I see no exhortation whatever in scripture against humans judging other's hearts.
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. 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? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven: Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.
There is a related typical misunderstanding of scripture to the effect that we are supposedly not to judge the human heart because that's God's job. The fact is that scripture shows the apostles judging others' hearts and makes it clear that it's not that we're not supposed to, or unable to.
scripture shows noah drunk and lewd with wine. should we do as such? scripture shows david lusting after bathsheba, and ordering the death of her husband. should we do as such? scripture shows the israelites commit genocide (at the command of god). should we do as such?
There is also some implication that we are wrong when we judge others strictly or what is thought to be harshly, because God supposedly sees good intentions in the heart that people don't see. Scripture actually more often demonstrates the opposite, that God sees sin and deceit in the heart.
god sees the sin and deceit in everyone's hearts, including ours. yet, we have been forgiven. why should we not forgive others, as we have been forgiven? the verses in question describe the punishment for our judgement: we will be judged in the same manner. if we say someone if not saved by grace, then we are not saved by grace.
I maintain that the familiar view of judging one another is not scriptural, though it is often preached with a great deal of heat, and that in fact what Jesus meant by His exhortation against judging others was simply that we are not to condemn others for their sins. There is plenty in scripture otherwise to both exhort us and demonstrate that a Christian IS to judge questions of doctrine or truth, and that's what I was doing.
doctrine, ok. other people, no.
telling people they are not christian is not "judging doctrine." it's judging someone's heart -- and they always take it as such. we shouldn't go around excluding and condemning people who should be our brothers and sisters.
and I was being judged for judging others.
the irony is that this is half the point of the verse. if you judge, you will be judged. if you don't -- you probably will anyways, but it'll be a far nicer judgement.
the honest point is that people who aren't christian often judge not only us for our actions, but they judge the religion we represent, and they judge christ. judgemental attitude only serve to tarnish the name of jesus, and turn people away from the truth.
it's just bad evangelism.
and it really annoys some other christians, because it makes them look bad, hurts their efforts, etc. and sometimes, it directly insults them, because they are the ones being judged.
Well I have to say that I have been judged and condemned in this sense all the time by supposed "Christians" here.
can you provide a single instance were someone has said that you are not a real christian?
But telling people they are not Christian is simply a judgment of what they believe compared against what scripture teaches. The heart's disposition may certainly be surmised from this but that is not the aim of the judgment. The aim is to clarify what doctrine is truly Christian and what is false.
evidently, you believe it is ok to condemn others, when scripture strictly forbids it. so by your own standards -- even if others have condemned you as not a real christian, it's totally ok. your hearts position may certainly be surmised from your treatment of others, and condemnation is not a christian doctrine.
Paul had no problem whatever condemning the Galatians for their acceptance of the false doctrine of the Pharisees.
you mean the false doctrine of circumcision? where he says that if you are circumcised, you are held to law and cannot be saved by christ? why faith, i think you should have participated in the last circumcision thread more strongly!
Jesus also had no problem whatever condemning the false doctrines of the Pharisees. Or their hearts either for that matter, since He called them "whited sepulchres" all pretty on the outside but inside full of dead men's bones.
surely you realize that jesus was a bit of a special case. jesus is in a place to judge the hearts of men -- but we are not all jesus, are we?
Yes it's been said here that I'm not a real Christian, and it's been said even if not in so many words. I probably can't find the reference, but so what?
so why do you take offense at it? since, by your own definition, you are not a real christian?
There is plenty of evidence in the scriptures that determining whether or not someone is a true Christian is definitely the right thing to do. Paul and John both teach this.
and mark teaches us that we can spot them by the poison they drink and the snakes they dance with.
That's what the whole flap about circumcision was about, and all the teachings of the Pharisees, about foods and holidays and all of it. People who followed these teachings were said by Paul to be condemned and not saved, and the teachers of them he called wolves in sheeps' clothing and condemned them in very strong language.
yes, godforbid anyone be jewish. any wonder why many of us here don't like paul too much? and what to do about all those jewish converts he was condemning in the process? all of those people who were circumcised on the 8th day, because it was part of their culture. like jesus. and his 12 closest friends. and most american christians. like i said, you should have participated in the last circumcision thread -- it would have been nice to have a nice strong voice there proclaiming that everyone who is circumcised is condemned to hell no matter what.
Jesus did not judge as God, but as man, and his criteria were made plain.
i think, perhaps, you should rethink this position. the hebrew word that "pharisee" comes from means "separate." they were the elite, and elitist class of priests. they were the people responsible for saying who was allowed into the temple, and who was unclean and exiled. it was the unclean people, the lepers and the prostitutes and the tax collectors, the lower class and the exiled that jesus spent his ministry preaching to. jesus brought the church to them, and showed mercy to those whom everyone spat on.
let's read matthew 23, where the "whited sepulcre" verse is found, in context, shall we? maybe we can see why jesus says such things about the perushim?
quote:Mat 23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
quote:Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
one of the things that jesus takes particular exception with is their judgement of others, particular in relation the iniquity of their own hearts. he rails against them for being hypocrites: judging the sins of others when their hearts are just as rotten.
and, yes, the perushim were in a position to judge. it was part of the their job description, actually. since israel was a theocracy (even while occupied by rome) they were much like our judges and jury. but that's part of the sacrifical ritual, and a part they had perverted for monetary gain, while ignoring it themselves.
but the two bits that seem to particulary irk him is their exclusion of people from the religion, and the usage of fire-and-brimstone tactics. part of this very tirade is against the very behaviour you demonstrate.
compassion and forgiveness, faith. inclusion -- the gospel is for all, and we are all set free. hope -- for god forgives.
Judging the heart is definitely something a Christian may do on occasion.
Did I say I'm not a Christian? Your methods of argument are pretty sleazy for suggesting such a thing.
yes, faith. that's the point. it is pretty sleazy, isn't it?
keep in mind that i never said you weren't a christian. i said you weren't by your definition, because you fail to follow this scripture. by contrast, you have repeatedly done a lot more than implied that other christis weren't christians. you have publicly judged and condemned other christians on this board numerous times.
watch, you do it again:
If you oppose Paul you oppose Christianity and you oppose Jesus who commissioned Paul.
but perhaps you missed the argument i was making: i don't oppose jesus, paul opposes jesus. paul condemns the circumcised. jesus was circumcised. the 12 disciples were circumcised. paul himself was circumcised. i'd place good money that every single pope has been circumcised.
jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it. and that includes all of the covenants therein.
If Paul condemned converts it was because they were not true converts.
perhaps you should read my posts a little more closely. i already included the very words that jesus himself said about condemning converts. why would it be ok for paul to do so, but not the pharisees?
It is not their judgment of others but their FALSE judgement of others that the Pharisees do, having erected false hurdles for the people to obey that have nothing to do with the Law of God, that Jesus condemns.
funny, i didn't see that in the text. what it's not a rant against is judging the in the sense of a judicial process. that was their job -- but, it was not their job to exclude people from the church, because they didn't like them, or their ideas, or their social class.
it's exclusion that jesus railed against. and what you do is exclude people you disagree with from christianity. you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men, you hypocrite.
You haven't read a thing I've written on this or bothered to take it seriously, and are just slinging accusations blindly, without quoting me or anything in rebuttal. You don't try to define "judging" you just say it's "disgusting." You don't try to prove that "judging," whatever that means to you, is "against the scriptures" you simply assert that it is. You don't make any distinctions in the meanings of words, you just sling the bull according to some pat formula you memorized some time or other.
For one thing I clearly said that Jesus told us not to condemn SIN, but that judging doctrine and truth is not judging sin. Yet you go on condemning me for supposedly judging sin.
faith, you have repeatedly judged others as not true christians. that's not "judging doctrine" that's condemning others.
Please learn how to read. And think.
Somebody with that degree of complete disconnect with a person's words ought to be disqualified from a thread in my opinion, but we have to put up with whatever comes down the pike here no matter how irrelevant it is.
shall we disqualify you from the thread, since you obviously cannot connect to the words of jesus in even the simplest literal meaning, let alone the connect to the sentiment behind them?
jesus did not say "we're our own little club, feel free to exclude whomever you wish." he did not say "it's ok to judge the hearts of men, it makes god's job easier." nor did he say "make sure you weed out those false christians, they're just tryingto trip you up."
he said, "go tell the world." he said "love your neighbor" and even "love your enemy." he said "do not condemn other." he said, "forgive, for you have been forgiven."
do you not see how your ideas are fundamentally alien to these awful bleeding-heart liberal statements? you, faith, have more in common with the pharisees, who were more concerned about keeping their church clean, and keeping the unclean masses, false believers, and the poor out of it, and out of heaven. judging others, as you have done repeatedly, is not welcoming them home to their father's kingdom, and sharing the love of christ with them.
If I weigh up the evidence according to the criteris of "what constitutes a Christian in my book". And a person easily fails all those criteria - does that mean they might still be a Christian according to my book?
it's not according to your book. that's the point of this discussion. it's according to god. not you.
Failing God commenting on the matter himself (we couldn't even get Dawkins and Dembski here remember) I suppose you will be referring to a book too
no, actually, and i specifically avoided typing "according to god's book" because i knew you'd misinterpret the idiom (the same one you just used) to mean something else.
judgement of christianity, belief, faith, and mens' hearts is GOD'S. not yours. not mine. not faith's, and not the pharisees. "according to my book" doesn't mean squat, because god makes the call. you do not. you don't even get a vote.
..I take it that you didn't lick that idea off a stone.
i don't lick stones. i have some idea of where they've been.
If "When God calls and a person responds to that call then they become a Christian and certain things will manifest themselves..." is true then one might very easily percieve whether another patently hasn't responded to that call. Thus one is in a position to comment, to exercise their judgement. All one has to decide for themselves is, is that statement true - in order to comment.
you fail to see the obvious flaw in your logic. of those "certain things" that manifests itself is compassion and acceptance of others: not condemnation and judgement.
by judging others as not christians, you have defined yourself as unchristian. and, if i were in a position to judge, i would say that you weren't.
but you don't get the point. and neither does faith, apparently. christianity is not about deciding who's wheat and who's chaff, and certainly not about us making that decision. it's about acceptance, and hope, and compassion, and forgiveness, and charity.
the message is nothing but good for all, and if you exclud people from it, you do nothing but pervert it.
I thought it wouldn't be long until your self-declared reading comprehension skills would get hauled out. D'ya ever ask Ned his opinion?
knock yourself out. ned gave his opinion in the last thread -- and to no suprise, you misinterpretted what he said.
Do you see the obvious flaw in your own logic: this limited notion is printed on the pages of your own book. There is no need to even swap stories: all a person needs to exercise judgement (to judge) is to hold that their own book is correct - it needs not anothers (yours for instance) stamp of approval.
do make circular points in every thread? i'm starting to think that you do it to be funny. considering that my point was circular to begin with. you're just running the other direction.
iano, go play god and create some rocks so big you can't lift them.
Allowing them them fool others into thinking what they say Christianity is is what Christianity is. Hell no.
ahem, i think christ gets some say in what christianity is and is not. and christ says "don't judge." and he rails against the pharisees for excluding people.
if i were in a position to judge, i would say that you weren't.
I'm not so reticent and in your case I don't know. I'm not sure...
the point is, iano, i don't know a damned thing about your relationship with god. nor do you know anything about mine. so i don't get a say in yours, and you don't get a say in mine.
Stating that a person is not a Christian doesn't exclude them from a message they haven't gotten yet - if indeed that exercise of judgment is accurate. They would already be on the 'outside' so to speak.
yes, and the lepers were already outside the temple. they were born there. it was still wrong for the pharisees to not let them in.
knock yourself out. ned gave his opinion in the last thread -- and to no suprise, you misinterpretted what he said.
I take it that you have no problem in allowing him state whether his message was tongue in cheek or literal. I for one am curious. I'll bump it next time I see him knocking around. You do the same if you see him. Okay?
his attention has been called to this thread. feel free to ask him what he meant by
quote:Ok, I don't see how the contraction can be explained away then.
one says that is better to answer fools because otherwise they don't learn anything. the other says it's better to not answer fools, because you're a fool for answering them.
I don't follow these threads all that closely but it was my feeling that Iano did an pretty good job of explaining away the apparent contradiction.
What I recall is that the prohibition on arguing with a fool was not saying that you don't argue with them but that you don't "stoop to their level". That is what I understood Iano to be saying with his explanation of "according to his foolishness".
Do I misunderstand this? How do you understand it?
Do I misunderstand this?
yes, here are the verses in question:
quote:Pro 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Pro 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
both contain the phrase in question, so you cannot use it to make a meaningful distinction between them. maybe it has a double meaning -- but iano has not attempted to argue that point at all.
Oh, :( I should learn not to jump in with a flawed memory of events. Ok, I don't see how the contraction can be explained away then.
Thanks for the thanks Iano but I think you have to withdraw it now. :(
i thought your opinion was pretty evident. iano thinks that you still agree with his point, and is somehow failing to understand your retraction on the grounds that he made a false distinction.