in love. What our society lacks is righteous judgment. What we have an abundance of is knit-picking and indifference. Neither of those two alternatives promotes justice and righteousness.
-Matthew 12:32-37
Excellent CCF! Very well said, and very much needed.
I'm not sure what lord you serve. But my L-rd commands me to judge.
John 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."b'shem Y'shua
I was just inviting you to read the article...I was only in conflict with Annie...sinks...and a one other person.
1 - But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2 - And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
3 - 3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
4 - For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
5 - And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
6 - And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
7 - And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked:
8 - (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds;)
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:
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.
11 - Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
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;
13 - And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you;
14 - Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
15 - Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
16 - But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.
17 - These are wells without water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.
18 - For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.
19 - While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
20 - For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
21 - For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
22 - But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
P.S. - you say you asked me three times...I've responded every time you've asked...how many times must I dance in a circle with you?
Well said.
Thanks for the ping, I hope you understand that my posts were to show that Christ also advocated judging as well as charity.
How many times will it take for you to answer a simple question???
Do you consider homosexuals and sinners your enemy? Or do you just condemn them?
I answered this with a very simplistic reply to a question that wasn’t very serious, but for some reason you hang your entire dialogue on this false notion that your question hasn’t been answered - see Post 205.
Homosexuals are sinners...sin is of Satan...and Satan is the enemy of God and mankind.
The next post you offered didn’t ask me this question and instead said, “You gave nothing regarding the matter. You claimed you could produce something in God's own words. Point out, in God's own words, what will get you damned.” –see Post 246.
I will point you to Post 135.
Now, on Post 317, the second time you asked, you obviously don’t care about my answer and by this point I was already logged off. So when I log on the next day, don’t take it personally if I view new posts to you, and out of the large lot I don’t make it you – your microcosm and egoism don’t make much of an impression.
By Post 323, you were just making asinine statements bore out of nothing but stupidity. You made the following point, “I think that is called creating God in their own image(g). Some people really, really, really want God to be mean and punitive I think.” God created the human race, but man fell by way of original sin, and man by his own free will either chooses to remain obedient to God and the Law, or you choose transgress and sin. Your remark is amazingly arrogant and horribly wrong at the same time.
Now I have you on this thread asking the same question. Sin brings death, so of course I’m an enemy of Sin, but I can only be an enemy through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and the Apostle Paul made quite clear that those who sin deserve to die:
18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. This was from Romans, Chapter One. So, do you want chapter and verse on one hand, and then don't want it on another. Did you read Chapter 2 of II Peter? I'm sure you didn't...the answer is there...right there on your screen...I can only lead a horse to water...but I CAN'T MAKE IT DRINK!!!
I did not ask you again until post #317 – at which time I asked you once more to answer the question. You never did.
You erred when you ascribed post #246 to me. Check again who is the author of that post. An apology would be forthcoming from a decent human being.
This statement which I wrote to sinkspur and included your name on (because it was in regard to something you said):
[[[“I think that is called creating God in their own image(g). Some people really, really, really want God to be mean and punitive I think.”]]]
is true. Some people very much create God in their own image. Perhaps you do? And there are unfortunately many who really, really want God to be mean and punitive. It is truth that I spoke and reaffirm here. The Islamists want to believe that God asks them to be cruel and murderous. They believe in a God who condones suicide bombing and flying planes into buildings. Others, who call themselves Christians believe in a God who punishes and seeks vengeance. In all these cases – it is their choice. A tragic choice. A harmful choice. But their choice.
Next you ping me to this thread which you started to defend your view of judgement. I had not spoken to you of judgment – but you felt, for whatever reason, that I should be pinged to read your view. So, of course, I asked you a third time to answer my question. Which you did not do – but claimed to have done everytime I asked you. That is obviously an untruth from you. Wouldn’t that be a sin in your ideology?
Now you give this answer:
Sin brings death, so of course I’m an enemy of Sin
That does not answer the question as to whether you see sinners (the individuals) and homosexuals (the individuals) as your enemy.
I assume that you do. Are you your own enemy? Or do you claim to be without sin?
And do you, as Jesus teaches, love your enemies?
I have indeed read your long scriptural lectures. They are the sort of thing that reinforces for me the belief that the Bible is not the literal word of God. They are a good example of what I wrote to sinspur about – those who wish to create God in their own image – those who really, really want God to be punitive and cruel. Those who worship the wrath of God and the gleeful expectation of their brothers and sisters (as children of God) being burned in everlasting hell – have their reward, don’t they. What I would call a negative ego hit of feeling better than.
I pray that it will be soon that you turn from hatred to love, from condemnation and attack to helpfulness and peace.
So you believe that God will not judge humanity and that there is no hell?
[[[Others, who call themselves Christians believe in a God who punishes and seeks vengeance. In all these cases – it is their choice. A tragic choice. A harmful choice. But their choice.]]]
Do you equate judgement of humanity and the existence of hell as being punishing and seeking vengence?
Yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.