Judgement

[BadBadBad]

Is religion a basis to judge other people? Is sin a differentiator amongst men? I'm not just asking in an ideological way. I mean in reality. I mean historically? This concept seems to be under attack here. There is a denial of what I see as this basic fact of religion. So, I'd like to talk about human judgement based upon sin and the denial.

So let's start with the denial:

I ideologically condemn any Man killing anyone based on his/her own internal rationalization

Now in all previous cases:

Why would I judge Him? I am not qualified.
I do not judge you or your salvation.
I don't judge you
My judge is God.
You are not qualified to judge since you are not God.
Certainly I care, but ultimately, God is the Judge, I am not qualified to say a day or age.
I am not qualified to judge. God does
I am not the judge, He is

etc, etc, etc

[Spanish_Inquisitor]

I think I see where you're heading with this. :D

It's one of the things that really burned me about Xtians when I was one.

SI

[NearNihil Experience]

Is religion a basis to judge other people?

No, but the power to irrevocably destroy them is...you know, the natural state of affairs.

Now whether you deffer your power position to an invisible, possibly imaginary being, is up to you.

[Plognark]

For a *lot* of people i've known IRL and online it seems to be that Christianity is a huge tool to use to judge and condemn the fuck out of anyone and everyone while simultaneously claiming that it's just god judging them.

It shouldn't be this way, but that's how it gets used more often than not. I can think of few things that are more riddled with hypocricy in this world than the self righteous contempt and subsequent automatic denial displayed by many Christians.

Again, this is just based on my own experiences. YMMV.

[BadBadBad]

I'm just trying to understand why Christians would deny that. This judgement thing is a double speak term, just like so many others. When they're talking ideologically then, 2+2=5 and they are absolutely convinced of it. They would deny ever using 2+2=4 because that would be false. Only when they're talking about math, it's clear that they're doing math with 2+2=4, only they won't admit it. This is what strikes me about judgement.

We're told that True Christians don't judge us for our sin. They don't look down us. We'd be welcome in their churches, as long as we aren't "disruptive." They welcome us as friends. In fact, their best friends are atheists. We're assured they don't judge us. Like JDLongmire has said over and over and over. "I'm not qualified to judge."

Only, that's sure not what Christianity is or ever has been. I'm judged and looked down upon for my religious beliefs all the time. There's a horrible history of it.

Why deny it?

[BadBadBad]

It shouldn't be this way, but that's how it gets used more often than not.

Why not? That's what the Christians like Longmire would assure me. His doctrine doesn't allow it. Yet there he is finally doing it. Of course if he was here, he'd deny it even while looking at in black and white. Why shouldn't Christians judge and look down on people because of their sin against the God they worship and center their lives around. They do it anyway, but why shouldn't they?

[Wallener]

It has nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion - it has to do with our makeup as a species. In the 19th century scientists were falling all over themselves to come up with ways of condemning people based on their facial and cranial features. Today businesses are using geneticists and statiticians - scientists, both - to try and find ways to condemn people based on their DNA so execs can take home bigger performance bonuses.

'Round and round it goes...Christianity is (some) people's (current) excuse, but judgmentalism is a root feature of our makeup. (Those forms of) Religion aren't a cause, they are a symptom.

[DBT]

It has nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion - it has to do with our makeup as a species. In the 19th century scientists were falling all over themselves to come up with ways of condemning people based on their facial and cranial features. Today businesses are using geneticists and statiticians - scientists, both - to try and find ways to condemn people based on their DNA so execs can take home bigger performance bonuses.

'Round and round it goes...Christianity is (some) people's (current) excuse, but judgmentalism is a root feature of our makeup. (Those forms of) Religion aren't a cause, they're a symptom.

Exactly so.

[BadBadBad]

It has nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion - it has to do with our makeup as a species. In the 19th century scientists were falling all over themselves to come up with ways of condemning people based on their facial and cranial features. Today businesses are using geneticists and statiticians - scientists, both - to try and find ways to condemn people based on their DNA so execs can take home bigger performance bonuses.

'Round and round it goes...Christianity is (some) people's (current) excuse, but judgmentalism is a root feature of our makeup. (Those forms of) Religion aren't a cause, they are a symptom.

But why the doublespeak? Why admit it and deny it simultaneously?

Maybe I do understand it. When my grandmother would refer to blacks as niggers, she would deny she meant anything derogatory about it, nor that she felt superior to blacks in any way. Only on further discussion, you could see that she did buy into the biggoted racist stereotypes.

If I judge people, I don't deny it. I look down upon pedophiles. If one moved next door, I would look down upon him. I wouldn't deny it. If it's sound judgement, why deny it?

[DBT]

But why the doublespeak? Why admit it and deny it simultaneously?



I think that it's a form of denial...on the one hand believing that they shouldn't judge others because that is what God wants from them,and on the other hand, due to our basic human makeup...unable to avoid it.

[seebs]

The desire to judge others is fundamental to humanity.

Religion, politics, you name it; if we have groups, we judge members of other groups.

Christianity explicitly disclaims, and even forbids, such judgment, but this is generally overlooked because it would take all the fun out of things.

We see here the gap between theory and practice, which is rarely so wide in any field as it is in philosophy, and particularly in morality.

[sharon45]

The double-talk centers from within the NT, and christians are just merely following the master.

[I. C. Unicorns]

I'm too busy nattering on and on about how God is going to judge you for me to pass judgment.

Do I have the hang of it?

[BadBadBad]

Do I have the hang of it?

Man, that was a good one.

[BadBadBad]

The desire to judge others is fundamental to humanity.

Religion, politics, you name it; if we have groups, we judge members of other groups.

Christianity explicitly disclaims, and even forbids, such judgment, but this is generally overlooked because it would take all the fun out of things.

We see here the gap between theory and practice, which is rarely so wide in any field as it is in philosophy, and particularly in morality.


This is contradictory to what you've said before Seebs. You said you were going to "ignore" the secondary dictionary definition of the word sinner as a derogatory term because

I'm not going to let some dipshit on a street corner take away a perfectly good term of art because he gets a giant woody from imagining the smell of burning flesh.

Yet now you seem to recognize that it's inevitable human nature that people will by their very nature judge others by group and action? So are you agreeing now that sin is a basis for judging and dicriminating amongst men?

[BadBadBad]

No, but the power to irrevocably destroy them is...you know, the natural state of affairs.

Now whether you deffer your power position to an invisible, possibly imaginary being, is up to you.

Hmmm, that's an interesting statement. I wasn't even referring to religion as an entity. I really just meant is religious dogma a basis for judgement and discrimination? If you look at if from a power point of view that's a little different. Discrimination and judgement is used as a tool to gain power. Would you argue that as a result that religion uses that tool as a primary means to gain power?

Also, from the perspective of power, the means of judgement is really irrelevant isn't it? It doesn't really matter what the discrimination is over, only that there is a basis to discriminate as a tool to further power.

[Spanish_Inquisitor]

Christianity explicitly disclaims, and even forbids, such judgment, but this is generally overlooked because it would take all the fun out of things.
Aha! So you ADMIT that Christianity is an essentially joyless institution? :D I knew it!

SI

[seebs]

Aha! So you ADMIT that Christianity is an essentially joyless institution? :D I knew it!

It certainly rejects one of the primary standards of enjoyment or value that humans have pursued since time immemorial, that being the joy of being smugly sure that one is better than someone else.

[seebs]

This is contradictory to what you've said before Seebs. You said you were going to "ignore" the secondary dictionary definition of the word sinner as a derogatory term because

And in my own usage, I do. It's a useless definition which is wholly interchangeable with "theist", "black", "white", "Jew", or any other word intended to denote "everyone but us".

Yet now you seem to recognize that it's inevitable human nature that people will by their very nature judge others by group and action? So are you agreeing now that sin is a basis for judging and dicriminating amongst men?

About as much as bilateral symmetry is; if one didn't know what it meant, one could cheerfully accuse others of being bilaterally symmetrical, and intend it as an insult and a distinction between them and one's in-group.

[CowboyHeretic]

Religious institutions have taken it upon themselves to judge people. Jesus taught that there is only one judge, G-d. If a person chooses not to believe then that person has rejected G-ds judgement and forfeits any chance of salvation. There are those who have been taught wrong things but believe them sincerely, I can not reconcile that G-d would judge someone harshly for having a "bad" teacher. I would suggest that the parable of the good samaritan was the best biblical example of this concept.

[Spanish_Inquisitor]

It certainly rejects one of the primary standards of enjoyment or value that humans have pursued since time immemorial, that being the joy of being smugly sure that one is better than someone else.
And let's not forget the Joy of Sex. :rolling:

SI

[mikey1987]

Religious institutions have taken it upon themselves to judge people. Jesus taught that there is only one judge, G-d. If a person chooses not to believe then that person has rejected G-ds judgement and forfeits any chance of salvation. There are those who have been taught wrong things but believe them sincerely, I can not reconcile that G-d would judge someone harshly for having a "bad" teacher. I would suggest that the parable of the good samaritan was the best biblical example of this concept.
Let me ask you some questions then:

Did Jesus die for the sins of all mankind?
Are non-beleivers part of mankind?
Is non-belief a sin?

If you answered yes to the following questions, you'd see a contradiction in "faith" for salvation. If you'd say that you have to accept Jesus in the first place, it merely becomes circular logic.

[CowboyHeretic]

Jesus died as the supreme and final sacrifice under the temple law. Jesus prophesied that the destructiion of the temple was at hand and sure enough it was destroyed in 70AD.

Non-Believers are human beings.

The rejection of G-d's authority is sin. A believer can reject G-ds Law. Many believers want to be eclectic in thier beliefs, This has caused many to view religion as hypocritical.

[seebs]

And let's not forget the Joy of Sex. :rolling:

Nah, sex is fine.

[Angrillori]

Jesus died as the supreme and final sacrifice under the temple law. Jesus prophesied that the destructiion of the temple was at hand and sure enough it was destroyed in 70AD.
I'm sorry, I took a rather exhaustive search through temple law a while ago, and nowhere did I see "human/god hybrid" listed as an appropriate sin sacrifice. Did I miss something somewhere? The law was pretty thourough. It was pretty exact about what sins required what sacrifices. Didn't see man/god on the list anywhere...

The rejection of G-d's authority is sin. A believer can reject G-ds Law. Many believers want to be eclectic in thier beliefs, This has caused many to view religion as hypocritical.
Furthermore, if you're not going to be eclectic in your beliefs, then I take it you're a slaveowner who beats his slaves right up to the point of almost death? And that I'll see you on my doorstep soon with a sack of stones? That you truly do unto others? (Well, I know you don't do that from the other thread where you felt it was okay to call atheists insane, even though you would rather have them not do so unto you.)

[mikey1987]

Non-Believers are human beings.

The rejection of G-d's authority is sin. A believer can reject G-ds Law. Many believers want to be eclectic in thier beliefs, This has caused many to view religion as hypocritical.
Then how do you reconcile Jesus' atonement for all sins? Did he just atone for the sins of all beleivers? Do you have to accept him and THEN your sins are forgiven? You've basically just admitted to believing a contradiction.

[sharon45]

It certainly rejects one of the primary standards of enjoyment or value that humans have pursued since time immemorial, that being the joy of being smugly sure that one is better than someone else.And where would this sentiment be consistently portrayed and supported since it clearly is quite the contrary from within a lot of the NT?

[sharon45]

Religious institutions have taken it upon themselves to judge people.Some have.

Jesus taught that there is only one judge, G-d.Wrong. He also mistakenly assumes himself as a judge of the people he was around in the gospel writings and as the final judge.

If a person chooses not to believe then that person has rejected G-ds judgement and forfeits any chance of salvation.Believe in what? Following the flawed teachings and misconceptions of a false prophet?

There are those who have been taught wrong things but believe them sincerely, I can not reconcile that G-d would judge someone harshly for having a "bad" teacher.Well, that idea is not really supported by the NT either.

I would suggest that the parable of the good samaritan was the best biblical example of this concept.That overdone story is just more evidence to the confusion which is caused by the NT's thorough lack of a properly supported and consistently central ideology.

[sharon45]

Jesus died as the supreme and final sacrifice under the temple law.Wrong. There is no such thing as a "final sacrifice" and a human sacrifice was strictly forbidden. The Torah contains what is permitted as acceptable for sin sacrifices.

Jesus prophesied that the destructiion of the temple was at hand and sure enough it was destroyed in 70AD.First, it is debatable of whether the actual Temple was indeed the focus for that so-called prediction.

Second, I could have easily predicted its destruction as well since it was already destroyed once before and while the Jews were helplessly controled by Rome, the Temple would have been obviously known as the symbol which kept the Jews the most united.

The rejection of G-d's authority is sin.Which god? In the bible there are a few.

A believer can reject G-ds Law. Many believers want to be eclectic in thier beliefs, This has caused many to view religion as hypocritical.Religion doesn't have to be viewed as such, but christianity is, even though there is nothing that much established in the NT to be counted as a "law".

[seebs]

And where would this sentiment be consistently portrayed and supported since it clearly is quite the contrary from within a lot of the NT?

Jesus washing peoples' feet would be a good start.

[sharon45]

Jesus washing peoples' feet would be a good start.No, once again. Jesus surely can't be used anywhere near as a consistent example of such a sentiment.

[seebs]

No, once again. Jesus surely can't be used anywhere near as a consistent example of such a sentiment.

The foot-washing is certainly a strong example. I'm not sure how "consistent" it is, but I don't see much to the contrary.

[NearNihil Experience]

Hmmm, that's an interesting statement. I wasn't even referring to religion as an entity. I really just meant is religious dogma a basis for judgement and discrimination? If you look at if from a power point of view that's a little different. Discrimination and judgement is used as a tool to gain power. Would you argue that as a result that religion uses that tool as a primary means to gain power?

Also, from the perspective of power, the means of judgement is really irrelevant isn't it? It doesn't really matter what the discrimination is over, only that there is a basis to discriminate as a tool to further power.

Well, religious dogma is certainly a relative term when used sets of morals and discriminations become apparent. If you were asking if religious dogma can provide an objective moral or ethical code...well, its only as objective as
any other ad hoc\ad populum set of guides and mores.

I find the ability to judge and discriminate is the sole province of those with the power to do so and still hold on to their power position. This is more confusing in todays world because power has been shifted towards groups instead of individuals. Like I have said in the past, whether execution or mercy, only those in a position to provide such are the ones in power. Whether come dogmas from friend or foe, those dogmas only have the bite that their master wills and can only survive as long as the master feeds it.

Just saying "thou shalt not steal (or else)" does nothing compared to putting locks on all of the citizens doors. Just putting up a stop sign does nothing to stop and oncoming car as a raising barrier. There is power in facticity that is not present in dogma. The judgements provided from dogma ring hollow as the are prescriptive, not injunctive. They only work if you can scare someone into thinking someone is watching all the time and will to unleash fury at the first sign of breaking with the dogmas.

So no,I don't think dogma provdes a sound basis for judgement as they are still enforced through fear and tongue wagging...not direct consequence or prevention. You don't want stealing, outlaw personal property.You don't want speeding, don't allow cars to be made that go very fast. All of these, before made into injunctions require the position of power. From there, one is free to create dogmas all they like and say "boo" to all they will. But Man is still a little child,a monkey, a pet who know when something is forbidden and thereby give them something to "get away with". The key, is to effectivly take away th option to not obey by constituting a system where judgements and discriminitions are are bound to the actions in which they relate.


Sorry that was a little all over the place...but I hope it cleared up what I meant a little. :wave:

[BadBadBad]

So no,I don't think dogma provdes a sound basis for judgement as they are still enforced through fear and tongue wagging...not direct consequence or prevention.

First, I think you are underestimating the power of "tongue wagging." Try telling a grade schooler that name calling, teasing, and taunting has no power over him. If the kid is obnoxious and he gets picked on, that's a pretty powerful consequence that influences conformity. Second, the groups with power are trying to repeat history in putting their judgement to work for them, even the liberal ones who sit in the fundamental churches and mosques. And still, my question is why deny it? Why deny the history of it?

If they believe the dogma is a sound basis for discrimination and judgement, why deny, like Longmire has over and over, that he condemns people for non-conformity to his dogma? He admits openly to condemning homosexuals and murderers, but then insists over and over that he's not fit for judgement. Yet in the end, he admits it. Why not just admit that it's OK to look down on people that refuse to conform to your dogma, when you believe your dogma is so all important?

I look down on pedophiles. Given the opportunity, I'd humiliate, austricize, beat, kill, insult, control etc, etc. I'm proud to admit I would participate willingly in any manner of exertion of power to force conformity to my set of morals. Christians have historically done that as well. Why deny it now? Why shy away from it now?

[sharon45]

The foot-washing is certainly a strong example. I'm not sure how "consistent" it is, but I don't see much to the contrary.It is a given example, but it still does not support your assumption. Jesus is not lowering himself here. If anything, this is only yet another "message" he wants to put forth. The message fails because it is not needed nor is it even consistent with most of his behavior in the gospel. "Consistent", as in keeping at least to what he teaches and claims. "Consistent", as in also keeping at least to what believers teach and claim. "Consistent", as in keeping to what the OT teaches and claims.

[CowboyHeretic]

You may choose to reject it. Does it follow that if someone gouges thier own eyes out that they can claim perpetual darkness even when standing in the light of day? The fault is not in the light but in the mind of the fool who blinds himself.

[NearNihil Experience]

First, I think you are underestimating the power of "tongue wagging." Try telling a grade schooler that name calling, teasing, and taunting has no power over him. If the kid is obnoxious and he gets picked on, that's a pretty powerful consequence that influences conformity. Second, the groups with power are trying to repeat history in putting their judgement to work for them, even the liberal ones who sit in the fundamental churches and mosques. And still, my question is why deny it? Why deny the history of it?

If they believe the dogma is a sound basis for discrimination and judgement, why deny, like Longmire has over and over, that he condemns people for non-conformity to his dogma? He admits openly to condemning homosexuals and murderers, but then insists over and over that he's not fit for judgement. Yet in the end, he admits it. Why not just admit that it's OK to look down on people that refuse to conform to your dogma, when you believe your dogma is so all important?

I look down on pedophiles. Given the opportunity, I'd humiliate, austricize, beat, kill, insult, control etc, etc. I'm proud to admit I would participate willingly in any manner of exertion of power to force conformity to my set of morals. Christians have historically done that as well. Why deny it now? Why shy away from it now?


Me, I wouldn't deny it. I'm a "will to power" \ "every man for himself" kind of guy. Indeed it takes more than a threat of force or demnation to swerve my moral and ethical terpitude. Telling me God is going to "get me" in the end does nothing to disuade me from my actions. Beating me unconscious will, however do more at preventing my actions and making me think twice about ever doing it again. Or if not physical, some like threating loved ones and such.

Why not just admit that it's OK to look down on people that refuse to conform to your dogma, when you believe your dogma is so all important?

This is interesting because most people I know, when forced into a moral quandry, giveup their dogmas and beliefs for a more effective solution. My best example has to be the those Christians forced into a kill or be killed situation. Its a rare Christian that believes in the promise of heaven strong enough to not take a life to save his own...even though this is the Christian dogma given them by Christ. Because most people arein a constant fear state, especially when confronted with mortal adversity. It chews up and spits out most peoples moral terpitude.

So,I think its a natural action to both know that your not supposed to pass judgement ...in accordance with certain dogmas...and say "even though I am passing judgement, God is going to carry out your 'real' judgement...my judgement is just a warning for you to change your ways to avoid the punishment I know you're in for." But then again most people are ruled by thier animal instincts...but some people can tame the animal and use it. Man is an animal...he's just the nastiest most prolific one right now.

[sharon45]

The fault is not in the light but in the mind of the fool who blinds himself.Agreed. The fault is not with the OT, it is with the christian who willfully ignores its messages.

[Kilgore Trout]

Aha! So you ADMIT that Christianity is an essentially joyless institution? http://www.iidb.org/ubb/biggrin.gif I knew it!
It certainly rejects one of the primary standards of enjoyment or value that humans have pursued since time immemorial, that being the joy of being smugly sure that one is better than someone else.Thinking you have some kind of main line connection to the creator of the universe automatically makes you smugly sure that you're better than everybody else.

The foot-washing is certainly a strong example. I'm not sure how "consistent" it is, but I don't see much to the contrary. I like the part where he says "Unless I wash you, you have no part with me." Yeah, he was really lowering himself here. Washing their feet by force.
It's certainly consistent with other places where he shows how patient, loving and non-judgemental he is, like matthew 17:14-18...

14When they came to the crowd, a man approached Jesus and knelt before him. 15"Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. "He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. 16I brought him to your disciples, but they could not heal him."
17"O unbelieving and perverse generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy here to me." 18Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of the boy, and he was healed from that moment.

He was a lot easier on them than I would have been. :thumbs:His disciples couldn't even perform a lousy miracle.

[Matt the Medic]

[What I wrote is the truth] You may choose to reject it. Does it follow that if someone gouges thier own eyes out that they can claim perpetual darkness even when standing in the light of day? The fault is not in the light but in the mind of the fool who blinds himself.

This post of yours does nothing to further discussion or debate for either side.

"What I write is the truth: Theists are naive and misguided. Their gods don't exist. You may choose to reject this. Does it follow that if someone gouges thier own eyes out that they can claim perpetual darkness even when standing in the light of day? The fault is not in the light but in the mind of the fool who blinds himself."

So we're back to were we started, aren't we. How productive.