Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged

This bit of scripture from Matthew has been called the nonbeliever’s favorite.  And, for good reason.  The condeming and demonizing activities by some Chirstians is a political gift to those who want to defeat conservative candidates and their ideas.

It is not so simple because we all make judgements.  We have to pick one loaf of bread and one political candidate over another.  Nonbelievers are judging believers when they condemn judgement.

There is a difference in how far people are willing to take their judgement of others.  One level is to privately make judgements, but never reveal this to those being judged.  A second level is to judge and let those being judged know about it.  The third level is to judge and put penalites into law against those whom one disapproves.

Whether what someone else “is” or does affects me is another issue.  Drunk drivers affect my safety.  The music younger people like does not affect me if I don’t have to hear it.  It is justifiable, then, to be judgemental of drunk driving at level three but say nothing about other people’s musical tastes.

Whether gay people or people of different races marry harms no other person.  Those involved in this religious judgement would have been smarter to have stayed at level one,  not sharing their views with others. Their opposition harmed gays and their families.

Those who opposed gay marriage, candidates and branches of political parties, are now being judged. The Bible warned us of this.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-non-christians-favorite-bible-verse-113014/

 

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged

  1. entech says:

    “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

    “History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. ” — Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

    So mind to your own affairs.

    • Henry says:

      entech:“So mind to your own affairs.”

      Good idea. So then when the atheist tries to corrupt the moral Christian Law, can we not stand up for the Law? Or do we have to be the lemming and accept the atheist’s corruption, giving approval to the transgression of the Law?

      • entech says:

        Is that some new definition of a contradiction in terms, “Moral Christian Law”.

        I think the Laws of which you speak are the words of preachers and shaman(s?) purporting to be the words of their god. I could, of course, be wrong and I am sure you will think that I am; I only ask that you consider the possibility that you are wrong (perhaps even both of us).

        • Henry says:

          You are wrong.

          • entech says:

            Does that mean you are right? I mean in the sense of being correct; you make it quite obvious in the political sense that you are a little to the right (of Genghis Khan).

            I am always ready to be corrected, but would like something more than just You are wrong. A little some thing to show that you are correct. Send an angel to visit me perhaps. :roll:

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 3:30 “Send an angel to visit me perhaps.”

            Be sure to take a picture of that angel–share it with us.

          • entech says:

            Like vampires angels do not photograph neither can they been seen in a mirror, that would constitute a proof of some kind. You have to believe without proof or it doesn’t count – God will not be tested. How’s that for good line?

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 4:39 “You have to believe without proof or it doesn’t count–God will not be tested. How’s that for a good line.?”

            YES, God will not be tested. Add to that the empiracal data collected by the Flying Spaghetti Monster: People are most likely to believe a god is real if the god remains invisible. Thus, FSM remains invisible.

            I’ve devised my own test. If I keep writing this blog, there is no god. If I quite or drop dead, the fact there is another freethinker/atheist blogging somewhere means there still is no god. If all the freethinker/athiest blogs disappear, the fact they once existed means there is no god. The reason all these mean there is no god is because I wrote it here. (If this sounds like reasoning from the Bible, I confess that’s where it came from.)

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“The reason all these mean there is no god is because I wrote it here.”

            You will have no excuse, God’s creation clearly pointing to His eternal power and divine nature.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 6:27 “You will have no excuse, God’s creation clearly pointing to His eternal power and divine nature.”

            And where did we learn it is “God’s creation”? From God, of course. Well wait, it was from people who said they heard it from God, or heard it from others who said they heard it from God. The entire God thing is based on circular reasoning. I thought I’d introduce a little version of it quoting myself. It’s a free country–circular reasoning is avaiable for all.

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“And where did we learn it is “God’s creation”?”

            The heavens declare the glory of God.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 7:56 “The heavens declare the glory of God.”

            Tell me more. Exactly who in the heavens is saying that?

          • Henry says:

            Jon:“Tell me more. Exactly who in the heavens is saying that?”

            The heavens. Their design and order.

          • entech says:

            I bought a new watch at the duty free shop last year, therefore God exists.
            At least that is the line of reasoning employed by William Paley in his book Natural Theology written in 1809. It is also the advanced thinking of Henry in 2014.

            psalm 19
            The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
            It all appears to have a design and a purpose, therefore God exists. Superficially there is the beginnings of an argument in the designer and creator hypothesis: there is certainly a universe out there that at least can be seen.
            The psalms are just bits of poetry hardly expected to be accurate scientific explanations

            “The heavens” could be another way of talking about the universe but when it comes to the firmament we start to get a bit sticky, someone forgot to tell the Mars explorer people about it and they just went straight through without noticing.

            Apart from the fact that the universe exists there is nothing to say it declares the glory of any god, or even the existence of a creator. The job has only just begun and all you have achieved so far is for the hypothesis not to be rejected out of hand, it points to possibility of a creator but that creator could just as easily be one of the many creators hypothesised by many creation myths.

            Verse 12 gets interesting: Who can understand his errors? … At first glance this could refer to the many faults and failures in this perfect world created by this perfect being for is perfect little people, but actually it seems to be talking about the errors of his servants, Henry the servant who would have thought!. And verse 12 continues (for Henry) … cleanse thou me from secret faults.
            But the idea of faults is worth pursuing, starving millions, earthquakes, tsunamis in the world around. The frail and fragile body that was supplied for his favourite creatures, the many things that can and do go wrong and the many inefficiencies all mitigate against any idea of an intelligent designer, the short life span makes you wonder what kind of purpose it was designed, short and painful and then ended. The argument from teleology is a miserable failure.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 9:43 re: Henry’s Psalm

            It says later in Psalm 19:6 The Law of the Lord is Perfect. We heathans have been told here over and over that “the law” from the Old Testament, which included stoning to death of children, was lifted when Jesus died for ours sins in the New Testament. It would make sense then if the part about the heavens design and purpose was done away with too.

            I’m always accused, here, of being obsessessed with sin. I just copy stuff from the Bible, like from Henry’s Psalms 15:13. don’t let sins have dominion over me..

            I don’t find the Bible itself very interesting. I do find those who read it and quote from it here interesting, however. The parts choosen by posters to quote and the parts they take a pass on always amazes.

          • Henry says:

            Now we have an atheist quoting scripture, and setting himself up as divine, implying he knows better than God how the world should have been created. Such endless knowledge and ability from the atheist.

          • entech says:

            No less valid than all the crap from the Cretinist.

          • Henry says:

            Yes, but my Father is bigger than your father.

          • entech says:

            My father died many years ago and you are right he was very short so yours is probably bigger than mine. ;)
            But if you are talking about your father which art in heaven then as Nietzsche famously said he is dead and you killed him.

          • Henry says:

            You may have qualified as a Pharisee. Your mind moves similar to theirs. I wasn’t talking of your earthly father.

          • entech says:

            Henry @ 10:00 pm
            Now we have an atheist quoting scripture, and setting himself up as divine,
            By definition an atheist rejects the idea if divine entities, I can’t set myself up as nonexistent.

            implying he knows better than God how the world should have been created.
            By definition an atheist rejects the idea of God the creator. I can make an observation that it could have been done better.

            Such endless knowledge and ability from the atheist.
            Such sarcasm from a man who claims such absolute knowledge of his version of a creator.

            One famous, but apocryphal, quote attributed to Aphonse the wise (King of Castille about 1280) upon his hearing an explanation of the extremely complicated mathematics required to demonstrate Ptolemy’s theory of astronomy was “If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation thus, I should have recommended something simpler.”
            This is probably the man you meant not me.

          • entech says:

            10:27, I did notice the capitalisation, but chose to ignore it to make a better story, a little trick I learned from the Master.

          • Carr says:

            It’s people like Henry that makes me cringe when I am put in the same Christian category as him!

          • entech says:

            Carr, don’t worry about it. Everyone knows that Henry is both a joker and a joke.

          • Henry says:

            Carr, what is your disagreement? You are attacking character; what do we disagree on?

          • Henry says:

            entec, your personal attack is evidence of being on the bottom side of an argument. This seems to happen with frequent occurrence.

          • entech says:

            Henry 10:49 pm Something else I learned from the Master.

            In this case I think it is fair comment, Take note from Carr and from the observation that no one on the site comes to your defense except Josh. Now if I wanted to truly offensive and personal I would have said everyone knows Henry is a Josh

          • Henry says:

            Jon @ 10:24:“It says later in Psalm 19:6 The Law of the Lord is Perfect. We heathans have been told here over and over that “the law” from the Old Testament, which included stoning to death of children, was lifted when Jesus died for ours sins in the New Testament.”

            You are misconstruing and not making proper distictions.

            Jon:“It would make sense then if the part about the heavens design and purpose was done away with too.”

            Jon, you apparently are another creator with your omniscience just like entech.

            Jon:“I’m always accused, here, of being obsessessed with sin. I just copy stuff from the Bible, like from Henry’s Psalms 15:13. don’t let sins have dominion over me.. “

            You are making that up.

            Jon:“I don’t find the Bible itself very interesting. I do find those who read it and quote from it here interesting, however. The parts choosen by posters to quote and the parts they take a pass on always amazes.”

            Jon, you rejected the Helper. I understand your plight.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 11:06 “Jon, you rejected the Helper. I understand your plight.”

            I asked you just exactly who the “Helper” is. You referred to some vague and undefined place, “heaven”. I hoped you could provide something more.

          • Henry says:

            entech:“In this case I think it is fair comment, Take note from Carr and from the observation that no one on the site comes to your defense except Josh. Now if I wanted to truly offensive and personal I would have said everyone knows Henry is a Josh”

            Carr didn’t say that.

            You are free to seek approval from others on an atheist site. If that is what you need to enable your arguments to stand, sure. Hope it works for you.

          • Henry says:

            Jon @ 11:11:“I hoped you could provide something more.”

            You have blasphemed the Helper. You reject, therefore, you do not know Him.

          • entech says:

            Jon. Good take on the new replacing the old, the main difference between you and me and most Christians posting here is that they take the 5% that is needed to support Pauls inventions and reject 95%. We on the other hand not only reject the same 95% but 95% of the 5% that they need.

            But it all comes back to the old, old story. There is no problem with the Bible it is you (and Bart and thousands of others) that are not reading it properly.

            OK, it has been a fun morning so far, always fun to see how far Henry will go to defend a failed hypothesis. But it is about 60 here now with bright sunshine and heading towards 80. So time to get the bike out and go for a nice long (slow) ride and have lunch in the sun. Sorry can’t resist a little bit of gloating.

          • Henry says:

            entech:“We on the other hand not only reject the same 95% but 95% of the 5% that they need.”

            With those percentages, that would mean the moral Law would be thrown away as well by you, with perhaps one or two surviving. So….do you disagree with murdering people? Do you disagree with lying? Do you disagree with stealing? From your percentages, you would have a pretty slim list.

          • entech says:

            Henry, we don’t need your Bible for morality, most people know right from wrong without it. If you need to be told, to have it spelled out for you, to be threatened by your god to make you comply then it is you that has the problem with morality not me.

            I have no god but do not rape and murder, the implication here is that if we took your god away then rape and murder would be your way of having fun. As always you have it about face.

          • Henry says:

            You previously said you reject 99.75% of the Law. Now you believe in elements of the Law, which makes more sense. Now, we are closer in agreement.

            http://redriverfreethinkers.areavoices.com/2013/10/06/who-are-the-christians/#comment-272221

          • entech says:

            In that case I can only repeat.

            Must be getting close to the old one about:
            Is it moral because god says so, or does God say it is moral because it is?
            If the first my brother could have sold his daughter into slavery!
            If the second who is this God that just repeats the obvious?

            Morality must exist independently of any God or scripture otherwise how theists and theologians know which ones could be safely ignored and which must be enforced. Perhaps the moving finger rights writes that on the hearts.
            Thou shalt not kill/murder unless you are God and you are applying it to innocent first born of Egypt, or to the entire world by drowning.

            Christianity is in my view quite immoral in itself.

          • Henry says:

            entech:“Christianity is in my view quite immoral in itself.”

            That is your judgment.

          • entech says:

            judge verb
            : to form an opinion about (something or someone) after careful thought.
            Merriam-Webster

            That is what I said, it is my view, my opinion, that much of Christianity is actually immoral. If you want to say That is your judgment. then, of course, you are perfectly correct . Bit pointless spouting out an obvious truism like that though.
            The judgmentalism of you and yours is of a quite different form though. To call some one a sinner makes assumptions that take it far more than simple opinion.

          • Henry says:

            That is your judgmentalism.

  2. H.P.Drifter says:

    Entec

    You can correct me If I am wrong, I read somewhere recently you people do now or have had a woman PM down there that is an Atheist, I wonder if she has rounded up all the Christians and got rid of them or has she become a politician that represents all the people interests. Has her Atheist points of view made any difference how she behaves when it comes to running the government?

    • entech says:

      Thrown out at the recent elections, replaced by an extreme right wing religious bigot who can’t say as much anti-gay stuff as he would like because of his sister, irony of ironies.
      Her atheism mad no difference really, case in point she insisted that marriage was between one man and one woman, not insistent on marriage though because she was in a long time de-facto relationship. She was heavily attacked by all the right wing commentators, one lost his job because he insisted on the point that her man must be gay because he was a hairdresser ?

  3. H.P.Drifter says:

    Sounds like the politicians there must come here to learn how to screw things up, I know we must be a bad influence, thats sounds terrible, better luck getting the bigot out.

  4. H.P.Drifter says:

    The guy hair dressers here are the ones that get all the girls. Even in Hollywood not all the men hair dressers are gay far from it.

  5. Jinx says:

    My right wing christian sister who judges everything and eveyone says the judge not phrase from the bible is overblown….go figure.

    • entech says:

      So many Christians seem to be so bound up in what is right and what is wrong that the only fun they get is in judging others. Take that phrase seriously and there would be no fun at all.

      • Wolfy32 says:

        It’s ironic the verse appears aimed at non christians (a judgement of faith), yet, it mostly applies to Christians, (err, well should apply).

  6. Adam Heckathorn says:

    I can’t tell You how much I enjoy this forum when I read this “I am always ready to be corrected, but would like something more than just You are wrong. A little some thing to show that you are correct. Send an angel to visit me perhaps.” I broke out laughing I have things I’ve got to get to so I have to quit perusing this stuff. This reasoning is addictive.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>