Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
This is a little off-topic, but it's interesting. What leads you to believe that Jesus means within a "certain arena of sinfulness"? It makes more sense to me as being more general. Take into account the "cast the first stone" passage. I look at it as a caution against pointing to others while you've yet to get your own house in order - the "there are others worse than me" rationalization.
Since it is clear that every one is sinful to one degree or another, one
would be forced to conclude that everyone is a hypocrite. But certainly
that can't be true. Because I have lied in the past at one time or another,
but have repented and made amends does not make me 'a liar.' Consequently,
I have the right to judge a liar, to chastise them and insist that they
desist from such behavior. I am righteous in so doing. However, if I
am a liar -- lying regularly whenever I am pressed with a difficult scenario --
then I ought to 'clean my own house,' as you said, before casting judgment.
Regarding the woman caught in adultery, I do not think that Jesus was
asking people to suspend judgment (He Himself instructed her to avoid
the sin in the future), but to suspend executing the sentence imposed
by Mosaic Law, in all likelihood opining that stoning someone for adultery
is a barbaric practice not commensurate with the general values He seemed
to have espoused.
I'll ask you the same question as I asked KM: When would someone appropriately invoke that verse as a defense?
I would say that the person could justly invoke this verse as a defense
whenever an individual pronouncing judgment was themselves a sinner
in the same fashion.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeYou are absolutely right, and I think that's what ThinkOfOne was observing,
Disagreeing with someone's opinion or actions doesn't entail "judging" in the Biblical sense. It is something completely different.
"Don't judge me" usually is an authoritarian and sometimes even arrogant attempt to smother criticism.
that the 'Don't Judge Me' defense is a way to avoid accountability for
one's actions.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ivanhoeI agree that it's an "attempt to smother criticism".
Disagreeing with someone's opinion or actions doesn't entail "judging" in the Biblical sense. It is something completely different.
"Don't judge me" usually is an authoritarian and sometimes even arrogant attempt to smother criticism.
What do you see as "judging in the Biblical sense"? What do you see as the dividing line?
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]I guess the point I was trying to make with the "cast the first stone" reference wasn't as evident as I thought. The point is that Jesus seems to indicate that sin is sin when it comes to being fit to judge. I don't see any compartmentalization going on there. If the point was purely about stoning being against His values, He could have just said so. I still don't understand how you draw the conclusion that it's on a 'sin by sin' basis rather than some sort of aggregation.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]This is a little off-topic, but it's interesting. What leads you to believe that Jesus means within a "certain arena of sinfulness"? It makes more sense to me as being more general. Take into account the "cast the first stone" passage. I look at it as a caution against pointing to others while you've yet to get your dual pronouncing judgment was themselves a sinner
in the same fashion.
Nemesio
Even if the individual pronouncing judgement was a sinner in the same fashion, I don't see the verse as being a just defense. It would be a "you're a sinner too" defense which in my mind doesn't at all defend his own sin.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe verse doesn't validate the sinners sin. It's not an instruction for
Even if the individual pronouncing judgement was a sinner in the same fashion, I don't see the verse as being a just defense. It would be a "you're a sinner too" defense which in my mind doesn't at all defend his own sin.
the one being judged, but the judger; that is, before you judge, be sure
that you are in a position in which your example lends authority to your
judgment. If you yourself are an adulterer, your admonition to your
bother to stop adulterering will go unheeded -- that is, your judgment
will serve no advisory value to your brother or sister -- because they
will be focusing on you rather than your own sin.
My answer was unclear. A person may invoke this passage as a way
of rebuking his hypocritical brother, but it never validates his own sin.
Nemesio
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWhat? Judge not that you be not judged (Matt. 7:1)?
I'll ask you the same question as I asked KM: When would someone appropriately invoke that verse as a defense?
Personally, I would apply the verse more often towards myself rather than look to use it as a defense.
See also verses like it:
James 4:11,12
James 5:9
James 2:13 **
1 Cor. 4:5
Romans 14:3,4
Oh, I envy you guys so much ! I do. Now you have the great adventure of looking up all of these wonderful passages for yourselves and reading them.
The sheer joy of it! Happy treasure hunting !
Read em out loud.
Originally posted by NemesioI really don't think it's about whether or not your brother or sister will heed you, but rather that your concern should be with overcoming all sin.
The verse doesn't validate the sinners sin. It's not an instruction for
the one being judged, but the judger; that is, before you judge, be sure
that you are in a position in which your example lends authority to your
judgment. If you yourself are an adulterer, your admonition to your
bother to stop adulterering will go unheeded -- that is, your judgme ...[text shortened]... as a way
of rebuking his hypocritical brother, but it never validates his own sin.
Nemesio
You haven't provided any scriptural evidence for thinking that it's on a 'sin by sin' basis. What do you think about a serial killer who doesn't lie admonishing his brother for lying? Seems to me that he's got a an extremely big log in his eye.
Nemesio,
On one hand as a Christian it is not easy to rebuke someone. Like a doctor who operates has to be clean, so to exhort of rebuke someone you should be clean in your thought, clean in your motive, clean in your intention. You do not want germs to enter into the patient.
On the other hand, if you are the one being rebuked, don't decide whether or not to listen based on how you ascertain the other's motive. Just take it without trying to judge how pure the other person is.
Then you will be blessed in your humility.
So on one side, as Christians, we should not think it is easy to rebuke someone. But on the other side, don't reject exhortation because you determine that the other party is not perfect.
Take it and pray about it. God will bless you because of your humility.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneTo judge someone is to place oneself above that person in a God like position which is contrary to NT teachings that teach we are all equal before God. ( "..all have sinned and fallen short etc " )
I've seen it used as an attempted defense quite a bit. That's not what I was asking. So again, when would someone appropriately invoke that verse as a defense?
I'm still having trouble understanding your dividing line. Let's try something more concrete: A person is in favor of the death penalty but says to himself, "I forgive you as a person because I recognise that you are still a creation of God". Which side is this person on?
If someone was judging me in this way I might point out that the standards they are using to judge me could be justifiably used by God to judge them also so it might not be something they particularly wanted to do.
I might use this verse to point out that no-one is in a position to judge and link it with what Jesus said about "forgive and you will also will be forgiven" (is that the same verse , can't remember right now).
Mind you this would not exactly be a defence for myself but more an attempt to educate. It would also depend on how the judgement was being made (eg constructive criticism or condemnation).
As to the death penalty thing I would say that someone who supports the death penalty probably falls on the wrong side of the dividing line.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI think the general overall point being made by jesus is that we are not fit to judge and are not likely to be fit to judge either.
I guess the point I was trying to make with the "cast the first stone" reference wasn't as evident as I thought. The point is that Jesus seems to indicate that sin is sin when it comes to being fit to judge. I don't see any compartmentalization going on there. If the point was purely about stoning being against His values, He could have just said so. ...[text shortened]... a "you're a sinner too" defense which in my mind doesn't at all defend his own sin.[/b]
What we need to be clear about here is the distinction between
1) "passing judgement" on a person themsleves and
2) offering some constructive criticism of their actions.
Item 1) is all about subtley saying " I am a better person than you and you are less worthy than me before God and therefore I see fit to pass judgement on you as a person - (leads to stoning/punishment)
Item 2) is all about I am not better than you are but in this case I can see where you are going astray (leads to correction/ education)
The one question we should ask in all this is how on earth are we able to judge anyway? God is in the unique position of knowing every hair on that person's head and every single life experience and everything about their make up that makes them ...well them. Therefore he has all the information to make a judgement. We do not. We have no way of knowing that if we had walked in that person's shoes we might be doing a lot worse than them anyway.
Originally posted by knightmeisterInfinite knowledge is not required. Nor is knowledge of what we would have done in similar circumstances.
The one question we should ask in all this is how on earth are we able to judge anyway? God is in the unique position of knowing every hair on that person's head and every single life experience and everything about their make up that makes them ...well them. Therefore he has all the information to make a judgement. We do not. We have no way of knowing that if we had walked in that person's shoes we might be doing a lot worse than them anyway.
If you tell a lie, I may be able to tell that it is a lie whether or not I have infinite knowledge etc etc. I can therefore judge that you are a liar and tell you so. The same goes for other sins.
I may not have the right to impose punishment on you, but then I question Gods right to do that too. I question punishment based on a book of rules system. Even if God knows what I did, down to every detail of every atom in my body, his judgment that my particular sin is worth say 5 years 3 days and 7 seconds in hell is nevertheless completely arbitrary in that it is not based on some fundamental logic of the universe but rather on some whim of God.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe point is that God knows exactly why a person does what they do and whether they have an excuse or not. Because he knows you intimately he knows exactly what you are capable of and not capable of. He can therefore judge you fairly based on that knowledge . I cannot judge you because I simply don't know you well enough.
Infinite knowledge is not required. Nor is knowledge of what we would have done in similar circumstances.
If you tell a lie, I may be able to tell that it is a lie whether or not I have infinite knowledge etc etc. I can therefore judge that you are a liar and tell you so. The same goes for other sins.
I may not have the right to impose punishment on you ...[text shortened]... n that it is not based on some fundamental logic of the universe but rather on some whim of God.