Biblical discussion on judging others

Originally posted by Alliance
The gift understanding being the Christian faith....

I don't think you can reconcile...you need people to judge to keep them away from other faiths and in "the right path." However, you don't want it to come to the point where everyone condemns every one else within your own religoin. Thus...you make two contradictory statements to attempt to keep a balance.

Or...the people who wrote the book were just morons.

It seems to me to be one or the other 😆

To judge one's "actions" is the same thing as judging the person. You don't know the intent or motive or situation to successfully judge someone else's actions. So don't claim to.

Christian Faith does not equal understanding...my intepretations of a situation could be just as valid or invalid as your own.

Do you have the right to judge? I don't know, but we all engage in judgement don't we ? The only difference is I don't claim my judgement is righteous or fair , while you will argue that yours is. 🙄

Judgement is bias..plain and simple. There is no "fair judgement" when it comes to human intepretation.

Originally posted by docb77
Before I start, let me just say that I actually agree with Regret on this, I do think that there are opposing viewpoints though, so for just a moment I'm going to play devil's advocate.

Here are a few verses that suggest that judging is allowable at times:

So there's my bit as devils advocate, of course even if you take the view that these call for judging of others, you have to at the same time keep in mind all the rest about loving thy neighbor, and turning the other cheek, and all that.

I would state that these are speaking of teaching and judging the "people", not judging those that are not of the "people." Also, judging whether one, meaning oneself, should do something or not do something is not the same as judging the actions of another. Reproof and correction is different than judging also, but even this is reserved for the "people."

I feel that scripture should not contradict, and so I would lean towards an interpretation that doesn't require contradiction. Also, I would err on the side of caution, many verses that speak of the saints judging use the term shall, or other future tense. It is not necessarily the case that this future tense has reached present/past yet, particularly when the scripture references Christ's second coming.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Aren't all those quotes from Old Testament?

Old and New Testament should not contradict. Teachings of behavior should be consistent, method of enforcement may not necessarily be. Judging another is typically deemed acceptable in law if one is in the position of judge or similar, so verse referring to one in designated judgement seat would be allowed to judge based on the law without fear of religious reproof. These positions are discussed in the Old Testament frequently and would not be valid if the position is not currently in place.

Originally posted by Alliance
Corinthians is NT.

The bible is contradictory...

Its full of incidences where public stoning is recommended...the new testament however, as a general stance, moves judgement away from humans and puts it in gods hands.

Thats the problem with literalism though. When things contradict, people ignore it and choose a side. This combined with the general vagueness of the Bible, creates multiple literalisms...which can be easily exploited by lets say....certain movements.

There isn't contradiction, Jesus merely stated that his followers should not judge another if they aren't perfect, and then said his followers weren't perfect neither could be before judgement.

I view it as man(entire species through time) is a child, God is the parent, as a child matures the methods used for discipline change. I believe that man as a species has matured through history. I do believe the methods applied in the old testament were warranted given Israel's behavior at Sinai. They had seen miracles on a scope that no one had previously witnessed, and they still built the Golden Calf. I would state that they seemed a bit slow in learning. Also, discipline tends to follow knowledge, these people had very close in time miracles on a highly frequent basis, if discipline is more harsh with knowledge it stands to reason that theirs should have been more harsh.

Originally posted by docb77
Actually, in this instance, I think there may be a way to reconcile the 2 positions.

When we're told not to judge, that's referring to judgement of people. We have no way of knowing what's actually in their hearts, God does. That's why judgement is reserved for Him.

On the other hand, the verses I gave told us that we should judge. We've already said that we shouldn't judge people, so what's left? If we read the verses I gave in context they're generally talking about judging between good and evil. So since we can't judge peoples intentions, we are left with judging situations and actions. By their fruits ye shall know them and all that jazz.

So one possible reconciliation is:

Judge people = big no-no
Judge environment/actions = ok if we have the gift of understanding

Agreed, I'm sorry I missed this before my other post.

Originally posted by Alliance
The gift understanding being the Christian faith....

I don't think you can reconcile...you need people to judge to keep them away from other faiths and in "the right path." However, you don't want it to come to the point where everyone condemns every one else within your own religoin. Thus...you make two contradictory statements to attempt to keep a balance.

Or...the people who wrote the book were just morons.

I think the contradiction is perceived through the actions of much of Christianity, I don't think it is necessarily that of the text.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It seems to me to be one or the other 😆

To judge one's "actions" is the same thing as judging the person. You don't know the intent or motive or situation to successfully judge someone else's actions. So don't claim to.

Christian Faith does not equal understanding...my intepretations of a situation could be just as valid or invalid as your own.

Do you have the right to judge? I don't know, but we all engage in judgement don't we ? The only difference is I don't claim my judgement is righteous or fair , while you will argue that yours is. 🙄

Judgement is bias..plain and simple. There is no "fair judgement" when it comes to human intepretation.

Judging one's own actions, not other people's actions. The Bible says stay away from things you shouldn't do, or in other words, judge what things you will be a part of or not.

Originally posted by Alliance
The gift understanding being the Christian faith....

I don't think you can reconcile...you need people to judge to keep them away from other faiths and in "the right path." However, you don't want it to come to the point where everyone condemns every one else within your own religoin. Thus...you make two contradictory statements to attempt to keep a balance.

Or...the people who wrote the book were just morons.

No, the gift of understanding is completely separate from the christian faith. Paul gives a sermon in one of his epistles that basically says that God gives all men gifts, he lists charity/love as being the best, but also mentions others. I don't see why understaning or discernment couldn't be one.

I don't see the point of the rest of your rant. Isn't it possible to say that stealing or murder is wrong without presuming to know the intent of other peoples hearts?

Perhaps taken as a whole what it means is that while we shouldn't judge others we should judge what we choose to do ourselves.

Open your mind, sure they might be contradictory, but then again maybe it's your reading of them that's contradictory. Being stuck in a given paradigm makes it harder to see the truth. True in both science and religion.

Originally posted by docb77
No, the gift of understanding is completely separate from the christian faith. Paul gives a sermon in one of his epistles that basically says that God gives all men gifts, he lists charity/love as being the best, but also mentions others. I don't see why understaning or discernment couldn't be one.

I don't see the point of the rest of your rant. Isn't it possible to say that stealing or murder is wrong without presuming to know the intent of other peoples hearts?

Perhaps taken as a whole what it means is that while we shouldn't judge others we should judge what we choose to do ourselves.

Open your mind, sure they might be contradictory, but then again maybe it's your reading of them that's contradictory. Being stuck in a given paradigm makes it harder to see the truth. True in both science and religion.

It wasn't a rant at all, so "open your mind" to other possibilites.

I don't understand at all how half of what you said connects to your argument.

I disagreed with your original argument...especially "given the gift of understanding" I provided a simple rationalization on why the authors of the bible created contradictory statements.

So, because I stated a rationalization seperate to your own...I'm suddenly stuck in a paradigm?

Originally posted by Regret
There isn't contradiction, Jesus merely stated that his followers should not judge another if they aren't perfect, and then said his followers weren't perfect neither could be before judgement.

Wait. This does not contradict with statements in the OT that clearly give a list of reasons to use catpital punishment? I believe death is a pretty severe judgement.

Originally posted by Regret
if discipline is more harsh with knowledge it stands to reason that theirs should have been more harsh.

I don't understand. The "knowledge" didn't decrease between Moses and Christ, it increased. Given this logic, by the time Christ rolls around, if you f*ck up, you should really get it because "the son of god" has told you. You would expect NT punishment to be harsher than the OT.

* according to the Bible...

"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
Matthew 7:1

* this statement is true but to whom does this statement really applies to? let us continue...

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you.
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 cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."
Matthew 7:2-5

* those people who are hypocrites that always tend to judge others whilst they are the ones doing worse...

* the Bible also supplies that there are instances that people are permitted to judge but with this condition...

"Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment."
John 7:24

* it was somewhat synonymous to, "don't judge a book by its cover"... a good judgment is a righteous one... but to whom should people judge? can people judge everyone?

"But God will judge the ones outside. And you shall put out from yourselves the evil one."
I Corinthians 5:13

* people can judge righteously within their own group, those who are outside their group, it is God's judgment that should be respected...

* so basically, if a religious group professes that those people who are outside their Church will not be saved, then that group is not in accordance with the Bible... 😉

Originally posted by Alliance
It wasn't a rant at all, so "open your mind" to other possibilites.

I don't understand at all how half of what you said connects to your argument.

I disagreed with your original argument...especially "given the gift of understanding" I provided a simple rationalization on why the authors of the bible created contradictory statements.

So, because I stated a rationalization seperate to your own...I'm suddenly stuck in a paradigm?

Sorry, I misunderstood. please accept my apology. I'm used to the bible being bashed and disregarded in many of these threads. But, it was rash of me to call your post a rant.

I agree, some christians might think that "being saved" is the gift that allows some kind of superior judgement.

I do still hold that most of the Bible "contradictions" can be reconciled once we understand the intent of the authors.

No problem 😛. This is the "Judgement" thread.

I'm just saying that the Bible also was used and serves as a very political tool. It is possible, if you believe that the writers intent was to create such a tool, to explain contradictions as intentional.

The NT authors could have been taken aback by the OT's seemingly condemning nature and post-Christ decided to modify it, retaining a sense of religious identity, but also introducing a sense of restraint and reservation.

Originally posted by Regret
Judging one's own actions, not other people's actions. The Bible says stay away from things you shouldn't do, or in other words, judge what things you will be a part of or not.

That is different. I thought Docb77 was saying that as long as you are a "good Christian" who turns away from "sin", then that gives you the right to judge other people.

You can judge yourself, as long as it causes you no harm. To judge yourself too much, however, can be self destructive. You are still human no matter what, and should give yourself some lee way, because you can never be "perfect". Wouldn't you agree ?

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That is different. I thought Docb77 was saying that as long as you are a "good Christian" who turns away from "sin", then that gives you the right to judge other people.

You can judge yourself, as long as it causes you no harm. To judge yourself too much, however, can be self destructive. You are still human no matter what, and should give yourself some lee way, because you can never be "perfect". Wouldn't you agree ?

Nah, I don't think whether or not a person is a christian has anything to do with whether or not they've got good judgement. I doubt anyone would say Confucius had bad judgement.

I think when you take all the verses together they just mean "keep your nose out of things you don't know anything about".

I doubt they mean that a judge in the legal system shouldn't do his job, or a cop. They could be telling us to use a little common sense, wisdom you know.

Originally posted by docb77
Nah, I don't think whether or not a person is a christian has anything to do with whether or not they've got good judgement. I doubt anyone would say Confucius had bad judgement.

I think when you take all the verses together they just mean "keep your nose out of things you don't know anything about".

I doubt they mean that a judge in the legal system shouldn't do his job, or a cop. They could be telling us to use a little common sense, wisdom you know.

Fair Enough. However, I think Laws should stay as being created by mutual agreement, rather than on the foundations of a 2000 year old book.

But is popular opinon always right?

Originally posted by Alliance
But is popular opinon always right?

Not always, but if we make the wrong choice, we kind of deserve what we get. Don't you think?

Originally posted by Alliance
Wait. This does not contradict with statements in the OT that clearly give a list of reasons to use catpital punishment? I believe death is a pretty severe judgement.

Old Testament statement was written for preservation of the Hebrew religion, and is written for people that have a prophet of God with them. They had near constant divine communication. Also, as to the contradiction between OT and NT, Jesus wasn't teaching people who had just left a strongly idol worshipping culture. He did not have to stop those behaviors. To take a common behavioral quote, punishment must be instant and severe to alter behavior effectively. God needed to change the behavior of the Israelites leaving Egypt. At the time of Jesus, the behavior of the Jews was not in need of altering. Behavior needed to be shaped. The difference between shaping and punishing is great, shaping involves reinforcement of proper behavior, punishment is self explanatory. Given the spread of Christianity the behavior was shaped fairly well for its purpose.

So, in summation, I would just state that the religious behavior of Israel at the time of Moses compared to the time of Christ was very much different, single subject design relies on the individual for the baseline to which treatment is to be applied. Two treatments were used, they are not in conflict, they treated two separate behavioral modifications. The first brought israel from a state of idol worship to the point of ignoring seeing God in a cloud and pillar of fire to a point of fanatical observance of the treatment provided. The second, similar, brought man, through the use of Israel (the Jews), to an understanding of the overall intent of Hebrew/Christian religion, to a point that has once again become fanatical (e.g. JIA, JBF, etc.) Once again the treatment has begun, for a third stage in the modification of man's behavior. They do not conflict, their subject has merely altered, and so must the treatment.

Originally posted by Alliance
I don't understand. The "knowledge" didn't decrease between Moses and Christ, it increased. Given this logic, by the time Christ rolls around, if you f*ck up, you should really get it because "the son of god" has told you. You would expect NT punishment to be harsher than the OT.

Knowledge has altered. Prior to Christ, miracles and prophets abounded. Following Christ it appears that the two have been nearly absent, the Christian religions cannot agree on if miracles have happened, and they deny that prophets have. There is no longer the knowledge as it existed during the OT. The NT has governed life in Christianity for nearly two thousand years, it was written for that period of time. The OT and NT are not unnecessary, they are evidence of a treatment that worked, they should be studied for their impact on their subject and their description of the treatment from the subjects view.

This, is my view, in a way. It isn't necessarily absolute and it evolved as I considered your remarks, and may evolve further. I also believe varying perspectives exist, and so I look at it from varying perspectives, some fall away due to an evidence making that view wrong. Some persist and depending on what area of thought I am studying, I will shift from one view to another. Urizen has commented on this from time to time, and gets frustrated if it occurs while speaking with him, so if it happens in the future I apologize.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
That is different. I thought Docb77 was saying that as long as you are a "good Christian" who turns away from "sin", then that gives you the right to judge other people.

I think that is what occurs in many Christians, but I don't think it was Docb's intent.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You can judge yourself, as long as it causes you no harm. To judge yourself too much, however, can be self destructive. You are still human no matter what, and should give yourself some lee way, because you can never be "perfect". Wouldn't you agree ?

I believe we can't judge ourselves either. We should merely attempt to do good and show charity to everyone as frequently as possible, we should live to serve others. This should be our goal, imo, to impact as many individuals in a positive manner while we have the ability, with no regard to our personal "salvation", "heaven", "reward", etc. Perfection isn't the goal, near perfection might be a byproduct to achieving this though, but in this life? Doubtful we'd get close. Perfection is not a goal, it is a marker reminding a person of his position as an equal to most people in position by comparison.