NationStates Jolt Archive

You are full of it. I do not believe in anything and that is not a religion. I follow nothing. It isn't a religion. You need to get your definitions right.



Those people don't understand anything about the reality and they are the ones who are starting to look like a fad. They accuse atheists of being immature or young.

I am an athiest. I believe in something. I believe in no gods. That is my religion. I am a very very devout athiest. I am not full of it and stop telling me that I am ignorant just because I disagree with you. It makes you seem very immature.

Blindly bigoted? If I was blindly bigoted, I was base my opinions upon my own personal hatred, not the word of God. Good grief it's annoying debating homosexual advocates, they spend so much effort with the ad hominem attacks and other methods of vilification instead of actually discussing the issues :rolleyes:

Look at you engaging in logical fallacy attacks including strawmans and the supposed fact that god is speaking to you. you are the one using ad hominems, not me. You need to get over yourself and start facing reality. I'm discussing the issues, you are discussing nothing but your own blind arrogance...

Blindly bigoted? If I was blindly bigoted, I was base my opinions upon my own personal hatred, not the word of God. Good grief it's annoying debating homosexual advocates, they spend so much effort with the ad hominem attacks and other methods of vilification instead of actually discussing the issues :rolleyes:

You base your arguments on the contents of a work of historical fiction
written by a great many long dead people with differing and often
contradictory messages and you consider that there
are issues you are raising that need addressing?

The only issue that needs addressing is your grasp of reality.

But thats your issue not mine.

No. This is why you people are constantly ridiculed. You people are insults to science and everything... you are the ones who are ridiculed almost always..



You do a far better job of ridiculing yourself through your blatant hypocrisy than I could ever do. *sits back and watches Mr. Tolerance show how intolerant he really is*

I am an athiest. I believe in something. I believe in no gods. That is my religion. I am a very very devout athiest. I am not full of it and stop telling me that I am ignorant just because I disagree with you. It makes you seem very immature.

Apparently you are one confused individual. You are the one who is very immature.

furthermore, I believe in nothing, therefore I don't have a religion. I'm atheist. That is not a religion.

Everything is flamebait.

Mm, if it's really genetic, then Christianity is pretty much screwed in the anti-homosexuality arena.

In fact, I think they already are, you know, Jesus having died for our sins so we would not have to worry about sinning. Therefore the practice of homosexual sex is fine! So long as you repent I guess.

Not that I am arguing for it but in reality it would not screw them. There are many genetic based diseases such as sickle cell, hemophilia, G6PD, Parkinsons ect. So they wouldn't be screwed... It would change maybe the tactics used. Also hypercalvinist would not effected by the genetic argument at all. They would assume that person was predetermined to live a life a sin and to pay the consequences.

So in reality the genetic argument might change the minds of some but actually would confirm the beliefs of others.

I am an athiest. I believe in something. I believe in no gods. That is my religion. I am a very very devout athiest. I am not full of it and stop telling me that I am ignorant just because I disagree with you. It makes you seem very immature.

Again, you can't be a 'devout' atheist. Atheism is, again, NOT a religion.

The definition of atheism, maintained by positiveatheism.org, is the lack of a god belief. Therefore, there is NO belief. It is not a belief that there is no god(s) because that presupposes that there are gods that can potentially be believed in or disavowed.

You do a far better job of ridiculing yourself through your blatant hypocrisy than I could ever do. *sits back and watches Mr. Tolerance show how intolerant he really is*

I tolerate you people.. you don't see me advocating the elimination of you guys. You can practice your religion all you want.. but you were the one calling for the abolition of homosexuals (meaning mass murder). You are the one who is a blatant hypocrite. You're also an idiot.

My Bullshit-O-Meter just exploded. :rolleyes:

You base your arguments on the contents of a work of historical fact
written by a great many long dead people with differing yet suprisingly non-contradictory messages and you consider that there
are issues you are raising that need addressing?

The only issue that needs addressing is my grasp of reality.

But thats my issue not yours.



Corrections in bold.

If homosexuality is genetic, I have a hard time seeing how it is passed from generation to generation because gay people can't... procreate.
well actually the trait is shown to be passed down through the mothers side, and those women whom opt to have artificial incemination(sp?) or who have children before 'coming out', it's entirely possible for this "gay trait" to be passed down

You don't have to go to a church. Athiesm is a religion with one rule: you believe in no gods. If you believe in no gods, you subscribe to athiesm.

Maybe it isn't beginning to look like a fad to you, but there are people who are denouncing god in their typical teenage rebellion, which in my eyes is beginning to look like a fad. Just like there are people who don't trully believe in their religion for other religions but follow it because they don't know how to do otherwise.
In my circle of friends, the vast majority are atheists, with a few agnostics, and even one or two Christians and Pagans.

They are aged from their mid-20s to late-30s. Their occupations range from doctors, veterinarians, engineers, accountants, craftsman, office workers, salesman and the unemployed. I hardly think that those who are atheists (which comprise the majority) consider it a fad or form of rebellion. Most arrived at atheism by either finding no value or logic in a belief in invisible mystical beings, or by disillusionment with what many religions stand for - some a mixture of the two.

...anyway, this is all well offtopic. I won't be discussing religion in this thread any more.

Apparently you are one confused individual. You are the one who is very immature.

furthermore, I believe in nothing, therefore I don't have a religion. I'm atheist. That is not a religion.

I didn't call you immature, I said your tactic was immature. So stop name calling. Second, I am not at all confused about my beliefs/religion. If you look up athiesm you will find many websites that discuss whether or not athiesm is a religion and almost all say that it is.

Corrections in bold.


Now you see that exemplifies what happens in your head.

You see or read something

change it to suit you

and then call it corrections or clarifications

Do you actually work for GW?

omg your not actually GW are you???

Nah you can type
and in english too

sorry , don't mean to actually directly insult you.
You are definitely no GW

You listened to what you were saying for a moment?

Or read what you were typing?


Quick call 911
I read everyone's posts.

I didn't call you immature, I said your tactic was immature. So stop name calling. Second, I am not at all confused about my beliefs/religion. If you look up athiesm you will find many websites that discuss whether or not athiesm is a religion and almost all say that it is.

Actually there was nothing immature about my tactics. I'm down to the issues. You are the one who is confused because atheism is not a religion. And you simply saying that many websites on the net say atheism is a religion... is not good enough. You don't bother citing any of it. In reality, positiveatheism.org (previously cited) says it is not.

My Bullshit-O-Meter just exploded. :rolleyes:
hands over new meter.

remember to turn the sensitivity to "So fucking low"

"Thou shalt not judge"...funny, I don't seem to remember that. Maybe you're referring to Matthew 7:1, which seems to be taken out of context all the time.
Neo, you haven't gotten the book whatsoever if you've missed every line that explicitly stated that you should not judge others, and leave that up to God.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? [42] How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Luke:6)

What bugs people about hypocrites like yourself is not your beliefs in Christ. It's your haughty attitude. You are a sinner, Neo. And that makes you as deserving of hell as anyone else.

Romans 3:10 & 23

10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Your religion and convictions would be admirable, if only you didn't hide behind a false front. Of course, I'm one of the few who know the bible well enough to confront you head on... and that's why you never reply to me.
Just as well as you so rarely have anything worthwhile to consider, save self-righteous ego masturbation. But I'm wasting my time on you, holy princess and second coming incarnate. :rolleyes:

Actually there was nothing immature about my tactics. I'm down to the issues. You are the one who is confused because atheism is not a religion. And you simply saying that many websites on the net say atheism is a religion... is not good enough. You don't bother citing any of it. In reality, positiveatheism.org (previously cited) says it is not.

Every time I have debated with you, I have been told that I am immature, full of it, etc, etc. I consider those to be very immature tactics.

I have not suggested that you are confused, only stated that I am not. Do not attempt to make it seem otherwise. And please stop telling me I am confused because I assure you I am not.

I am not citing any sources because I am a bit too tired to go fetching these things for a rather pointless debate with someone who seems to believe themself infallible.

Everything is flamebait.

Mm, if it's really genetic, then Christianity is pretty much screwed in the anti-homosexuality arena.

In fact, I think they already are, you know, Jesus having died for our sins so we would not have to worry about sinning. Therefore the practice of homosexual sex is fine! So long as you repent I guess.actually, the sacrifice of Jesus was so that if we want forgiveness, all we do is ask God for it and not do the whole ritual of burnt offereings... almost as if HE knew that in the future, not everyone will have a calf to use. ;)

it doesn't give us a free ticket to sin. we still have to be repentant and have the desire not to sin again.

I have not suggested that you are confused, only stated that I am not. Do not attempt to make it seem otherwise. And please stop telling me I am confused because I assure you I am not.

I simply am stating that you are in fact confused (atheism is not a religion).

I am not citing any sources because I am a bit too tired to go fetching these things for a rather pointless debate with someone who seems to believe themself infallible.

Oh how convenient... you are putting words in my mouth by saying I think of myself as infallible. I'm just an average guy....

I simply am stating that you are in fact confused (atheism is not a religion).



Oh how convenient... you are putting words in my mouth by saying I think of myself as infallible. I'm just an average guy....

I do not mean to put words in your mouth. You have made numerous comments that seem very pig-headed. Many liberals seem to believe that the only people that can be close-minded are conservatives when in fact many liberals are just as close-minded. You have said repeatedly that you refuse to change your position. That leads me to believe that even if someone successfully was able to refute all of your arguments and all of that, you would still stick to your opinion being absolutely right because you won't step down. That is what I meant by you claiming infallibility.

I do not mean to put words in your mouth. You have made numerous comments that seem very pig-headed. Many liberals seem to believe that the only people that can be close-minded are conservatives when in fact many liberals are just as close-minded. You have said repeatedly that you refuse to change your position. That leads me to believe that even if someone successfully was able to refute all of your arguments and all of that, you would still stick to your opinion being absolutely right because you won't step down. That is what I meant by you claiming infallibility.

You are the one who has made plenty of pig-headed remarks. I'm not liberal or conservative. So that's a news flash for you... I also have changed several things about my position (with related to other issues). You are misinterpreting everything...

Neo, you haven't gotten the book whatsoever if you've missed every line that explicitly stated that you should not judge others, and leave that up to God.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? [42] How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Luke:6)

What bugs people about hypocrites like yourself is not your beliefs in Christ. It's your haughty attitude. You are a sinner, Neo. And that makes you as deserving of hell as anyone else.

Romans 3:10 & 23

10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one
23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

Your religion and convictions would be admirable, if only you didn't hide behind a false front. Of course, I'm one of the few who know the bible well enough to confront you head on... and that's why you never reply to me.
Just as well as you so rarely have anything worthwhile to consider, save self-righteous ego masturbation. But I'm wasting my time on you, holy princess and second coming incarnate. :rolleyes:



And we are to discount all those verses condemning homosexuality, and encouraging rebuke, chastisement, and admonishing? Gotcha.

And we are to discount all those verses condemning homosexuality, and encouraging rebuke, chastisement, and admonishing? Gotcha.


There was a young man from nazareth
who disliked young men who'd had a bit,
he may have worn a dress
but wasn't opposed to duress
for children who weren't quite adequate.


whoops that isnt in the published bible is it,
I swear it is in one of the original greek gospels though
or perhaps it was one of the prophecies from the old testament
in the original hebrew

Never mind dig through them all and translate them
and I assure you
you will find it

If that parchment has survived.
You could also take my word for it


I do have an honest face, trust me on that

You are the one who has made plenty of pig-headed remarks. I'm not liberal or conservative. So that's a news flash for you... I also have changed several things about my position (with related to other issues). You are misinterpreting everything...

I don't believe I have made too many but feel free to prove me wrong.

I am sorry for assuming you were liberal but also, you must be somewhat liberal or conservative because everyone falls somewhere on the spectrum.

And we are to discount all those verses condemning homosexuality, and encouraging rebuke, chastisement, and admonishing? Gotcha.
This begs the question, how do you choose which verses to follow and which to dismiss?

Are you admitting that these are contradictory (as you can't really rebuke someone and hold back a judgement)?

Or are you just a mean person who uses Christ's message in order to satisfy your own carnal, sadistic desires?

I am sorry for assuming you were liberal but also, you must be somewhat liberal or conservative because everyone falls somewhere on the spectrum.

I'm not either. I consider myself libertarian.

The political spectrum is far more complex then liberal and conservative (liberal by the way is misused).

This begs the question, how do you choose which verses to follow and which to dismiss?

Are you admitting that these are contradictory (as you can't really rebuke someone and hold back a judgement)?

Or are you just a mean person who uses Christ's message in order to satisfy your own carnal, sadistic desires?



I'm saying that you need to have read the Bible and studied it in-depth to know the answer. Don't jump to conclusions on something you know little of.

I'm not either. I consider myself libertarian.

The political spectrum is far more complex then liberal and conservative (liberal by the way is misused).

I am aware that the spectrum is more complex. I don't see how I misused liberal though.

I am aware that the spectrum is more complex. I don't see how I misused liberal though.

Liberal for me is pro-free market.

I'm saying that you need to have read the Bible and studied it in-depth to know the answer. Don't jump to conclusions on something you know little of.
That's not an answer - you have been caught in a logical fallicy and are now dodging. :p

Liberal for me is pro-free market.

I would disagree but I really don't feel like getting into that debate.

That's not an answer - you have been caught in a logical fallicy and are now dodging. :p



No, care for my long response involving many verses? Or maybe I should post the entire Bible (over 1000 pages) and people can learn the concept of "context".....apologists refute this all the time, yet nobody ever seems to listen, as they would lose their main source of criticism :rolleyes:

I somehow never cease to be annoyed by that saying, and I don’t know why.

Try using the gayified version then: a case of the urn calling the vase Ming. It's much more fun.

No, care for my long response involving many verses? Or maybe I should post the entire Bible (over 1000 pages) and people can learn the concept of "context".....apologists refute this all the time, yet nobody ever seems to listen, as they would lose their main source of criticism :rolleyes:

Again another logical fallacy... you aren't showing the facts... and interpretations are interpretations...

You keep resorting to that: "Read it and you'll find out but.. I won't tell you a damn thing"

No, care for my long response involving many verses? Or maybe I should post the entire Bible (over 1000 pages) and people can learn the concept of "context".....apologists refute this all the time, yet nobody ever seems to listen, as they would lose their main source of criticism :rolleyes:


Only if you quote it in the languages it was written in.

Do feel free to take your time

No, care for my long response involving many verses? Or maybe I should post the entire Bible (over 1000 pages) and people can learn the concept of "context".....apologists refute this all the time, yet nobody ever seems to listen, as they would lose their main source of criticism :rolleyes:
You have been presented with verses that state that you shouldn't be judging people, and you have not yet disproven this. I don't mind how verbose your answer is, but I would like to see one...

I'm saying that you need to have read the Bible and studied it in-depth to know the answer. Don't jump to conclusions on something you know little of.

Careful, Neo Rogolia. You are not the only person on these forums to have read the Bible and studied it in-depth, and not all of the others would agree with you.

Careful, Neo Rogolia. You are not the only person on these forums to have read the Bible and studied it in-depth, and not all of the others would agree with you.


I have read the bible. I wouldn't say I have studied it in depth and I feel that I need to reread it but reading it only re-affirmed my beliefs, which all seem to be conflicting with Neo Rogolia.

Careful, Neo Rogolia. You are not the only person on these forums to have read the Bible and studied it in-depth, and not all of the others would agree with you.
Naw but to her her interpetation is always the right one

Though it must seemt that way to everyone

I am wondering if it is more an empathy problem then anything with some people like that

Liberal for me is pro-free market.

Libertarian is probably the word you're thinkg of. Otherwise you'd say Republicans are more liberal than democrats

Libertarian is probably the word you're thinkg of. Otherwise you'd say Republicans are more liberal than democrats


Theres a difference between the two?

I have read the bible. I wouldn't say I have studied it in depth and I feel that I need to reread it but reading it only re-affirmed my beliefs, which all seem to be conflicting with Neo Rogolia.
To each their own whatevre inspires you in this life

I'm saying that you need to have read the Bible and studied it in-depth to know the answer. Don't jump to conclusions on something you know little of.
This is a bizarre statement coming from someone who got pissy a few pages back at a poster who assumed something about you. I belive you asked him something kinda like "What are you inside my head?". Now you're pulling the same tired move.

I'm very familiar with the bible, but thanks for assuming! :p
I'm a born again, Southern Baptist-raised man who grew up going to church at least twice a week. I'm not so faithful anymore, but (and I'm sure you know this), nobody can take that away from me. I have a ticket to the same place you hope for, princess.

I have nothing against the one true Christ, just the whackjob "believers" who use him to feel better about themselves, and satiate their sinful, sadistic desires in his name. You're not doing anything, trust me, to bring people to Christ. If anything, the only thing you do is use him like a whore to satisfy your wicked thirst for self-righteous superiority.

I mean, is this the kind of frothy-mouthed, rabid language you use when you testify to other non-believers? Or do you save it for NS because you think it's not a real sin on the internet?

And you didn't answer a single question I asked. If you're so knowledgable, they should've came easily to you. :rolleyes:

I hope that your God helps you to soften your spiteful heart. You probably wouldn't be such an awful person without all that hate you shoulder alone.

I hope that your God helps you to soften your spiteful heart. You probably wouldn't be such an awful person without all that hate you shoulder alone.

As some say...

PWNED!

Theres a difference between the two?

A general distinction in interpretation "liberal = fairness" and "libertarian = freedeom". The former, when practically implimented, usually involves redistributions of wealth.

This may be different to the US understanding though, I'm not sure... someone said they might be different

Again another logical fallacy... you aren't showing the facts... and interpretations are interpretations...

You keep resorting to that: "Read it and you'll find out but.. I won't tell you a damn thing"



Ok then, here ya go:

From http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-matthew-7-1-5.htm


"Righteous Judgment"

Matthew 7:1-5

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Matthew 7:1-5

In our society of so called "tolerance," we are often struck with an opposition of people who cry that we have no right to judge them. In fact, I've even heard some go so far as to claim that "Jesus never judged people; He even taught that we are not to judge!" Strangely enough, they will quote Matthew 7:1 in attempts to convince others that Jesus has condemned all judging.

In the first two words of this passage, Jesus does tells us to "Judge not..." But these two words have been perverted and twisted to teach that when one calls the actions of another error and expresses that continuance in such ways will condemn the soul, that individual is judging, which is supposedly "condemned" in the Bible. But from the context of this passage, what judging is forbidden? Is it judging that makes a distinction between right and wrong? Is there never a time and place for seeing and reprimanding a fault?

If we take the view that judging is completely and totally forbidden, then that would make the doctrinal and moral purity of the church impossible to maintain. This would violate other teachings and divine examples that Christ has revealed in His word (see: Matthew 7:15; John 5:30; 7:24). It would commit us to neutrality and that is the very opposite of the stance Christ wants us to take.

What many fail to realize is that Jesus taught, (in the same context of instructing us to "judge not") that we are given the right and responsibility to make judgments in order to help our fellow man with their problem of sin, provided we have first "remove the plank from our own eye." Jesus expects you to be able to see clearly, so that you can "remove the speck from your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:5). So there are judgments to be made, within ourselves, and of others.

But then, what judging is the Lord telling us not to practice? In our text, Jesus is forbidding the judging that is for the purpose of putting down others to exalt one's self. It is the habit of finding fault in others when really there are more faults within yourself. How can you expect to help a person with a few transgressions when you are overwhelmed with sin? Jesus simply teaches that in order to pass righteous judgment on another, we ought to first examine ourselves. Let us remove the plank in our eye. Then, and only then, can we see clearly to remove the speck in our brother's eye.

The teaching of Jesus in this passage is concerned with the attitude of a man, not a complete absence of our judgment. Christ is not permitting us to avoid making hard decisions or taking difficult stands. He is warning us not to have a bitter, hypercritical, faultfinding spirit. That is a haughty attitude God will not tolerate.

However, as God's children, although we must be cautious in our judgments concerning ourselves and others, we cannot ignore our Lord's commands that instruct us to make judgments. In John 7:24, Jesus said "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment" (emphasis mine: JH) Here we are clearly commanded to judge with righteous judgment.

But what does it mean to judge with righteous judgment? Jesus revealed this earlier in John 5:30: Jesus spoke, saying, "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me."

If we seek and follow the true will of God, which can only be found in His word, then when it comes time for us to help people discern between right and wrong, then we will not judge with our opinions or what we think is right, but just like the mind that Christ had, we will only seek to do the will of the Father. Following the limitations for judgment that are taught throughout the scriptures, all we are to do in order to judge righteous judgment is to hear God's word, and judge using His standard.

How can anyone honestly say that Jesus didn't judge? For that matter, when our Lord's true followers make righteous judgments, based on His word, in order to expose sin and help the lost to be saved, why would anyone ever think that Jesus would condemn them for that? Jesus has plainly revealed that those who abide in His ways will judge with righteous judgment.

As some say...

PWNED!


you utter geek

nice one

<g>

As some say...

PWNED!


Don't count your chickens before they hatch: I've begun the process of dismantling his fallacious drivel.

Ok then, here ya go:
*snip for bs*

Lovely copy and paste job.. care to provide any of your own feedback?

*snipped long name calling, spiteful anger post*


Control yourself.

Gay marriage is not marriage! It's a mockery of an age-old institution!
How did you reach such conclusion? Is it through general ignorance of the institution of marraige, or by choosing to believe that only marraiges that reflect your socialised beliefs are marraiges?

Don't count your chickens before they hatch: I've begun the process of dismantling his fallacious drivel.

You really need to get off your self-righteous attitude... he didn't say anything fallacious.. and besides all you could provide for me is a copy and paste job (with none of your own interpretation). It is like you let websites do the speaking for you.. you are nothing more then a intolerant mouthpiece.

Theres a difference between the two?
Yup and he is right libertarians tend to be more free market ... not always though

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]Ok then, here ya go:

From http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-matthew-7-1-5.htm


"Righteous Judgment"

Matthew 7:1-5

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

You seem to simply be missing the fact that people are saying to you
that you seem to be wearing the latest in designer wooden eyewear.

I can't help wondering if it is from this biblical passage that the
expression

You utter plank

comes from

No, care for my long response involving many verses? Or maybe I should post the entire Bible (over 1000 pages) and people can learn the concept of "context".....apologists refute this all the time, yet nobody ever seems to listen, as they would lose their main source of criticism :rolleyes:
Oh, Neo. If you need a long rant of bible verses to make a point, and always (and I mean always) use the excuse that context is the problem when the straightforward word of God is concerned, it's probably time to reread the book yourself.

If you have to copy/paste the whole document to make a point, you've failed to understand any of it entirely.

There are times when context is important, and other times when it doesn't take a chapter to understand what the meaning is. Otherwise, why be fond of verse?

Yup and he is right libertarians tend to be more free market ... not always though

Actually I meant between Democrats and Republicans

the differences that americans seem to see
aren't at all obvious to anybody else

anywhere else in the world

A nice little sermon on the issue:


Let me read them to you,

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye. Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

Let’s pray and ask God to give us understanding of these verses. Lord, we do ask now, in Jesus name, that You would help us to understand, Lord, what is being said here, what it is that You are forbidding us to do, and what it is Lord that we are responsible to do as Your followers. So help us Lord to understand these things, amen.

Most of you have probably had the experience of perhaps pointing out to someone that a certain belief is wrong or maybe mentioning that a certain type of lifestyle is wrong or maybe reprimanding someone for the way they speak. And in each case having a response that goes like this. “Hey, don’t judge me.” Or, “Doesn’t the Bible say not to judge, and yet you’re judging.” Many people will use this first verse of chapter seven as some sort of a defense against any kind of criticism or any kind of judgment that’s being passed upon what they believe or how they live or what they say or whatever. But that is not at all the intention of Jesus in this statement. And it’s something that we really do need to understand. We need to understand what it is that the Lord is saying here.

I can tell you most certainly that He’s not forbidding us from making any kind of a judgment at all. That becomes really clear as we read through the seventh chapter, because here in the seventh chapter, He calls us to make certain distinctions. He tells us that we are to be able to distinguish those individuals that are dogs and swine. He tells us that we’re to be able to distinguish between true prophets and false prophets, between those who are true shepherds and those who are wolves in sheep’s clothing. So here in the very context of chapter seven, Jesus tells us that we are to make certain judgments. But there is a type of judgment that is being forbidden. So in His statement, “Judge not, that you be not judged”, He’s forbidding a certain type of judgment. He’s not at all forbidding all types of judgment.

We’re actually called as Christians to make many judgments. But there are those who, misunderstanding the statement of Jesus and taking it out of context, isolating it and failing to look at what the Bible says in its entirety about the subject of judgment, they would conclude that if we were to ever tell anybody that what they believed is wrong or the way they were living is wrong or the things they said are wrong, they would believe that that would fall under the category of judging and under the condemnation of Jesus, which simply isn’t true. You see, we’ve got to look at all of Scripture, remembering that Scripture does not contradict Scripture. But rather, Scripture clarifies Scripture. So here in one place, Jesus makes this general statement, “Do not judge.” But we have to compare the rest of Scripture in order to clarify what He meant. Did He mean never, under any circumstances, pass any sort of judgment whatsoever? No He didn’t mean that, as I just showed you from the text here in chapter seven. But as we go through the rest of the Bible, we can see clearly what it is that the Lord does mean. So there are certain things, certain attitudes that the Lord forbids when we come to passing a judgment. And those are the things that we want to consider. There are five things that are forbidden.

Number one, we are forbidden from judging beyond God’s requirements. We are forbidden from judging beyond God’s requirements. You see, God has given us His Word, and His Word is the standard. But so often when people are judging other people, they’re judging them beyond the standard of God’s Word or apart from the standard of God’s Word. They’re judging them based upon their own personal preference or based upon some sort of a traditional belief or some kind of a personal conviction even. And those are unacceptable judgments. We’re not to judge beyond God’s requirements.

The apostle Paul, in Colossians 2:16-17, he said, “…let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come.” Now you see, under the Old Testament there were all kinds of restrictions that were given. And there were regulations, dietary requirements and so forth that God had placed upon His covenant people. But when the New Testament was implemented, the Old passed away. And those requirements, the ceremonial requirements under the Old Testament Law, were no longer an issue. But at Paul’s time there were certain (men) that continued to hold on to these things and refused to see them as no longer being important. So what they did is they took a tradition and they made it God’s standard. The Pharisees were great at doing this. They took certain traditions, and they elevated them to the same level as God’s standard. And they judged people according to their adherence to the traditions. And if people didn’t keep the tradition, then they would pass a judgment upon them. A condemnation would be passed.

The Lord forbids us from doing that. We are not to judge beyond God’s requirements. The Scripture is the standard. So we have to be careful that we don’t judge people based upon some kind of a tradition that we have established, or even a traditional view of the Scripture that might not be actually what it’s teaching.

You see, this has happened in the church quite a bit. Churches develop certain traditions, and those things become dear to them. And they notice another church or a Christian who attends a different fellowship. And they don’t embrace their tradition. And so they say, “Well, I don’t know if this person’s really right with the Lord. I don’t know if they really do love God. Because after all they don’t do things the way we do them”, or “they don’t keep the things that we hold dear.” But you see, these are all extra-Biblical things that are not issues that are to be set up as a standard to judge people by. So we have to guard against that.

8:19

One of those extra-Biblical ideas that has really had an impact on many Christians, especially I think in our culture, has to do with smoking cigarettes. Now I am certainly not here to promote the smoking of cigarettes. But I must say that smoking cigarettes is an area that has fallen under some very serious judgment. But it’s an area that would be in this category of a non-Biblical issue really. Now people say, “Ah hey, wait a second man. You’re saying that God doesn’t forbid people from smoking?” And “don’t you know it destroys the body?” And “if you destroy the temple of God, God will deal with you.” They can give all kinds of arguments. Well, you know what? Oscar Mayer Wieners, with all the additives that are placed in there, would fall into the same category. Sodium nitrate will kill you a lot faster than tobacco will. You just take it in its purest form and sprinkle it onto your food, and you’ll be dead in a matter of moments. So if you want to get into those kinds of things, where does it stop? I mean, we’ll just have to quit eating, drinking, everything else. So this is an area, again, I’m not promoting cigarette smoking, but many Christian people who have battled with this thing have fallen under severe condemnation and been judged by other Christians for something that actually goes beyond God’s requirements. You see, there is no teaching in Scripture on this. It’s not a clear-cut thing. There’s somewhat of a gray area here. And so for us to pass a judgment on somebody because they smoke cigarettes and conclude, “Well, I don’t think they’re really right with God. I don’t think they really know the Lord.” Well, that is the kind of judgment that Jesus is forbidding, because that is a judgment that goes beyond God’s requirements.

Now let me bring up another hot, controversial kind of a thing. And believe me, again, I’m not saying this because I want anybody to do it, nor do I want to do it myself, but the drinking of alcohol. I used to drink before I was a Christian. But I’ve been a Christian almost 20 years now and haven’t had a drink since then. And I don’t want to have a drink. So I’m not saying this because I want to exercise some liberty in this area. The Bible does forbid drunkenness very clearly. The Bible tells us that drunkards will not inherit the kingdom of God (see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). But to make a statement to this effect, that the Bible prohibits explicitly the drinking of alcohol whatsoever, is a statement that really goes beyond Scripture. And to pass a judgment on a brother or a sister who wants to have a glass of wine with dinner or maybe a beer after work to do whatever, that’s really the kind of thing that Jesus is forbidding here. Although we might not agree with it, although we might not think that it’s the best thing to do, that’s the kind of thing we need to leave in the Lord’s hands, because the Scripture doesn’t outright condemn that kind of a thing. There is an allowance that is made. The prohibition is against drunkenness. So again, I’m not trying to promote it. I’m not encouraging you to relax and have a beer. A lot of it comes down to the personal conviction that comes to us by the Holy Spirit. And man, the Lord has dealt with some people, like He did with me, just like, that’s the past, and it’s to be gone forever. And don’t ever meddle with it again. For other people, it’s never been a real issue. And so the Spirit hasn’t dealt with them in that way. So it’s wrong for me if I go over to my brother’s house and he says, “Hey, can you grab the ketchup out of the refrigerator?” And I open up the refrigerator and see the six-pack and go, “Oh, this guy’s probably not even really saved. Look at that Bud Light in there. Oh man, I better get out of here. This guy’s a, he’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing”, or whatever.

But we can do that. We can fall into that kind of a thing. And again, this is not a condoning of doing the wrong thing. It’s simply what the Bible is teaching about these kinds of subjects. We go beyond what the Bible says, and we set up a standard that is beyond God’s requirement. And then we start judging people according to it. That’s what Jesus said we are not to do. We’re not to do that. Now drunkenness is a sin that will keep a person out of the kingdom of God if it’s practiced. But again, we have to be careful.

Some people go to extremes in this. There’s one particular preacher who just is so adamant about the fact that the wine in the New Testament was not fermented. And he builds this great case. At least it’s great to him; I think it’s ridiculous, but this great case against drinking alcohol whatsoever, because the wine in the Bible wasn’t fermented, and so on and so forth. And yet, that creates all kinds of problems. If it wasn’t fermented, then why did the apostle exhort Timothy not to be given to it on a regular basis? And there are all kinds of obvious statements in Scripture that imply that it was fermented just like wine is today.

But people will go to those kinds of extremes and build a case that is beyond the Bible because of their tradition. In their denomination, there’s a strong emphasis against alcohol or tobacco; or you can take it into any realm, entertainment, playing cards, going to theatres, those kinds of things. And again, I’m not condoning any of these things. I’m not saying that we should all get together and smoke and have a few beers and play a little bit of poker. What the heck? I’m not saying we should do that. I don’t think it’s the wisest use of our time or the best way to advance the kingdom of God. And it certainly could stumble somebody. And that’s another thing that we need to be really sensitive to. But, we must be careful not to pass a judgment in an area that exceeds God’s requirement. What God has said in His Word, He’s said it. It’s clear. We make a judgment on that. But when it goes beyond the Word, then we need to be careful. Now, sometimes there’s not anything that’s specifically said, but by gathering certain principles in the Word, you can come to a firm conclusion. But yet again, there are those places where it’s more just a tradition or an interpretation.

And the Pharisees, remember the context of this whole sermon. Jesus is preaching to Jews. He’s there sitting on this mountain overlooking the Sea of Galilee. Many Pharisees are gathering around Him listening. He’s already addressed them in various ways. But they were masters at taking tradition and exalting it to the same status as the Word of God. And so for them, if you didn’t do things just according to their tradition, you were condemned as far as they were concerned. They condemned Jesus because He didn’t wash His hands properly. You see, they had developed a certain way to wash. And if He didn’t, because He didn’t wash His hands properly, they condemned Him for that. Because He didn’t keep the Sabbath according to their interpretation of it and the standards that they had set up around it, they said that He was of the devil and not of God.

16:22

Well, that’s happened today. There are certain people that believe that you ought to worship on the Sabbath, which is Saturday. And if you don’t then you’re worshipping the devil. Because they say Sunday is the day that they worship the Sun. And so those of you who worship on Sunday, well you’re actually involved in worshipping the stars and astrology and Satanic worship by worshipping on Sunday. But we worship on Saturday. Well again, they’ve gone beyond the Scripture, because in Colossians, as I quoted to you, Paul said, “Let no man judge you concerning the Sabbath day.”

Some people set up a standard on diet. The Jews were at one time under a strict diet. And some Christians have followed suit. And they’ve placed kind of dietary requirements. You can’t drink coffee, or you can’t eat cookies, or all kinds of different things, or as Paul talks about in Romans 14, vegetarianism. If you really want to be spiritual, you should be a vegetarian. If you eat meat then you probably aren’t really right on with the Lord. These are the kinds of things that have crept in that go beyond the requirement of God (and) that people judge other people for. These are the things that are forbidden. So we’re forbidden, number one—from judging beyond God’s requirement.

Secondly, we’re forbidden from judging according to appearance. Jesus, in speaking to the Pharisees, John 7:24, He said, “Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” Do not judge according to appearance. The Pharisees judged Jesus according to appearance. He didn’t appear to be the Messiah to them. They had this mental picture of the Messiah that Jesus did not line up with. And so they rejected Him. We today can fall into the same trap. You get a mental picture of what a Christian is. You’ve got a mental picture of how a Christian dresses, the way they groom themselves, the kind of cars they drive, the places they live. We develop these kinds of pictures. And then when we see someone who doesn’t meet the mental picture we say, “Oh, that person can’t be a Christian, because look at the color of their hair”, or “look at that nose ring they’re wearing. We know for sure that Christians don’t wear nose rings.” Or, “Man, look at all those tattoos. That guy must be a heathen. We better pray for him right now.” We do that. We judge according to appearance so often.

Somebody walks in. And depending upon the way they look, we can easily start making judgments about them. Someone, as was in the case in the days of the early church (James alludes to it), someone walks in dressed real nicely, and they just look like a Christian. “Hey, welcome to the church. God bless you. Where are you from? Sit right here. Oh nice to see you.” Somebody else walks in. They’re all shabby and unbathed. And it’s like, “Ooh, where’s that guy going? Sit him back there in case he’s a problem.” We fall into that judgmental kind of a thing. But Jesus said, “Do not judge according to appearance.”

Samuel looked at Eliab, the older brother of David, and he thought this is surely God’s king. And God said, “He’s not My king. You judge according to outward appearance. I judge the heart” (see 1 Samuel 16:6-7). Then David, the one who looked least likely to be the king, was the one that God had to be king. He was the one that he, Samuel, was to anoint. So we have to be careful that we do not fall into the trap of judging according to appearance.

Twenty years ago or so, when the whole, twenty-five years ago, when the whole hippie thing came about, the long hair and the beards and all that, and prior to that there wasn’t a whole lot of outward distinction between people. Suddenly these people were easily distinguishable by their appearance. And this of course was contrary to the vast majority of people in society. So this was seen as, this isn’t right. And then of course in the churches there was a big uproar in churches about whether longhaired people should be able to come in or not. And back then, sometimes some of these young men who had long hair and beards, they would come to Christ. And they would just want to be in fellowship. And they would go to kind of a traditional, fundamental kind of a church. And they’d have experiences of going in and sitting there and being kind of the odd ball. And yet the preacher, kind of just suddenly redirecting the whole emphasis of the service to this one individual and changing his message from one of body edification to evangelism, because surely there’s an unbeliever among us. Man, look at that guy’s hair. Look at that beard. And so, I’ve had friends who told me about being in a church. And there they are. They’ve got their Bible. And they’re there to worship. But they’re the only longhaired person there. And the preacher is suddenly, “I know there’s a sinner among us today. God has revealed it to me. And you need to repent.” And then he goes on for twenty minutes trying to get him to come forward. And the guy’s sitting there going, “Man, I’m a Christian.” But obviously the pastor’s never clued into that yet. “I know there’s just one of you out there that’s a lost sheep,” and looking right at the guy. But you see, what happened? Judging according to appearance, you have a preconceived idea in your mind of what a Christian looks like or doesn’t look like. And so, because this person doesn’t meet with my standard, then I assume that they’re not a Christian. We’ve all done that. I’ve certainly done that. I’ve seen people. And right away, you just pass a judgment on them. And then later I talk with them and find out, wow what a neat person. What a right on guy. Man, that person really knew Christ. And yet, I was looking at the outward appearance. That is forbidden, judging according to appearance.

Thirdly, judging self-righteously is forbidden. The Pharisees judged self-righteously. They looked down on other people. They saw themselves as better. When certain soldiers returned to them after having been sent out to arrest Jesus, they came back. And the Pharisees said, “Where is He? Why didn’t you get Him?” They said, “Oh we’ve never heard anyone speak like this Man” (see John 7:45-52). And they said, “Oh come on. Don’t tell me you’re going to believe in Him too.” They said, “Have any of us, the Pharisees believed? We haven’t believed.” But these common people, these country bumpkins, these ignorant people, these uneducated, these spiritually unenlightened people, oh they’ve believed Him, but not us. You see, they saw themselves as superior spiritually. And we are never to judge people self-righteously. In other words, we’re not to look down on other people.

24:01

And this is something that, quite honestly, Christians do. Christians look down and sometimes preach down to people instead of remembering that hey, we’re all on the same level. It’s just the grace of God that separates us. Many pastors will get into a pulpit. And they’ll preach. And man, by listening to them preach, you’d think this person is a saint extraordinaire. They’ve never sinned in their lives. They don’t even know what it’s like to struggle or anything. And that’s just the way they present themselves. And the whole message is always down. You need to do this. And you need to do that. If you were like I am. That is self-righteousness. And you don’t have to be a preacher to do it. You can be an individual person. You’re looking down on others, and you’re making judgments upon them from the pedestal that you’ve put yourself on. That’s wrong.

Galatians 6:1, Paul tells us how we are to deal with and approach people in sin. He says, “Brethren, if any man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.” You see, what we’ve always got to keep in mind is that I could potentially be in the same place. I have the same weaknesses. I’m a human being. I’m a sinner. And except for the grace of God, I could end up right where that person’s at. So when I see a person in sin and I’m going to seek to restore them, I want to point out to them that what they believe is not right, or how they’re living is wrong or whatever else, I need to make sure that I’m not doing it self-righteously, in a holier than thou kind of an attitude. Some people do that. And that’ll turn a person off quicker than you can bat your eye. That just right away puts up the defenses when a person senses that you’re talking down to them. We’ve got to always remember that it’s just the grace of God that separates us from others. But for the grace of God, I would be in that same place. So when I see someone in sin, I want to keep in mind that I could be there too. And if I think that that’s an impossibility for me, then I could very well be on my way there right now, because Paul said, 1 Corinthians 10:13, “If any man thinks he stands, let him take heed lest he fall.” You see, the minute I think I’m above this, “Oh I’d never do that. I can’t believe. Oh, I knew they would. But oh not me.” The minute I’m like that, I’m in danger of falling myself.

You remember what happened to Peter (see Matthew 26:31-35)? Jesus announced to them at the Last Supper to His disciples, He announced that everyone was going to forsake Him and deny Him. And what did Peter do? He spoke up. And he said, “Lord, they might. But I never will.” Peter was speaking self-righteously. Peter said, “Lord, Your evaluation of these guys is pretty accurate. I’ve been thinking the same thing about them. They’re probably going to do that. But man, Lord, I am different. I love You more than they do.” But what happened? Peter was the first one to stumble. And you remember when Jesus finally restored him? He asked him an interesting question. He said, “Peter, do you love Me more than these?” (See John 21:15-19.) That was Peter’s boast. And when we see someone in sin and we’re taking a self-righteous attitude, that’s really what we’re saying. “Oh I love You more than they do God.” No, it’s just the grace of God that keeps us. So we’re not to judge self-righteously.

And then fourthly, we’re not to judge mercilessly. Our judgment is not to be that harsh, condemning, merciless kind of judgment. In James 2:13 we’re told, “For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.” We’re all going to appear before Christ someday. Christian people, we’re all going to appear before Christ to give an account of ourselves to the Lord. And you know what you’re going to need desperately on that day? You’re going to need the same thing I’m going to need. You’re going to need mercy. You’re going to need an abundance of mercy on that day. How can you assure that you’re going to have mercy on that day? By being merciful to others now. You see, judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. So if in your dealings with people, you have been harsh, hyper-critical, just it’s cut and dry, black and white, this is it, you didn’t meet the standard, you’re out of here, I’m disassociating myself or whatever act you’re going to do as a result of that, then you can bet on this, that on the day that you need mercy, you’re not going to have it.

But not only on that day, which is the most important. But even in this life, what happens? If you are a merciless individual, people will treat you mercilessly. You will end up being judged by the standard that you set. You see, once you start taking that real high standard. “Oh yeah, me, this is the way it is.” Well right away you put yourself up to be judged according to that. So it’s so important that we judge with mercy, that mercy’s always the thing that kind of tempers our judgment.

I remember a certain pastor who preached very mercilessly against a certain kind of sin and who, year after year, in the course of his messages, would just emphasize this and make it clear that anyone in ministry who fell into this kind of sin was no longer fit for ministry and needed to be set aside and could not be restored and all of this. And you know what? That pastor fell into the very sin that he preached against so often. And you know how he was treated? He was treated just as he had taught his people to treat others—without mercy. So when he fell into sin in that particular area, the people that he had taught for so many years said, “Man, you are out of here, because that’s what you taught us. You taught us that if a person falls, if they stumble in this area, that they’re beyond restoration. You’re out.” You see, there was no mercy in his teaching. There was no mercy in his attitude. And there was no mercy given to him when mercy was needed.

So we need to be merciful. Judging mercilessly is forbidden by the Lord. We just need to keep in mind all the time that we’re sinners. We are sinners. And if it wasn’t for God’s mercy being new every morning, we would all be consumed (see Lamentations 3:22-23). That’s what the Bible tells us. It’s just because God’s mercy is new daily that I’m not consumed.

I know that about myself. I see it more clearly. I think in my younger days as a Christian and even as a pastor, I was probably less merciful because I didn’t realize the extent that I needed mercy. But the longer I live and the more I walk with the Lord, I realize what a great sinner I am. And on that final day, when I stand before Jesus, I’m not going to plead justice, believe me. Man, I’m just going to say, “Lord, just be merciful.” And the Lord will be merciful if we have been merciful to others.

32:12

Again, the Pharisees judged others without mercy. There was no mercy on them whatsoever. When they saw a sick person, they said, “Ah, that person’s sick because God is angry with them. They’re a sinner. They must have some secret sin in their life.” There was no mercy in their judgment. When they saw a prostitute or a drunkard or a tax collector, they said, “Ah, wicked. God judge them.” And when they would fall under some kind of a judgment, they would rejoice in that. “Yes, that’s the way God. Get ‘em.” The apostles even picked up on that a little bit. When Jesus went into Samaria and the people did not respond to Him positively, James and John said, “Lord, let us call down fire from heaven. Let’s just wipe them out” (see Luke 9:51-54). And Jesus rebuked them and said, “You do not know what spirit you are of.” This isn’t the right spirit, the spirit of condemnation, this merciless, judgmental attitude. That’s not the Lord.

You remember those men that wanted to stone that woman who was taken in adultery. They wanted to kill her. They wanted her blood shed right there. And Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you let him cast the first stone” (see John 8:2-11). They forgot this one key issue—they were sinners also. They needed mercy just like she did.

Fifthly, we are forbidden from judging finally, judging finally. Concluding that a living man is beyond the grace of God is not a conclusion that we are to make. It’s not a conclusion that we are to make. Paul said, 1 Corinthians 4:5, “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts.” We’re not to make a final judgment. We’re not to look at an individual and say, “That person could never be saved.”

Some time ago, maybe you remember, a man who was executed by the judicial system for his crimes, had publicly, just prior to his execution, admitted that he had sinned and that his death was justified because of his crimes. And he also spoke about having received Christ and being confident that his sins were forgiven and that he was going to go to heaven. And multitudes of people had a problem with that. Non-Christians were just irate. This guy standing there after the crimes that he committed thinking that he’s going to go to heaven? They just couldn’t handle that. But there were many Christians that had the same struggle. They said, “Man, what is this guy talking about? This guy was a ruthless, brutal, demented murderer. And he’s talking about having received salvation?” And many Christians struggled with that and challenged whether or not that could actually be.

But you see, that’s the very thing that Jesus forbids, judging finally, concluding that a living man is beyond the grace of God. That’s not our job. That’s not a thing for us to conclude. You see, because according to what the Scripture says, as long as you’re alive, no matter what sins you’ve committed, God will forgive you for them. The only sin that a man cannot be forgiven for is rejecting Jesus Christ. That’s the only sin that a living man can never be forgiven of. But every other sin, no matter what it was and no matter how many times you were involved in it, if you’re still alive and have a desire to be forgiven and to turn away from that sin, God will give you the grace to do it. And anyone who concludes otherwise is passing a judgment that God has not allowed for us to pass. We are not to judge people finally. That is something that is to be left in God’s hands.

It’s the hardest in the world for me to pray for the President. I struggle doing that. I know the Bible says to do it. And I try to find all kinds of reasons why it probably doesn’t apply in this case. The guy’s such a hypocrite. It can’t mean him. But, you know what? The Lord convicted me that I am doing this very thing. I’m judging finally. I’m concluding something that it’s not my place to conclude. And I need to do what the Bible says. I need to pray that he would come to salvation, because it is possible. Jesus died for him just like he died for anyone else.

So this is what Jesus is talking about. He’s not saying that we can’t judge. And so those who respond to any challenge that we present to them about what they believe or how they live by saying, “Hey man, don’t judge. You’re judging me, man. You’re a bigger sinner than I am, because you’re judging.” Those people are misunderstanding what the Lord meant, taking His words out of context and misapplying them. Jesus is not forbidding us from judging. He’s forbidding us from judging improperly. And these are all the wrong ways to judge—judging beyond God’s requirement, judging according to appearance, judging self-righteously, judging mercilessly, and judging finally. These are all the wrong attitudes and judgment.

38:09

And again, these are all the things that the Pharisees were guilty of. The Pharisees had concluded that there were certain people that were beyond salvation. The drunkards, the prostitutes, the tax collectors and so forth, they were beyond salvation. These people were, they were just going to be used ultimately to fan the flames of hell as far as they were concerned. They had concluded that a tax collector was totally beyond the salvation of God. Isn’t it interesting that a tax collector is the one who wrote this gospel? The very man that they concluded could never even be saved ended up being an apostle and writing one of the books of the New Testament. You see, they had passed a judgment that they had no business passing.

And so these are the things that we need to guard against. We do have not only the right but we have been called by God to pass judgment in the right sense. We’re called to tell people that they’re wrong in many cases. We’re called to tell people that what they believe is wrong. The important thing is that we do it with the proper attitude. We’re called to tell people that the way they’re living is wrong, not because they go against our tradition or what we think, but because of what the Bible says. But again, when we do it, we must do it in that spirit of meekness. You see, that’s the key. That’s the issue that the Lord is dealing with. So these are the ways that we are not to judge.

In closing, how are we then to judge? We’re to judge with righteousness, truth, and mercy; righteousness, truth and mercy. Righteousness and truth—we’re to judge according to the Biblical standard. And we’re to judge with the spirit that the Bible, so many misjudge the Bible because of Christians unfortunately. They see Christians being self-righteous and having a holier than thou attitude. And then they conclude, “Well, that must be what the Bible teaches people to act like.” That’s not what the Bible teaches people to act like. That’s not what the Bible tells us to do. So you see, in our judging we must be righteous and true, true to the Word of God, true to the standard that God has set, that standard of righteousness in His Word, not a standard that we have developed because of what we think things ought to be like.

One of the things that I want to say is the traditional values issue here in this country, it’s a big issue. There is some validity to it. And there’s some of it that is just, that’s out to lunch. It’s that. It’s traditional values. They’re not Biblical values. They’re not rooted in the Word of God. And if some sort of a value isn’t rooted in the Word of God, I don’t care how long it was around. It’s nothing that we ought to be condemning people over. So again, the issue goes back to what are the Biblical values. Traditional values can be right on, if they’re in harmony with the Scripture. But they can be off too.

In some places, I mean it’s traditionally unacceptable to have a mixed marriage. In some places it’s just, “Hey, this isn’t part of our traditional values. Just, you don’t see people of different colors getting married.” Well so do we uphold that traditional value? Of course not. As Christians we’ve got to tear that down as quick as we can. That’s not what the Bible says. But you know, honestly, there are some people that equate that with Christianity. And of course, those liberal people who are in power, they exploit that. They capitalize on that. And they say, “Oh see what Christians believe.” I have had many times where people have kind of implied to me or even kind of tested me on an area like that, like, “You’re a Christian. Well, what do you think about this? Did you know that this guy and this gal were getting together? And he’s black and she’s white. Oh what do you think about that?” “I think that’s great.” “What? Wait a minute.” You see, that’s a traditional value that’s of no value whatsoever. Those are the kinds of things we have to be careful against.

I had an on-going debate with the representatives of a university in this nation over the racial issue. And we’ve gone round and around about this, because they want us to use their curriculum, and I refuse to do it because they’re racist. And they tell me all the time why they’re not and why they did the things they did, and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I said, “I’m sorry. I won’t buy it.” They said, “What is it going to take to get you to purchase this and to use this curriculum?” I said, “When the president of your university calls me and says he’s repented and then does so nationally, I’ll use your curriculum.” So, I can’t imagine him doing that for me. But if he does it for the Lord, great.

But it’s those kinds of things. We have to be careful. We want to judge with righteousness, truth, and mercy, not according to some man-made standard that goes beyond what the Scriptures say. No, what does the Bible say? What does the Bible teach?

Now, just real quickly on that, well they say, “Well you know, the Bible teaches that you’re not to inter-marry.” Oh that’s a pathetic interpretation of the Bible. That’s not what the Bible teaches. You’ve got to look at the context. What did it really say? There were certain nations God forbid Israel from joining together in marriage with because they were idolaters. It was a spiritual issue that God was dealing with. It wasn’t a racial issue. But you see, they conveniently misinterpreted that because that was the mentality in the South. So we are to judge with righteousness, truth, and mercy.

And in closing, remembering Matthew 7:2, “For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.” Man, if I keep that at the forefront of my mind, I think that’ll really help me when it comes to dealing with sin and with sinners. Just to remember always, with what judgment I judge, I in turn will be judged; and with the measure I use, the measuring stick I use, the standard I set up, that will be the standard that I will be judged by also. It doesn’t mean that we don’t keep high standards. But it means that we realize that again it’s the grace of God that enables us to keep the standard that God has set. And don’t push your standard beyond the Lord’s standard.

Let’s pray. Lord, we pray for just real clarity on this whole issue. And we ask You Lord to help us to represent You properly in our judgments. And Lord, we just know that Your Word on this to us is to judge righteous judgment. And we’ve seen how not to judge. We looked briefly at how to judge. Help us, Lord, to couple all of this in mercy. Help us Lord to remember that we’re sinners. And if it wasn’t for Your grace, we would perish. Help us to keep that. Help us Lord not to judge our brothers and sisters who don’t do things exactly the way we do them. Help us Lord not to be guilty of a Pharisaical attitude of judging our brother based upon a standard we’ve erected that is beyond Your standard. Help us Lord. In Jesus name, amen.

How did you reach such conclusion? Is it through general ignorance of the institution of marraige, or by choosing to believe that only marraiges that reflect your socialised beliefs are marraiges?

Good point well made. Also, excessive use of exclamation marks in statements usually sets of logic warning bells...

A nice little sermon on the issue:

*sniped for BS* *BS meter high*

Again, you let someone else do the speaking for you.. proving my point. You are just a mouthpiece.

I didn't call you immature, I said your tactic was immature. So stop name calling. Second, I am not at all confused about my beliefs/religion. If you look up athiesm you will find many websites that discuss whether or not athiesm is a religion and almost all say that it is.

I have seen some of those. Typically they are Christian sites.

Care to site some neutral sources that say it's a religion?

Where do these people meet BTW? What is the method of worship and the mysticism?

Here, have some more:

From http://www.arlev.clara.net/matt014.htm

Judging Brothers
Mtw 7:1-5

These verses have done a fair amount of mileage since they were first spoken and are quite often heard on the lips of both christian leaders and those amongst the congregation who are so spiritual that it’s a wonder that they haven’t been accepted into some sort of religious institution or other, heard as a response to something that another believer has just said.

Unfortunately, in my own experience, the mileage they’ve been used for has often been a drive away from the actual destination of the words and we need to get back to, not a literal interpretation of these few verses segregated from the rest of the NT, but an understanding that seeks to explain other Scriptures which speak of the need to judge and so define what exactly it is that Jesus is saying here.

For the spiritual leader whose life is being lived against the will of God through the commitment of open sin and questionable decisions, these verses are a great mask to hide behind especially when said with a fair degree of authority and shock - and more especially when a young christian is the intended object who is more likely to believe the words of an elder christian than he is when he’s been following Jesus for a few years and reading his Bible.

If a christian should go to their brother and say

‘Why on earth did you give that guy a right cross and lay him out?’

the response has often been

‘Brother, you shouldn’t judge another believer because you yourself will be judged by God for doing so [that is, for judging rather than for mimicking the right cross]’

and so another religious mask is put up which conceals truth (and, sometimes, sin) - the meaning, as we saw, of the Greek word translated ‘hypocrite’ in Mtw 6:1-8 (see here) and which is used by Jesus in Mtw 7:5.

While it is quite true that each of us is answerable to God in this life and that it is really not, therefore, all that important whether or how we are judged by men and women (I Cor 4:3-4), and that the final judgment of believers after death is what really counts for anything (I Cor 4:5, Rom 14:12), there is still the need for righteous judgment to be employed by the Body of Christ - both individually and corporately.

Of course, in the scenario I mentioned above, it is all too easy for the leader or older christian to claim that (I Cor 2:15)

‘The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one’

and so obscure the issue that needs addressing. Brothers are responsible to each other for the life they lead and it cannot be maintained that one’s sin does not affect the rest of the group. After the initial shock in Paul’s words in I Cor 5:1 in which he writes that

‘It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife’

he goes on to rhetorically ask his readers (I Cor 5:6)

‘...Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened...’

showing that, if the Church maintains it’s stance of tolerance towards the erring brother, they are in grave danger of becoming like he is, through the advance of his error throughout their fellowship. The problem with taking Jesus’ words as an absolute statement that no judgment is to be ever exercised towards believers is that Paul teaches exactly the opposite using the same Greek word (Strongs Greek number 2919) that is employed in Mtw 7:1.

Summing up the problem in the Corinthian Church, Paul commands his hearers by reminding them that, in his previous letter, he had instructed them (I Cor 5:9-13 - my italics)

‘...not to associate with immoral men; not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber - not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside - “Drive out the wicked person from among you”’

There’s quite a bit of truth here that we would do well to consider, including Paul’s insistence that they should not retreat from their existence in the society of their day to become monks and nuns because of the wickedness of the world - something that, unfortunately, we have neglected to apply not only amongst the two groups just mentioned but even in the unnatural phenomenon of ‘Bible Colleges’ which can too easily segregate believers into a learning academy which removes them from experiencing the real world while, at the same time, learning about Christ.

It’s no surprise that many of the younger christians, when they finally find themselves as a leader of a christian fellowship, fail to be able to respond to the needs of the believers because they have neither experienced them nor learnt how to receive God’s provision in such situations to overcome.

But, I digress!

Paul urges the believers at Corinth to judge their fellow believers in matters of sin - but this shouldn’t be seen to contradict Jesus’ words in Mtw 7:1-5. Here, the context of Paul’s words is sin, when sin is evident and obvious but when a fellowship seems too weak or indifferent to the problems associated with a fellow believer who maintains a life that is lived in rebellion to God.

Paul says that believers in such a situation must be judged - and that, sooner rather than later. If they repent and turn from their way of life, all well and good (as seems to have been the case - II Cor 2:5-11) but, if not, the apostle is plain in his command that they should be removed from the fellowship.

Our society today is built upon humanistic principles and such a thought that one’s behaviour could be the cause of another’s downfall is normally disregarded amongst adults who like to do as they please and insist that, if there are consequences, it’s the fault of the other person not them. Moreover, our present day society sees nothing wrong with much of the behaviour that Scripture finds abhorrent to God and which is condemned as being unacceptable and needful of being removed from the Body of Christ.

It's not surprising that many christians have either been influenced by the world’s teaching or have brought baggage with them once they’ve come to acknowledge the work of Christ and who fail to see the need to let go of the old way of living that they may fully embrace the new. The Church will always be in a difficult situation as it seeks to put certain things right in the fellowship that are blatantly against God’s will - I’m not talking about legislating rules against addictions that the believer has not yet discovered power over, such as cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption (though notice Paul’s words in I Cor 5:9-13) or even, in more and more cases, drug abuse, but in the need to approach believers who, in the example of Paul, are committing immorality, theft or, it may surprise you to read, greed (I Cor 5:11), and challenge them to forsake their way of living that is opposed to the will of God.

When I first became a christian, I learnt of a relationship between two individuals which had been going on for a number of years and which, today, I would probably have accepted as being a partnership similar to marriage. But I approached the leader of the fellowship and asked him why this was allowed and his response, because I hadn’t named the individuals concerned, was ‘which one?’!!!!

Evidently, there was more going on in the church than met the eye! But christians mustn’t shrink back from dealing with sin - not only in their own lives (which is where one should start) but in the corporate life of the Church. That doesn’t mean that we should either go on a witch hunt to root out every last bit of sin that we can find (for, if we did, our buildings would be empty!) or that we should interpret actions in terms of sin when they are innocent or even to criticise one another for certain aspects of our lives which we don’t like, making them out to be inherently sinful and unacceptable to God.

And therein lies the burden of Jesus’ words in Mtw 7:1-5.

Jesus seems to be saying not ‘never judge’ but ‘don’t judge with criticism’ because the very same attitudes which you condemn will be found in yourself and, in passing judgement on other brothers, you will actually be condemning yourself.

Matfran comments that the word

‘...often carries the connotation “condemn” and it is in that sense that it is used here’

While Rom 2:1-5 could be applied here to even those things which are not, in themselves, sin, Rom 2:17-24 hints at the problem with ourselves who point the finger at one another when we are doing the very same things though, probably, in a different form.

So, if you rightly state that christians shouldn’t be leaving shops without paying for the items they have in their pockets, do you record CDs for friends so that they don’t have to go out and buy their own copy (when it comes to deleted albums, availability and promotion, the disciple needs to discern what is right to do and my all-pervasive statement does not necessarily hold)? Both are ‘theft’ and both are unacceptable to God but, in condemning one, we naturally condemn ourselves.

Or, if we say that we should obey Government rules and pay taxes, why do we break the speed limit? Again, both are Government rules and we can’t pick and choose which civil laws we need to obey.

In the Mishnah, this idea of receiving the measure one gives to others is noted in Sotah 1:7 where we read

‘With what measure a man metes it shall be measured to him again...’

paralleling almost identically the words of Christ when he speaks of receiving the measure of judgment back upon oneself that one has handed out to another (Mtw 7:2). The Mishnah also states that (Aboth 1:6)

‘...when thou judgest any man incline the balance in his favour’

so that any misinterpretations may be left to one side and not be included in a judgment which would obviously be full of error. After all, just because we condemn in our own minds and through our own mouths, it does not mean that our pronouncements are correct because we often fail to perceive the attitude of heart which justifies the action before God.

Therefore Jesus told the Jews (John 7:24 - see also John 8:15)

‘Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment’

where their judgment of Him healing on the sabbath being against the Mosaic Law was shown to be incompatible with their insistence that they ‘work’ by performing circumcision on a child on the sabbath to fulfil the Law.

Although this has relevance for the walk of the christian, it does not appear to necessarily be the intention behind Jesus’ words here. Rather, He is telling the disciples not to nit-pick and not to do it with criticism (can you nit-pick with anything other than criticism?).

If the disciple was to truly understand how unacceptable to God their life was (notice Jesus’ words in Mtw 7:11 where he calls the disciples ‘evil’), and yet have found acceptance before Him, they would realise that criticism is futile for God will accept the believer regardless. If mercy, therefore, has been received from the hand of God, it must necessarily be handed out to those who are believers such as ourselves.

As Mattask also points out

‘Such censoriousness depresses those against whom it is directed and weakens rather than strengthens their moral fibre. It also increases the self-righteousness of those who display it and invites others to retaliate by indulging in equal measure in the same type of nagging fault-finding’

Criticism destroys - not only does it undermine the confidence that a believer has before God of being accepted by Him the way he is, but it puffs up the accusers who can too easily see themselves as being better off and ‘more righteous’ than those who they put down. This comparison of lives is a natural trait of a legalistic life which sees rank in the Kingdom as determined by moral uprightness (where ‘moral uprightness’ is often not defined by what God considers as being pure!) and which fails to see that equality in Christ is a standard which cannot be denied (II Cor 10:11-12).

A solution for our criticism would be to direct our critical gaze at ourselves and so see the state of our own lives before God. Although not referring to this scenario, I Cor 11:31 does give us an insight into how Paul regarded believers at Corinth when he says that

‘...if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged’

That is, God would not need to judge us if we turned our attention to our own lives and, in the context of Mtw 7:1-5, stopped looking around at others.

This is exactly what Jesus is saying when he moves on to speak of the speck and log in the eyes of accusers and accused. The point is not that the accuser should be careful to make sure his life is free from condemnation so that he can start again his life of criticism directed at those around him, but that he needs a totally different object for his critical sight.

Matfran states that the Greek word translated ‘speck’ (Strongs Greek number 2595) was used metaphorically in secular Greek to denote something minute, Matmor that it

‘...can denote a little piece of anything, especially of sticks or straw; it points to what is quite insignificant’

whereas the word for ‘log’ (Strongs Greek number 1385) was employed more for objects such as the main beam that would support the structure of a roof or that which would hold up a main floor and which could have been not much less than the majority of a tree trunk.

The comparison couldn’t be much more stark and contrasting.

Let the critical believer start to consider his own life and he’ll soon realise that the little speck (Mathag - the ‘insignificant shortcoming’) that he’s pointing the finger at in the life of his brother is so small compared to what’s in his own life that he really needs to do something about his own condition - perhaps even ask the brother for help!!

Matfran comments that

‘Unless verse 5 is to be read as sarcastic...there is in fact a fault in the brother [being judged]; the hypocrite’s error is not in his diagnosis but in his failure to apply to himself the criticism he so meticulously applies to his brother’

Though I have taken the criticism of the brother to be, generally speaking, something that is misunderstood in the context of the brother’s life, it is quite possible that, although there is something which is wrong in the brother, the real problem is with the enormity of the state of the life of the accuser.

If such a problem exists in the accuser, how can it be possible for him to ever consider being able to sort out the other’s life by his judgment? It’s as if a blindman might offer to lead someone with perfect sight to somewhere he has never before been and which he cannot, therefore, effectively arrive at, or of a man born deaf criticising someone for failing to appreciate the complexities of one of Beethoven’s symphonies (Mtw 7:4)! The absurdity of the situation brings home to the disciples the stupidity of ever trying to judge others by standards which inherently condemn ourselves - and it also gives us ample justification for believing that Jesus frequently used humour in His teaching to demonstrate the point He was making (not in the sense that He’d say ‘There was an Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman...’ but that He’d demonstrate the absurdity of such an attitude in the disciple so that he could laugh at the stupidity of his position and so reject it for what it was - against the will of God).

Matmor is correct by speaking of this position as a

‘curious feature of the human race in which a profound ignorance of oneself is so often combined with an arrogant presumption of knowledge about others, especially about their faults’

James 4:11-12 hints at another colouring of Jesus words when, before the author goes on to pose the conclusion to the reasoning

‘...who are you that you judge your neighbour?’

he commands his readers to

‘...not speak evil against one another, brethren...’

The reason Jesus is concerned to forbid His disciples from passing judgment upon one another is not because, in the Church’s life years later they shouldn’t identify sin and remove it from the Body, but that the judgment He’s referring to is that which can only be considered as ‘speaking evil’ - that is, unhealthy criticism which undermines the work of Christ no matter how spiritual the language employed.

Mattask quotes McNeile as saying that

‘...our unkind criticism takes the form of a kindly act’

and comments that

‘evil is in fact parading as good’

for it is all too easy to ‘express a concern’ about a fellow believer that is only a precursor to a critical statement that is far from any possible pastoral concern that could be construed in the words. Spiritual language does obscure a multitude of sins and the believer should be warned against it - not just in the format of prayer (Mtw 6:7) but in the way we shroud our intentions in the phrases we use.

After all, which is more likely to be accepted? The statement

‘You know, I’m really feeling concern for Brian - I saw him picking his nose last Sunday and sticking the bogies [US - read ‘boogers’! This is about the only alternative word I know in the American language which may tell you something about the people I mix with...] on the seat in front of where he was sitting. Perhaps we need to pray for the spirits of nose-picking and bogie-sticking to be cast out of him? Or do you think it’s just a problem with the flesh he’s having?’

or

‘That Brian needs to be stopped! He’s been sticking bogies all over the seats in church! Who does he think he is?’

Very often, criticism can be shrouded in religiosity. After all, picking one’s nose is not a hindrance to entry into the Kingdom of Heaven.





And, dealing with non-brethren:



Mtw 7:6

This verse stands as a strange insertion into the overall flow of Jesus’ teaching, especially in the context of the twelve verse passage which is being dealt with on this web page.

The concluding statement of Mtw 7:12 could be equally applied to both the preceding five verses (7:1-5) and the following five (7:7-11) and so stand as a fitting conclusion probably not just to these but to the entire section which has begun with Mtw 5:17.

But why is a short sentence or two about dogs and pigs included here?

For one, the verse contrasts the type of judgment that has been condemned in 7:1-5 with the kind of judgment which is a necessary part of the disciples’ experience. After all, in so deciding whether the situation demands that what is ‘holy’ and what is regarded as ‘pearls’ should be withheld, one has already made a quality decision as to the condition of the people you are confronting!

As Matfran notes

‘The use of our critical faculties in making value-judgments is frequently required...’

and it is that which is presupposed in the instructions contained here. If the disciple is not to judge the spiritual state of those he encounters, how can he determine whether they are swine or dogs (spiritually speaking)? This is all the more reason to take Jesus’ command not to judge (Mtw 7:1) as referring to criticism which is inaccurate and unfounded and which needs to be applied here also if the disciple is to accurately determine the spiritual condition of his hearers.

It would be too easy for the disciple to condemn even fellow believers as ‘swine’ and ‘dogs’ if he is hypercritical of their life and lifestyle. Therefore, being warned of the dangers in judgment, the follower of Christ must take care and accurately assess the state of each person he meets to know what is the best course of action with regard to the proclamation of the Kingdom of heaven.

Similarly, when the disciples were sent out into the towns and villages of Israel, they were told (Mtw 10:11) specifically to

‘...find out who is worthy in it...’

or, as Luke 10:5, to determine who was a

‘...son of peace...’

and so remain in their household until they moved on into another place. Jesus even went so far as to instruct His disciples that they may find the need to shake off the dust of their feet as they left the town if the message which they brought failed to be received (Mtw 10:14), something which, again, implies that judgment has been exercised in the life of the believer.

This calls for quality judgments to be made which are neither critical nor condemnatory but accurate.

As Levertoff, quoted in Mattask, says as a contrast to the preceding five verses and this one

‘We may not judge or condemn anyone, but on the other hand we must have a “sense of judgment” in our contacts with our fellow-men’

and Matmor states that

‘Disciples are not to be judgmental but that does not mean that they are to lack discernment. They must recognise the realities of life’

The opening phrase of this verse (‘do not give’) is, according to Matmor

‘...a firm command; this is not a tentative suggestion’

and we must bear in mind that we are now reading something that is of vital importance to the christian. While the disciple is urged to go into all the world and preach the Gospel (Mtw 28:19), there is a balancing command here which, if applied to certain situations, redefine the commission laid upon them.

There are two images here - one which concerns the dog and the other, the pig. Neither are the main subject of the verse - this is reserved for the ‘holy’ and the ‘pearls’ - but these concepts cannot be properly understood without some reference to the animals in question.

The thought of feeding dogs what is holy is an image which conjures up the sacrificial system. Such food which was considered ‘holy’ to be eaten by both the offerers (for example, Lev 7:15) and the priesthood (for example, Lev 2:3) would hardly likely to have been taken from the Temple compound and laid out before the wild dogs for them to eat, for the food would be totally inappropriate. That food was, rather, meant for the offerers and priests and had been set apart solely for their use.

These dogs should not be considered to be the loving little pets that are in many households throughout the western world but, as Mathen

‘...pariahs, large, savage and ugly [ugly to who?!]. One could see them almost everywhere, prowling about the garbage and the rubbish thrown into the streets’

Besides, dogs were to be given that which was considered unsuitable for human consumption (Ex 22:31) presumably because the flesh could be disposed of before it decayed and rotted, bringing uncleanness to anyone who had contact with it. Cansdale here notes that

‘...the dog was mainly a scavenger and did in larger towns what hyenas helped to do in the villages and outside the walls...the Hebrews’ low view of the dog as utterly unclean meant that most dogs in Palestine were semi-wild, like the pariah dogs that still haunt some countries’

The underlying teaching here, then, is that certain people should not be given those things which have already been set apart for the Lord’s use and His benefit. Interestingly, the concept of ‘dogs’ is used in Phil 3:2 where the legalistically religious are necessarily in mind. It would be too narrow an interpretation to see that as the sole meaning in this passage but it should, nevertheless, be included.

Pigs, on the other hand, being offered pearls would find them of no use to themselves at all and so simply walk all over them, treating them with disdain. Such animals would not be ameliorated by such ‘food’ but would turn on their heels and attack the ones who were offering them something in which they had no interest and for which they had no use.

The ‘pearl’ will be used by Jesus to represent the Kingdom in Mtw 13:44-46 (though commentators take it to refer solely to the Gospel) but we needn’t insist on such an interpretation here. The pearl represents only that which is valuable and useful to the disciple and which the pig can’t appreciate. As Mathen notes

‘...Pearls...were fabulously priced, way beyond the purchasing power of the average person’

and, applying this to the passage in question, Matmor comments that

‘Things of value and beauty will not only not be appreciated by pigs [after all, which pig do you know that likes art?] but will be abused. What is precious is not to be given to people who have no appreciation of it’

Pigs and dogs are also allied in II Peter 2:22, a part quote from Prov 26:11, which reads

‘It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire’

The application to the present verse is somewhat limited but it does show that both pigs and dogs could be rolled together into one sentence to teach something which was similar. They seem to have been regarded as the ultimate unclean animals with behaviour that could be cited on occasions to show what shouldn’t be done.

But the verse teaches that both that which is set apart for the Lord’s use (the ‘holy’) and that which is of intrinsic spiritual value (the ‘pearls’) should not be given over to people who would either abuse or ridicule what is being offered. This has a great many interpretations that one needs to meditate on fully and carefully for, the perplexing problem remains as to how far we are to go between holding back and remaining silent or of broadcasting the message of the Gospel to whoever we can but who would more than likely treat such a message with ridicule

But what of the possessions of our lives? There is a sense that, if we have set apart something solely for the Lord’s use (whether cars, accommodation and similar), we should be careful to continue to use it for the intention we have committed it to and, ministries which can overbleed into the secular world, should also be protected from the derogatory response of people who do not know God.

The Didache’s application of the Lord’s words here may be relevant to the verse as it deals with the sharing of the bread and the wine and notes that (Didache 9 - late first century)

‘No one is to eat or drink of your Eucharist but those who have been baptized in the Name of the Lord; for the Lord’s own saying applies here “Give not that which is holy unto dogs”’

But this is too narrow an interpretation if taken to refer exclusively to the breaking of bread. In similar manner, to simply take the ‘holy’ and the ‘pearls’ as being representative of the Gospel of the Kingdom is too narrow and needs to be expanded, perhaps more vaguely, into the two types of examples which are being taught on - that is, the things which are set apart for the Lord’s use and those things which are of spiritual worth.

Mathag suggests - through a consideration of the words for both ‘dogs’ and ‘swine’ - that

‘...it is possible that this logion prohibits the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles...’

but we should dismiss this without too much consideration. After all, Jesus spoke the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven to all who came to Him - He didn’t have His disciples go round the multitudes and exclude those who they knew to be non-Jews!

Only in delimiting the application can we see the vastness of the possible relevance and the need for each disciple to be wary in the situations he finds himself in to properly judge the condition of those around him and to respond accordingly.

Finally, Mattask’s warning here is relevant when he summarises the verse as teaching that

‘We must...discriminate carefully between those who possess and those who lack the sensitivity necessary to appreciate such intellectual, artistic [?] or spiritual benefits that we may have it in our power to bestow’

Again, you let someone else do the speaking for you.. proving my point. You are just a mouthpiece.



Refusing to read it? I suppose you concede your point then?

Actually I meant between Democrats and Republicans

the differences that americans seem to see
aren't at all obvious to anybody else

anywhere else in the world

Originally, Republicans believed in the government staying out of the people's lives. They wanted to keep tradition and wanted freedom from the government.

Democrats wanted to reform the government and wanted the government to protect the people.

At least that is kind of my understanding. Now they are essentially they same anyway. Only different in name.

We must all congratulate neo for becoming a total mouthpiece for websites without providing any opinion or interpretation. :rolleyes:

I have seen some of those. Typically they are Christian sites.

Care to site some neutral sources that say it's a religion?

Where do these people meet BTW? What is the method of worship and the mysticism?

Sorry, I missed the preceeding arguments here, but surely someone's not saying that athiesm is a religion?

My understanding is A=not and Thiesm=theological=dealing with a God/god

Refusing to read it? I suppose you concede your point then?

I'm not reading mindless drivel... I want you to start speaking for yourself, and stop letting others use you as a mouthpiece. There is a difference between me and you:

1) I think logically, independently

2) You rely on others to speak for you

NR, why not voice your own opinion instead of regurgitating the spiels of people who have made it their job to make the bible support their biased agenda?

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]Ok then, here ya go:

From http://www.bible.ca/ef/expository-matthew-7-1-5.htm


"Righteous Judgment"

Matthew 7:1-5

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

You seem to simply be missing the fact that people are saying to you
that you seem to be wearing the latest in designer wooden eyewear.

I can't help wondering if it is from this biblical passage that the
expression

You utter plank

comes from



You see? I can cite many sources showing how you're taking the verse out of context and misapplying it, yet you will still refuse to accept it. Intellectual dishonesty, that's what it is.

You see? I can cite many sources showing how you're taking the verse out of context and misapplying it, yet you will still refuse to accept it. Intellectual dishonesty, that's what it is.

You are the one committing intellectual dishonesty because you let websites speak for you, and you don't do any speaking.

Both sides need to cool it. Now.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Both sides need to cool it. Now.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Why? It's a legitimate intellectual debate

NR, why not voice your own opinion instead of regurgitating the spiels of people who have made it their job to make the bible support their biased agenda?



Look, showing how Matthew 7:1-5, when taken in context, only applies to one form of judgement takes a looooong time. Am I expected to compose an expository of biblical (pun intended) proportions, simply so a few Generalites can ignore it and continue to state blatantly erroneous ramblings, or would it not be more logical to post sermons and articles written by others which do it just as well, or even better, than I did? They are voicing my opinion.

On the whole "Is athiesm a religion" topic, this site sums it up pretty well:

http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/atheismreligion.html

[QUOTE=Relative Power]



You see? I can cite many sources showing how you're taking the verse out of context and misapplying it, yet you will still refuse to accept it. Intellectual dishonesty, that's what it is.


Look

In the tired old fiction that you have wasted so much of your life
reading in poor translation,
even in that
the Jesus character who is supposedly far less sinful than other men
does not choose to take any course of action in judging someone other
than rescue them from people who felt they had some right to judge and
punish them.

And considering that if you take it in any sense to be true
then you must be taking it that your are in nowhere near as good a position
as him to be judging anyone.

So why not stop arguing, stop judging and you know
try to quietly be a decent person doing good works for people.

But if you must use those ludicrous texts as something to base your life
on, perhaps you should really read them in their original context
in their original language as until you have it can quite truly be said

you have never
in your entire life
read
the bible.

Why? It's a legitimate intellectual debate


Not when one side calls the other an "idiot" :rolleyes:

Look, showing how Matthew 7:1-5, when taken in context, only applies to one form of judgement takes a looooong time. Am I expected to compose an expository of biblical (pun intended) proportions, simply so a few Generalites can ignore it and continue to state blatantly erroneous ramblings, or would it not be more logical to post sermons and articles written by others which do it just as well, or even better, than I did? They are voicing my opinion.
OK, but from my POV, you haven't really backed up your stance.

Cog, I'm not seeing how this conversation is all that bad. You don't think this is more civil than most every other thread on religion, homosexuality or evolution???
By any measure, it should go in the books as one of the most civil debates I've seen on the subject in a long time.

Not when one side calls the other an "idiot" :rolleyes:

What if they use lots of long, fancy words to do it?

Both sides need to cool it. Now.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
*cumbiah my lord cumbiah*

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: starts fluffling allt he boys and girls in the room :fluffle: :fluffle:

Both sides need to cool it. Now.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation

Awww Cog! It was starting to get fun. ;)

Look, showing how Matthew 7:1-5, when taken in context, only applies to one form of judgement takes a looooong time. Am I expected to compose an expository of biblical (pun intended) proportions, simply so a few Generalites can ignore it and continue to state blatantly erroneous ramblings, or would it not be more logical to post sermons and articles written by others which do it just as well, or even better, than I did? They are voicing my opinion.

First of all, i'm not going to spend thirty minutes reading a sermon. Secondly, you shouldn't let people do speaking for you.

It just shows you don't have much of a stance.

Edit: Sorry Cog.

*cumbiah my lord cumbiah*

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: starts fluffling allt he boys and girls in the room :fluffle: :fluffle:

Just watch where you put your hands buddy! :p

Just watch where you put your hands buddy! :p
I was ... thats why they are there :fluffle: :fluffle:

*cumbiah my lord cumbiah*

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: starts fluffling allt he boys and girls in the room :fluffle: :fluffle:

Eh.. *walks back a few steps* I'm taken heheheh..

[QUOTE=Relative Power]

You see? I can cite many sources showing how you're taking the verse out of context and misapplying it, yet you will still refuse to accept it. Intellectual dishonesty, that's what it is.

Neo all you did was cut and paste somebodies sermon. Usually you should edit it and add your comments.

Eh.. *walks back a few steps* I'm taken heheheh..
Thats ok ;)

Not when one side calls the other an "idiot" :rolleyes:...
Don't jump to conclusions on something you know little of.

I can't help wondering if the christian vehement opposition to homosexuality
is down to that story about Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss.

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]


Look

In the tired old fiction that you have wasted so much of your life
reading in poor translation,
even in that
the Jesus character who is supposedly far less sinful than other men
does not choose to take any course of action in judging someone other
than rescue them from people who felt they had some right to judge and
punish them.

And considering that if you take it in any sense to be true
then you must be taking it that your are in nowhere near as good a position
as him to be judging anyone.

So why not stop arguing, stop judging and you know
try to quietly be a decent person doing good works for people.

But if you must use those ludicrous texts as something to base your life
on, perhaps you should really read them in their original context
in their original language as until you have it can quite truly be said

you have never
in your entire life
read
the bible.



1. Jesus is not "far less sinful." That would imply he still had a degree of sin. Christ was without sin.

2. Actually, Christ did judge. He references his judicial nature in several verses.

3. Does "Go now, and sin no more." ring a bell?

4. Read the articles I posted, they aptly refute your heretical doctrine of forbidding all judgement.

...



Umm....I never implied you were an idiot.....


I did, however, accuse you of lacking adequate biblical knowledge. However, an idiot is an all-encompassing trade. It is the state of stupidity and foolishness. I would have to state that you know little of everything in order for it to be an implication of idiocy.

I can't help wondering if the christian vehement opposition to homosexuality
is down to that story about Judas betraying Jesus with a kiss.



No, that would be Christians accepting and tolerating what Christ or his apostles described as sinful. Kind of like you're wanting me to do.

That’s probably it.

We (fundamentalist Christians) are not all like that, you know. You’re one of the few homosexuals (on this forum at least) who seems to have a grasp of economic and geo-political realities, and my opinion of you is generally good. Sure, I disagree with your lifestyle, but I disagree with a lot of things that I tolerate.

See thats the true Christain. I am agnostic (I don't know either way) but I was raised in the Anglican Church and although I see any form of religion as a potential threat to free thought and rational behaviour I have enourmous respect for the majority of the clergy I know and for those who are able to stand up and support thier beliefs but not inflict them on others.

This leads me to my point. See if people could disagree with things (ie Undelia) but not impose thier beliefs or fall into the traps of bigotry by remaining respectful then the world would be fine. I do not belive what Undelia does but if she/he can can remain respectful of others decisions then I will lend all my support to see him/her respected.

Furthermore I hate to do this but the Bible does say "turn the other cheek" and generally promotes respect for your fellow man, even "sinners" so I dont think people should use the bible to support anything unless they follow all of the passages rather than a select few. Believe what you believe but dont impose religous ideals on others. Relgion should be a personal thing between you and whoever you believe in posibly with the guidance of believers. Religion should guide your own personal decisions, not others.

On the whole gay thing... put it this was I dont give a crap as long as it doesnt effect me. Why should I or we care if two people want to peform revolting acts if doesnt effect us or society?

Futhermore why is this even a big issue? Why is it that half the bloody discussions online are about stupid polarised issues like these and abortion which have already had thier debates? Why aren't we focussing on things like politicals ideals or how to solve international instablity? (I know after I have posted on this forum it sounds a little hypocritical but meh)

Overused and generally misapplied. I only use it when I have to.

Oh my dear; in your case it's rarely misapplied.....

Read the articles I posted, they aptly refute your heretical doctrine of forbidding all judgement.
I did. It wasn't the word of God, just some dude with a keyboard.

This conversation has left me with something though, and I thank you for it. The next time I hear anyone attempting to describe Christ as anything but vengeful, rebuking, judgemental... I can tell them that they're wrong. So wrong.

I hope you're not still selling the loving, forgiving Jesus (especially to kids in Sunday School). That would be taking it out of context.

See thats the true Christain. I am agnostic (I don't know either way) but I was raised in the Anglican Church and although I see any form of religion as a potential threat to free thought and rational behaviour I have enourmous respect for the majority of the clergy I know and for those who are able to stand up and support thier beliefs but not inflict them on others.

This leads me to my point. See if people could disagree with things (ie Undelia) but not impose thier beliefs or fall into the traps of bigotry by remaining respectful then the world would be fine. I do not belive what Undelia does but if she/he can can remain respectful of others decisions then I will lend all my support to see him/her respected.

Furthermore I hate to do this but the Bible does say "turn the other cheek" and generally promotes respect for your fellow man, even "sinners" so I dont think people should use the bible to support anything unless they follow all of the passages rather than a select few. Believe what you believe but dont impose religous ideals on others. Relgion should be a personal thing between you and whoever you believe in posibly with the guidance of believers. Religion should guide your own personal decisions, not others.

On the whole gay thing... put it this was I dont give a crap as long as it doesnt effect me. Why should I or we care if two people want to peform revolting acts if doesnt effect us or society?

Futhermore why is this even a big issue? Why is it that half the bloody discussions online are about stupid polarised issues like these and abortion which have already had thier debates? Why aren't we focussing on things like politicals ideals or how to solve international instablity? (I know after I have posted on this forum it sounds a little hypocritical but meh)


Because people start threads like these ;)

I read nearly all of her posts, and have never seen her flamebait. Flame, maybe, but only in retaliation.

The fact that she defends what she believes in (which isn't what the majority here believe) does not automatically make her a troll.

Well you have missed a few gems such as suggesting people who voted a certain way in a poll should basically be incarcerated and prison-raped....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9392750&postcount=38

I did. It wasn't the word of God, just some dude with a keyboard.

This conversation has left me with something though, and I thank you for it. The next time I hear anyone attempting to describe Christ as anything but vengeful, rebuking, judgemental... I can tell them that they're wrong. So wrong.

I hope you're not still selling the loving, forgiving Jesus (especially to kids in Sunday School). That would be taking it out of context.



Sheesh, talk about a polarized spectrum you have there :eek:



Someone is either completely tolerant, permissive, and amoral or they are vengeful, repressive, and otherwise bigoted?


Do the rest of liberals view Christ in such a black and white way too?

Well you have missed a few gems such as suggesting people who voted a certain way in a poll should basically be incarcerated and prison-raped....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9392750&postcount=38

OMG.. Neo was much more extreme then I thought...

Well you have missed a few gems such as suggesting people who voted a certain way in a poll should basically be incarcerated and prison-raped....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9392750&postcount=38
Jesus must be proud! Okay, seriously, I have a much clearer picture of who I'm dealing with now... And how much her rants deserve my time (thanks BF).

I'm thinking, it's like the new Jesussaves, without all that pesky warmth.

[QUOTE=Relative Power]



1. Jesus is not "far less sinful." That would imply he still had a degree of sin. Christ was without sin.

2. Actually, Christ did judge. He references his judicial nature in several verses.

3. Does "Go now, and sin no more." ring a bell?

4. Read the articles I posted, they aptly refute your heretical doctrine of forbidding all judgement.

Actually they don't

The translation you quoted from the bible is actually really clear about
the no judgement thing.
It is then followed by a devious sermon which attempts to say that
well yes Jesus did say that we shouldn't judge other people's sins
seeing as we all have sins of our own and usually much greater but
he didn't really mean WE couldn't judge people.

Just as they twist the whole non violence thing into the ability to
go to war with gods blessing anytime we feel like it.


Now I have not studied your favourite book in great depth and off hand
can only recall two situations where Jesus did some judging.

One was when he threw money lenders out of the temple.
Nothing about sexuality or sin there just the inapropriatness of making
money out of religion or even just alongside religion.

The other occasion he seemed to have a fit of pique about a tree
not producing fruit when he wanted it even though it wasn't in season.
For which he apparently blasted the tree.
Again not really about sexuality well at least not about human sexuality.


But once again I say to you

You have never read the bible
You have never read any part of it in context
as to have the context you would have to have read the original documents
in the original languages they were written in.

You have no argument to make about the actual verses or gospels
as you've never read them.

Go now and sin no more does ring a bell.

It does indeed sound like an instruction but not really a judgement
plus of course with every human being alive being a sinner then
he may not have been referring to the reason the others were willing
to stone her but perhaps she had been someone who was opposed
to homosexual marriage for example
and if as you say this Jesus character was without sin
my argument that if that was the most he would do and him being in a position to do more therefore you have absolutely no right at all
to make any kind of call about anybody other than yourself
is simply strenghtened.

OMG.. Neo was much more extreme then I thought...



Have you seen the two options on that post? Perhaps my comment was extreme, but it certainly did have some veracity to it.....

Have you seen the two options on that post? Perhaps my comment was extreme, but it certainly did have some veracity to it.....

Actually there is no justification for what you said. You advocated that people should get raped for not agreeing with you.

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]

Actually they don't

The translation you quoted from the bible is actually really clear about
the no judgement thing.
It is then followed by a devious sermon which attempts to say that
well yes Jesus did say that we shouldn't judge other people's sins
seeing as we all have sins of our own and usually much greater but
he didn't really mean WE couldn't judge people.

Just as they twist the whole non violence thing into the ability to
go to war with gods blessing anytime we feel like it.


Now I have not studied your favourite book in great depth and off hand
can only recall two situations where Jesus did some judging.

One was when he threw money lenders out of the temple.
Nothing about sexuality or sin there just the inapropriatness of making
money out of religion or even just alongside religion.

The other occasion he seemed to have a fit of pique about a tree
not producing fruit when he wanted it even though it wasn't in season.
For which he apparently blasted the tree.
Again not really about sexuality well at least not about human sexuality.


But once again I say to you

You have never read the bible
You have never read any part of it in context
as to have the context you would have to have read the original documents
in the original languages they were written in.

You have no argument to make about the actual verses or gospels
as you've never read them.

Go now and sin no more does ring a bell.

It does indeed sound like an instruction but not really a judgement
plus of course with every human being alive being a sinner then
he may not have been referring to the reason the others were willing
to stone her but perhaps she had been someone who was opposed
to homosexual marriage for example
and if as you say this Jesus character was without sin
my argument that if that was the most he would do and him being in a position to do more therefore you have absolutely no right at all
to make any kind of call about anybody other than yourself
is simply strenghtened.



Why do I even bother? Someone who has never read himself the Bible accuses someone who has spent her entire life studying it of not having read it, all while ignoring the articles showing how his misapplication of Matthew 7:1 is fallacious :rolleyes:

Have you seen the two options on that post? Perhaps my comment was extreme, but it certainly did have some veracity to it.....

Neo I do hope you are old for such hate.

Even with what I think of you; I would never suggest you need to be prision raped.

There are a few people here that annoy me and I would never suggest that of them.

Wow.....

Actually there is no justification for what you said. You advocated that people should get raped for not agreeing with you.



I'm saying those who would protect a rapist deserve it themselves so they can know what it's like to be a victim. Maybe then they won't be an accessory to a crime. Call it extreme, but I've had to live around criminals and anyone who protects them should not be let free....

Why do I even bother? Someone who has never read himself the Bible accuses someone who has spent her entire life studying it of not having read it, all while ignoring the articles showing how his misapplication of Matthew 7:1 is fallacious :rolleyes:
Uh, I wouldn't really call opinion pieces and somewhat biased personal interpretations of bible passages factual articles...

I'm saying those who would protect a rapist deserve it themselves so they can know what it's like to be a victim. Maybe then they won't be an accessory to a crime. Call it extreme, but I've had to live around criminals and anyone who protects them should not be let free....

I'm saying there is no justification that you can put up for advocating rape towards someone who does not agree with you. No matter there opinion, you should never advocate rape towards another individual. NEVER, EVER!

I'm saying those who would protect a rapist deserve it themselves so they can know what it's like to be a victim. Maybe then they won't be an accessory to a crime. Call it extreme, but I've had to live around criminals and anyone who protects them should not be let free....
An eye for an eye...some real old-testament spirit there! :p

Neo I do hope you are old for such hate.

Even with what I think of you; I would never suggest you need to be prision raped.

There are a few people here that annoy me and I would never suggest that of them.

Wow.....



Eh, call it a personality flaw (and a sin that I constantly have to repent of), but I have a hard time loving those who facilititate crime by not turning in criminals when they see them. I have experience with this (no I wasn't raped), so it tends to be a weakness of mine...

[QUOTE=Relative Power]



Why do I even bother? Someone who has never read himself the Bible accuses someone who has spent her entire life studying it of not having read it, all while ignoring the articles showing how his misapplication of Matthew 7:1 is fallacious :rolleyes:


So you are saying you have actually read the orginal documents in their
original languages?

You may have studied one or even more translations of them but unless
you can read the originals you have no idea whether they actually are
accurate translations.

Even if you accepted that they were reasonable translations the thing
with languages there do tend to be a great many things that don't
really translate all that accurately.

So
once again
unless you have read the original documents in their original languages
then it doesn't matter how many years of your life you have wasted
studying someone elses translations of them you yourself
have never read the the old testament or the gospels
or any other part of the bible.

I myself have never read them either
I have however read a translation
I no more made it my lifes work to study it then I would make it my
lifes work to study the hobbit or harry potter or Asimov's foundation trilogy.
But that is not the same thing as not having read an english translation of it.
Possibly the same translation you've read or possibly not.

Eh, call it a personality flaw (and a sin that I constantly have to repent of), but I have a hard time loving those who facilititate crime by not turning in criminals when they see them. I have experience with this (no I wasn't raped), so it tends to be a weakness of mine...

So you advocate rape on them? Advocating a crime to be committed?

Uh, I wouldn't really call opinion pieces and somewhat biased personal interpretations of bible passages factual articles...



Why are you accusing them of bias? Biblical commandments are to be taken objectively, studied, and then practiced. Following the Bible's teachings is not bias, rather submission.

Do the rest of liberals view Christ in such a black and white way too?
I'm as liberal as you are, Neo! You're the left-winger on economics, remember? :p

So you advocate rape on them? Advocating a crime to be committed?



No, thou who demands sensitivity yet does not give it to others, I will not fall into the trap of violating the ToS.

I'm as liberal as you are, Neo! You're the left-winger on economics, remember? :p



I think those who are socially conservative and economically liberal are generally considered conservatives anyway :D

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]


So you are saying you have actually read the orginal documents in their
original languages?

You may have studied one or even more translations of them but unless
you can read the originals you have no idea whether they actually are
accurate translations.

Even if you accepted that they were reasonable translations the thing
with languages there do tend to be a great many things that don't
really translate all that accurately.

So
once again
unless you have read the original documents in their original languages
then it doesn't matter how many years of your life you have wasted
studying someone elses translations of them you yourself
have never read the the old testament or the gospels
or any other part of the bible.

I myself have never read them either
I have however read a translation
I no more made it my lifes work to study it then I would make it my
lifes work to study the hobbit or harry potter or Asimov's foundation trilogy.
But that is not the same thing as not having read an english translation of it.
Possibly the same translation you've read or possibly not.



I'm glad you brought that up. I'm learning Greek as we speak, and have several commentaries with the original Greek texts and their subsequent translations :D

Why is anyone concerned about who or what the person next to you is screwing? Unless you or someone/something you interact with physically is intimate with that person, why do you care? -- Religion (<cough,cough> Lemmings!), fundamentals beliefs (Look that up in your Funk & Wagnall’s monkey-boy), cause my Parent/Relatives/Friends/Coach/Government/etc.... brainwashed me that way because they were previously influenced, because you have no thought process of your own and only believe what you are told to believe/feel/do/etc... or any other ridiculous ExCuSe?
:fluffle: :sniper:
:fluffle: :gundge:
:fluffle: :mp5:
:confused:

*<}:o) H-D

[QUOTE=Relative Power]



I'm glad you brought that up. I'm learning Greek as we speak, and have several commentaries with the original Greek texts and their subsequent translations :D

so

that would be a big old NO then
You haven't studied any of the bible for any length of time
but you are embarking on the very earliest stages of learning the
language of the very latest parts of the bible.

Come back to us then when you have learnt both greek and hebrew
and studied the original documents for as long as you've studied the
english translation.

Why you waste so much of your life studying a storybook is incomprehensible
but if it keeps you off the streets then it may yet be a good thing

Why is anyone concerned about who or what the person next to you is screwing? Unless you or someone/something you interact with physically is intimate with that person, why do you care? -- Religion (<cough,cough> Lemmings!), fundamentals beliefs (Look that up in your Funk & Wagnall’s monkey-boy), cause my Parent/Relatives/Friends/Coach/Government/etc.... brainwashed me that way because they were previously influenced, because you have no thought process of your own and only believe what you are told to believe/feel/do/etc... or any other ridiculous ExCuSe?
:fluffle: :sniper:
:fluffle: :gundge:
:fluffle: :mp5:
:confused:

*<}:o) H-D



Oh good grief.... :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]

so

that would be a big old NO then
You haven't studied any of the bible for any length of time
but you are embarking on the very earliest stages of learning the
language of the very latest parts of the bible.

Come back to us then when you have learnt both greek and hebrew
and studied the original documents for as long as you've studied the
english translation.

Why you waste so much of your life studying a storybook is incomprehensible
but if it keeps you off the streets then it may yet be a good thing

Following that logic, I suppose those of us who aren't researchers in the very most complex aspects of biology, geology, archaeology, chemistry, and cosmology should disregard the theory of evolution? After all, those wicked men might be trying to deceive us with their false information :rolleyes:

Your last statement can be construed as flamebait--flamebait which I'm not biting, thank you very much.

Nah.

It will probably be:

"Wow it's natural. Oh well you can't tell what God's plans are! But hey now we can correct this unfortunate affliction. After all you don't want babies being punished for sins they didn't commit do you?"

;)

mate is says in the bible that no offspring can be punished for the sins of there parents get your facts straight before you say something like that and it says multiple times in the bible the homosexuality is wrounge so what we just change it because the modern world says it isint P.C?

Oh good grief.... :rolleyes:

He asked a valid question.. why do you care of what I do in my personal life?

[QUOTE=Relative Power]



Why do I even bother? Someone who has never read himself the Bible accuses someone who has spent her entire life studying it of not having read it, all while ignoring the articles showing how his misapplication of Matthew 7:1 is fallacious :rolleyes:
I gave you an opportunity to show how the application of Matthew 7 telling people not to judge is fallacious and you failed. The effort wasn't even valiant. And I've certainly read the Bible. A lot. I believe I've been studying it for about a decade longer than you have. Every argument I've ever seen regarding this passage not meaning exactly what it clearly says requires people to take the passages completely out of context or to forget who the audience of said passages are. Usually they pretend like instructions for how members of the Church should interact are instructions for how you should treat people in general. Kind of like trying to say instructions on how to treat your children have to be applied how to treat your coworkers. It requires a suspension of logic.

As far as your reference to Jesus judging people. He could. You can't. Do you know why? Come on. I know you can figure it out. He didn't have that pesky plank in his eye. He and only he had no sin so he was the only substitute for the judgement of God. That's the whole point of his existence. You appear to have missed that.

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]

so

that would be a big old NO then
You haven't studied any of the bible for any length of time
but you are embarking on the very earliest stages of learning the
language of the very latest parts of the bible.

Come back to us then when you have learnt both greek and hebrew
and studied the original documents for as long as you've studied the
english translation.

Why you waste so much of your life studying a storybook is incomprehensible
but if it keeps you off the streets then it may yet be a good thing


the new testament is written in greek only the old testament is hebrew and even then the ends of it are in greek. Ask any rabbi if homosexuality is a sin and they will say yes

Trust me i did when visited a jewing gathering

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]
I gave you an opportunity to show how the application of Matthew 7 telling people not to judge is fallacious and you failed. The effort wasn't even valiant. And I've certainly read the Bible. A lot. I believe I've been studying it for about a decade longer than you have. Every argument I've ever seen regarding this passage not meaning exactly what it clearly says requires people to take the passages completely out of context or to forget who the audience of said passages are. Usually they pretend like instructions for how members of the Church should interact are instructions for how you should treat people in general. Kind of like trying to say instructions on how to treat your children have to be applied how to treat your coworkers. It requires a suspension of logic.

As far as your reference to Jesus judging people. He could. You can't. Do you know why? Come on. I know you can figure it out. He didn't have that pesky plank in his eye. He and only he had no sin so he was the only substitute for the judgement of God. That's the whole point of his existence. You appear to have missed that.


*waits patiently for her to get to the part where I posted 3 articles dealing with the issue*

[QUOTE=Relative Power]


Dumbass the new testament is written in greek only the old testament is hebrew and ask any rabbi if homosexuality is a sin and they will say yes

Trust me i did when visited a jewing gathering


:rolleyes:

What is a jewing gathering? :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Relative Power]


Dumbass the new testament is written in greek only the old testament is hebrew and ask any rabbi if homosexuality is a sin and they will say yes

Trust me i did when visited a jewing gathering

Phenixica, it's not considered acceptable on this forum to address anyone as "dumbass," even if they happen to disagree with you. You'll probably want to edit that out before a mod swings by...

mate is says in the bible that no offspring can be punished for the sins of there parents get your facts straight before you say something like that and it says multiple times in the bible the homosexuality is wrounge so what we just change it because the modern world says it isint P.C?

Well lad, you made a few assumptions.

The sin mentioned was the fact he was a homosexual(or in this case would be).

Also why do we baptise newborns? *coughs original sin coughs*

How do you validate the Bible?

Should I mention that S and G weren't destroyed only because of homosexuals?

Finally, turn on your sarcasm detector. ;)

[QUOTE=Relative Power]


Dumbass the new testament is written in greek only the old testament is hebrew and ask any rabbi if homosexuality is a sin and they will say yes

Trust me i did when visited a jewing gathering
Um thats what he said

the later portions in greek the older in hebrew

learning the
language of the very latest parts of the bible.

See the LATEST as in the latest written

You call him a dumbass and then state what he did over lol funny

Oh good grief.... :rolleyes:
Yet another example of how you fail to live by your own standards, unless now you intend to claim some biblical justification for judging people when in your opinion there posts are not long enough...

So yesterday in one post alone you managed both hypocrisy and judging outside God's standards...2 sins for the price of one...

Perhaps you should spend less time reading about living a good Christian life, and more time practising...knowing the theory is a waste of time if you cant be bothered with the practising bit...

[QUOTE=Relative Power]



I'm glad you brought that up. I'm learning Greek as we speak, and have several commentaries with the original Greek texts and their subsequent translations :D

Read Matthew 6, pocket your pride then return to us. You never miss an opportunity to tell us of your 'acts of righteousness'.

Matthew 6:1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

Jesus had a name for those that proclaim their 'acts of righteousness' from the rooftops. I'm sure you've heard it.

There i got it out sorry

the new testament is written in greek only the old testament is hebrew and even then the ends of it are in greek. Ask any rabbi if homosexuality is a sin and they will say yes

Trust me i did when visited a jewing gathering
Never mind Hebrew or Greek, do you speak English? :p

[QUOTE=Jocabia]


*waits patiently for her to get to the part where I posted 3 articles dealing with the issue*

Who's 'her'?

Finally, turn on your sarcasm detector. ;)

You mean spell check. :)

Neo still hasn't addressed my question.

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]

Who's 'her'?

That's you sweety! :fluffle: :p

Funny jesus did Correct people you must remeber the correcting and judging are diffrent things you can correct just dont judge so if somebody says
"god likes us even if we are gay" we have every right to say
"no that isint right even jeus said it was wrounge and so did god who are two of the same"

Never mind Hebrew or Greek, do you speak English? :p

yes i do i just have a bad habit of rushing when typing

You mean spell check. :)

Neo still hasn't addressed my question.

As one who is a crap speller; I can't judge. ;)

Don't worry she will if you poke her enough.

Funny jesus did Correct people you must remeber the correcting and judging are diffrent things you can correct just dont judge so if somebody says
"god likes us even if we are gay" we have every right to say
"no that isint right even jeus said it was wrounge and so did god who are two of the same"

Right. Which also makes it fine to correct you and point out that there is no record at all of Jesus saying any such thing. Paul, yes. Jesus, not so much. :)

As one who is a crap speller; I can't judge. ;)

Don't worry she will if you poke her enough.

Well we may not be good spelling (even I admit I'm not good at spelling).. but... his posts are totally incoherent. I don't understand what he is trying to say.

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]

Read Matthew 6, pocket your pride then return to us. You never miss an opportunity to tell us of your 'acts of righteousness'.

Matthew 6:1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

Jesus had a name for those that proclaim their 'acts of righteousness' from the rooftops. I'm sure you've heard it.



He asked, it's not as if I climbed a mountain and proclaimed to the land "Hey everyone, I'm learning Greek!" That has strawman written all over it.

Yet another example of how you fail to live by your own standards, unless now you intend to claim some biblical justification for judging people when in your opinion there posts are not long enough...

So yesterday in one post alone you managed both hypocrisy and judging outside God's standards...2 sins for the price of one...

Perhaps you should spend less time reading about living a good Christian life, and more time practising...knowing the theory is a waste of time if you cant be bothered with the practising bit...



Illogical application of God's standards, try again.

Well lad, you made a few assumptions.

The sin mentioned was the fact he was a homosexual(or in this case would be).

Also why do we baptise newborns? *coughs original sin coughs*

How do you validate the Bible?

Should I mention that S and G weren't destroyed only because of homosexuals?

Finally, turn on your sarcasm detector. ;)



Original sin is a Catholic dogma. I know that wasn't addressed to me, but I felt the need to intervene on his behalf.

[QUOTE=Jocabia]



He asked, it's not as if I climbed a mountain and proclaimed to the land "Hey everyone, I'm learning Greek!" That has strawman written all over it.

It certainly wasn't a humble proclamation. I've seen you in thread after thread proclaim that in your short lifespan you know exactly all of the answers when people who have studied the Bible for the entirety of their lives still have questions. Yet, you post an article (yes, I read it) that compares the average man's right to judge to the judgements of Jesus. Again, Jesus didn't have a plank or a speck. Jesus was sinless and thus has the right to judge sin. You are not sinless. You have a plank in your eye as I do. So work on your plank and I'll work on mine and the world will be a better place. The obvious purpose of th epassage was to take a position of teaching and not one of judgement. You should learn the difference.

Right. Which also makes it fine to correct you and point out that there is no record at all of Jesus saying any such thing. Paul, yes. Jesus, not so much. :)
Thanks for saving me the typing.

I also love how he used the word "like" concerning a certain sin. By that logic (or rather, interpretation) if he's lied, God doesn't like him. If he's had a lustful thought, same thing. I could go on and on, but it's funny how when the topic of homosexuality comes up, Christians (I'm using the term loosely) completely forget their own sins altogether. Suddenly they've become Jesus as well, and are pure as the driven snow.

Is it just me, or until the issue of gay marriage came up ias a major issue in politics, didn't Christians at least try to hide their spite, at least when talking (or testifying) to non-belivers? :confused:

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]

Who's 'her'?



Oh, you're a guy? Sorry, Jocabia just sounded kind of feminine to me.

[QUOTE=Jocabia]



Oh, you're a guy? Sorry, Jocabia just sounded kind of feminine to me.

Just the name of the nation we have.. same with Mesatecala..

You still didn't answer my question.

[QUOTE=Jocabia]



Oh, you're a guy? Sorry, Jocabia just sounded kind of feminine to me.

Or like the name of a Nation, on NationStates.

Illogical application of God's standards, try again.
I love the smell of burnt excuses in the morning..

It's all your own work Neo, you stated that the judging that Christians are not meant to do are any judgements that go beyond God's standards, you even suggested that this is direct (not implied standards) standards, so that smoking is not something to be judged despite the damage it might do to the 'temple/body'. So you judged based on internet post length, show me where in God's standards internet post length is even referred to, otherwise you were judging beyond God's standards which is a breach of 'judge not' according to your explanation of it.

Either way you are guilty of hypocrisy. The post you criticised yesterday for brevity and lack of content was longer and contributed more than a couple of smiley faces and the words 'good' and 'grief'.

Thanks for saving me the typing.

I also love how he used the word "like" concerning a certain sin. By that logic (or rather, interpretation) if he's lied, God doesn't like him. If he's had a lustful thought, same thing. I could go on and on, but it's funny how when the topic of homosexuality comes up, Christians (I'm using the term loosely) completely forget their own sins altogether. Suddenly they've become Jesus as well, and are pure as the driven snow.

Is it just me, or until the issue of gay marriage came up ias a major issue in politics, didn't Christians at least try to hide their spite, at least when talking (or testifying) to non-belivers? :confused:


So, we should embrace sin instead of striving to remove it from society? After all, who are we to judge others? :rolleyes: As I've said before, if being guilty of a seperate act ourselves removes our ability to make judgements, then there goes the criminal justice system :( Fact is, "Judge not" is taken out of context all the time.

Original sin is a Catholic dogma. I know that wasn't addressed to me, but I felt the need to intervene on his behalf.

I happen to be one ;)

Shall we start an argument over whose dogma is right? ;)

I love the smell of burnt excuses in the morning..

It's all your own work Neo, you stated that the judging that Christians are not meant to do are any judgements that go beyond God's standards, you even suggested that this is direct (not implied standards) standards, so that smoking is not something to be judged despite the damage it might do to the 'temple/body'. So you judged based on internet post length, show me where in God's standards internet post length is even referred to, otherwise you were judging beyond God's standards which is a breach of 'judge not' according to you explanation of it.

Either way you are guilty of hypocrisy. The post you critised yesterday for brevity and lack of content was long and contributed more than a couple of smiley faces and the words 'good' and 'grief'.



I didn't just based upon length, rather on content. The things he said were utterly foolish, and ridiculous. Accusations of "brainwashing" and what-not....

I happen to be one ;)

Shall we start an argument over whose dogma is right? ;)



Sure, but I'm very tired right now so let's do it tommorow :)

[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]

Just the name of the nation we have.. same with Mesatecala..

You still didn't answer my question.


No, America and Mesatecala sound masculine to me.

Thanks for saving me the typing.

I also love how he used the word "like" concerning a certain sin. By that logic (or rather, interpretation) if he's lied, God doesn't like him. If he's had a lustful thought, same thing.



I noticed that, too. It sort of presents one with a mental image of God-as-six-year-old, saying, "You're icky! I don't like you anymore! You're not invited to my birthday party! Neener neener neener!"

Personally, I rather prefer the image of God-as-father who loves ALL his children. I was under the impression that was supposed to be standard Christian doctrine as well, but maybe they've changed it since last I checked. :(

It is very well applied when in your regard.

Haloman, you aren't one to speak on this. I see several fundamentalist trolls in here.

"If homosexuality is genetic, I have a hard time seeing how it is passed from generation to generation because gay people can't... procreate. "

Somebody doesn't know what recessive traits are.. they can be carried on no matter what..

Reccessive traits to survive must have a positive outcome. Take scicle cell. Deadly but a hell of a defence against malaria. While there might be a predisposition I have difficulty with the idea that there is a 'gay gene' or a 'straight gene'. Sexuality is more complicated than that. Do you beleive thaere is a 'bi gene' and a 's&m gene as well? Note I have no problem with anyone's sexuality as long as it's consentual. Please don't flame.

if you want to find someone who people give less acceptance to than gays, be bisexual.


that would be transsexual actually.

Reccessive traits to survive must have a positive outcome. Take scicle cell. Deadly but a hell of a defence against malaria. While there might be a predisposition I have difficulty with the idea that there is a 'gay gene' or a 'straight gene'. Sexuality is more complicated than that. Do you beleive thaere is a 'bi gene' and a 's&m gene as well? Note I have no problem with anyone's sexuality as long as it's consentual. Please don't flame.

I don't think so. Recessive traits can survive even if they don't have a positive outcome. And first of all, homosexuality reduces population growth so that is positive.

that would be transsexual actually.
Hey, are we having the "who's the most persecuted minority" comp again? Can I throw fat people into the ring, just for shits and giggles?

Do you notice a trend here, Neo? That everyone seems to react to you in almost exactly the same way, even Christians. Maybe it's that it is clearly asked of you in the Bible that you be humble, but you make no effort to do so. It is clearly asked that you not judge others so long as you still have a plank in your own eye (which is always), but you make no effort to do so. It is clearly asked that you treat others as you would have them treat you, but you make no effort to do so (offering veiled insults while reporting every even remote insult to Moderation, for example). If you want to spread Christianity, try being an example rather than a mouthpeice. Try living the word and allowing people to ask what your secret is as I did of many of the amazing Christians I've met in my life. Try exercising the tenets of the Bible instead of trying to force them others. Maybe then people will be willing to listen. Jesus wasn't so influencial just because of his divinity. He was influencial because he was a humble servant, because he was kind AND bold, because he was a patient teacher, because he struck down those that used religion to oppress others and offered people a new hope.

Matthew 7:1 was written specifically to address the holier-than-thou attitude you so proudly display. Read the teachings of the Bible. Learn the teachings of the Bible. Practice the teachings of the Bible. Then and ONLY then, teach the teachings of the Bible.

trust me, transgender are treated the worst. :) well..maybe better than child molestors.. anyways goodnight. You guys are smart!

I didn't just based upon length, rather on content. The things he said were utterly foolish, and ridiculous. Accusations of "brainwashing" and what-not....
More burnt excuses. It is ridiculous to claim that an argument whose premises are unsound proves something, but that was (according to you) no excuse for someone to post a short post in response even though that post pointed out the fallacy (as opposed to just posting a sacarstic comment with a couple of smiley faces). How come if I find a post ridiculous, I may not post a short post that includes the reason why the earlier post is problematic, but if you find a post ridiculous it's fine to post even shorter posts that dont include the reason why the earlier post is problematic. And either way, which of God's standards are you justifying your judgement of other people's post lengths on? I do not recall the bible mentioning God's preferred post lenght.

So, we should embrace sin instead of striving to remove it from society? After all, who are we to judge others? :rolleyes: As I've said before, if being guilty of a seperate act ourselves removes our ability to make judgements, then there goes the criminal justice system :( Fact is, "Judge not" is taken out of context all the time.
No--you strive to remove sin from yourself. Man, if there's ever been a case of cherrypicking what you want to read and apply from the bible, it's you. Jesus said it multiple times--remove the rafter from your own eye, if your eye makes you stumble, tear it out, etc. Not if society is stumbling, tear its eye out--your eye. Not remove the rafter from society's eye--from your own eye.

I don't think so. Recessive traits can survive even if they don't have a positive outcome. And first of all, homosexuality reduces population growth so that is positive.



And it is thought to be the source of AIDS. That's negative :p

And it is thought to be the source of AIDS. That's negative :p

That's a blatant attack.

To be the source of AIDS? Absolutely not. 96% of cases worldwide are caused by heterosexuals and/or drug usage.

AIDS originated in Africa from heterosexuals.

AIDS is not, nor never was a gay disease.

Your flame has been reported.

I don't think so. Recessive traits can survive even if they don't have a positive outcome.
My nephew is a shining example of that. He's got a genetic disease called SMA, and it's a testament to modern medicine that he just celebrated his 5th birthday.

Do you notice a trend here, Neo? That everyone seems to react to you in almost exactly the same way, even Christians. Maybe it's that it is clearly asked of you in the Bible that you be humble, but you make no effort to do so. It is clearly asked that you not judge others so long as you still have a plank in your own eye (which is always), but you make no effort to do so. It is clearly asked that you treat others as you would have them treat you, but you make no effort to do so (offering veiled insults while reporting every even remote insult to Moderation, for example). If you want to spread Christianity, try being an example rather than a mouthpeice. Try living the word and allowing people to ask what your secret is as I did of many of the amazing Christians I've met in my life. Try exercising the tenets of the Bible instead of trying to force them others. Maybe then people will be willing to listen. Jesus wasn't so influencial just because of his divinity. He was influencial because he was a humble servant, because he was kind AND bold, because he was a patient teacher, because he struck down those that used religion to oppress others and offered people a new hope.

Matthew 7:1 was written specifically to address the holier-than-thou attitude you so proudly display. Read the teachings of the Bible. Learn the teachings of the Bible. Practice the teachings of the Bible. Then and ONLY then, teach the teachings of the Bible.

From http://www.obeygod.com/judgenot.html



Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matthew 7:1)

I often hear this statement of Jesus quoted by non-Christians and professing believers when they are confronted with their sin and refuse to change. Whether people are well-read in the Bible or not, it is amazing how many of them can quote this verse! Ignoring the context of the verse as well as what the rest of the Bible teaches, they take this single verse and try say that it is wrong to judge. What is this verse really saying? Does the Bible really forbid judging others? Let's read the context of this verse:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:1-5)

Verse one of Matthew 7 seems to be telling people not to judge because if you do not judge, you will not be judged. However, "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad" (II Corinthians 5:10)-everyone will be judged by God. Then verse two tells us that in whatever manner we judge others, we will be judged. Jesus then proceeds to explain HOW TO JUDGE. First, he says, you must take "the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:5) and if you do not do that first, you are being a hypocrite. This passage does not condemn all instances of judging others, but it does speak against judging another person IF YOU HAVE A PLANK IN YOUR EYE. What is meant by a plank? Jesus is using an illustration and telling people that if you judge someone else, you better make sure that your life is right first-get all the planks out and THEN you may proceed to CAREFULLY judge (which helps to remove specks from someone else's life). Romans 2:3 agrees with this: "So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?" The Apostle Paul is saying that whenever you (a mere man) make judgments you better make sure that you do not do the same things. We need to judge righteously, as Jesus said, "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:24).

We will now move on and examine Scriptures that tell Christians to judge others. Yes, we are actually told by God to judge others; of course, when Christians judge others they must make sure their lives are blameless. I Corinthians 14:24-25 describes an unbeliever who comes into a church service that is operating properly: "He will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be JUDGED by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare." Note that the unbeliever is judged by the church and that judgment leads him to God (I Cor. 14:25). Earlier in I Corinthians 5, Paul makes it clear that Christians are to judge those in the church. Concerning a man who sinned in the church Paul said, "I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present" (I Cor. 5:3). He also said, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you." (I Cor. 5:12-13). We are supposed to judge those in the church and if we find sin in their lives, we shouldn't even eat with them (I Cor. 5:11)! The Apostle Paul also said, "Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!" (I Cor. 6:3). And for you Greek scholars, it is particularly interesting to note that when the Apostle Paul discussed judging in I Corinthians chapters 5 and 6, he used the same Greek word that Jesus used in Matthew 7. (This is true in several other instances as well, but I will not examine the Greek everywhere.)

Paul also judged two people named Hymenaeus and Alexander in I Timothy 1:19-20: "Some have rejected these (faith and a good conscience) and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme." Paul judged that they had fallen away so he handed them over to Satan! Another example of Paul judging someone is in II Timothy 4:14-15 where he judged Alexander the metalworker and warned others against him. Truly, "the spiritual man makes judgments about all things" (I Cor. 2:15).

What if Christians do not judge? If a Christian does not point out the sin in someone's life he or she will be held responsible because they kept silent! God said, "When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself" (Ezekiel 3:18-19). Clearly, we have a responsibility to others! Another danger of failing to judge is that you can get deceived more easily if you do not judge. "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (I John 4:1). If you can't judge someone as a false prophet, you may be deceived. The Church of Ephesus was commended for judging false apostles as false: "I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false" (Revelation 2:2).

What about you? Not too many people recognize their responsibility to judge and that includes most professing believers. Before you judge anyone, you must recognize that you need to be living like Jesus (I John 2:6) and overcoming sin in your life (I John 3:3-10) before you should judge (Matthew 7:5). If you are one of the many professing believers who do not recognize the need to live like Jesus or to live above sin I would advise you NOT to judge because you would be a hypocrite.

Are you one of the many people who have quoted Matthew 7:1 flippantly at someone telling them, "You aren't supposed to judge anyone"? If so, you are wrong and in fact, you may have made a wrong judgment about the person you told that to. Many of you have probably been taught as I was that judging is wrong, but in reality it is often the responsibility of a Christian.



*checks the Bible* Yep, I seem to be trying to emulate Christ. Are you? You who want sin to thrive in the world, moreso than it already is?

And it is thought to be the source of AIDS. That's negative :p

Um...no. A virus is the source of AIDS. Viruses are not known for their moral judgement - they don't particularly care whether they infect homosexuals, haemophiliacs, or newborn babies.

From http://www.obeygod.com/judgenot.html



Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matthew 7:1)

*sniped*

Did you write any of that? or are you just copying and pasting again?

From http://www.obeygod.com/judgenot.html
Wow--you can cut and paste. I'm really impressed. :rolleyes:

Reccessive traits to survive must have a positive outcome. Take scicle cell. Deadly but a hell of a defence against malaria. While there might be a predisposition I have difficulty with the idea that there is a 'gay gene' or a 'straight gene'. Sexuality is more complicated than that. Do you beleive thaere is a 'bi gene' and a 's&m gene as well? Note I have no problem with anyone's sexuality as long as it's consentual. Please don't flame.
Untrue. Retinitis pigmentosa is caused by a recessive gene, one that is common enough amongst the Tristan de Cunha population, that 4 people in a population of only 294 were found (in 1961) to have the condition.

And it is thought to be the source of AIDS. That's negative :p

Gays created AIDS? Can you prove this. Otherwise it's just more deception.

So, we should embrace sin instead of striving to remove it from society? After all, who are we to judge others? :rolleyes: As I've said before, if being guilty of a seperate act ourselves removes our ability to make judgements, then there goes the criminal justice system :( Fact is, "Judge not" is taken out of context all the time.
I believe we should eliminate force and fraud with government... not legislate morality. We all have freewill. That's the natural state of mankind (whether you belive God gave it to us, or not).

I believe in personal responsibility, the flipside of liberty. A man should not be punished for crimes that do not directly harm someone else. A man should be severely punished for crimes that do.

Embrace sin? If by sin you mean force or fraud, then no. If you want to go down the slippery slope and advocate legal punishment of all sin, then we'll all be in jail by the end of the week! For example, I'm smoking a cigarette right now. I know that's "sinful", since I'm doing harm to myself.

But you're a whackjob if you think the government should be busting down my door right now because they want to save me from myself. That's rediculous, just like the question you proposed.

That's a blatant attack.

To be the source of AIDS? Absolutely not. 96% of cases worldwide are caused by heterosexuals and/or drug usage.

AIDS originated in Africa from heterosexuals.

AIDS is not, nor never was a gay disease.

Your flame has been reported.


We were both wrong :D

From http://www.originofaids.com/


Most people believe that the origin of HIV, the AIDS virus, derives from some natural evolutionary event. Key among these HIV origin theories is the so called "cut hunter theory" in which a human, allegedly African native, received a bloody wound or infected splash while preparing a chimpanzee carrying a similar virus (i.e., SIVcpz). Most recent research, along with the scientific consensus, holds that the origin of HIV and AIDS could never have happened this way.

In 2001, The Royal Society of London's conference proceedings, which sought to determine the initial cause of AIDS and the origin of HIV, were published for the world to behold. The most highly respected scientists and academicians debated the possibility that HIV-1, the most widespread and deadly human AIDS virus, evolved from accidental vaccine contaminations and subsequent transmissions to mostly to African villagers. The oral polio vaccine (OPV) received the focus of interest here since that vaccine was partially derived from growing live polio viruses in monkey kidney cells that have historically proven to be contaminated with cancer viruses such as SV40 -- the 40th monkey virus ever discovered -- currently linked by medical scientists to widespread human cancers. By the end of the symposium, the esteemed delegates concluded the HIV origin and AIDS was not likely to have come from polio vaccine transmissions as chimpanzees were not proven to have been used during the manufacture of this vaccine.

More importantly, among the most respected of all HIV/AIDS origin theorists, the U.S. Government's chief DNA sequence analyst at the Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico, Dr. Gerald Myers, reported with his colleagues that the origin of HIV could not have begun with "cut hunters" or other single isolated cross species transmissions (called "zoonosis"). He reported that genetic sequencing studies prove some "punctuated origin of AIDS event" took place during the mid-1970s giving rise, virtually simultaneously, to at least ten different HIV "clades" (or genetic subtypes) associated with ten different distinguishable AIDS epidemics in Africa alone. The most likely cause of this widespread bizarre zoonosis was some man-made (i.e., iatrogenic) event involving chimpanzees, this group reckoned.

Myers and his colleagues offered the following best explanation for the origin of HIV: "It is not far-fetched," they wrote, "to imagine the ten or so clades deriving from a single animal (perhaps immunosuppressed and possessing a swarm of variants) [as might have been the case with chimpanzees used in the process of vaccine manufacture] or from a few animals that might have belonged to a single troop or might have been gang-caged together. The number of animals required is secondary to the extent of variation in the source at the time of the zoonotic or iatrogenic event. The [vaccine] hypothesis makes a case for such a punctuated origin . . ." (See: Burr T, Hyman JM and Myers G. The origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome: Darwinian or Lamarchkian? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B (2001) 356:877-887.)

So if chimpanzees were not used to make the polio vaccine, and therefore the origin of HIV and AIDS did not come from this vaccine nor time period (1950s-early 1960s), then what other vaccine, given during the early to mid 1970s, might have used one or more SIVcpz-infected chimpanzees in the manufacturing process?

The answer to this question was singularly advanced by a Harvard-degreed independent investigator, Dr. Leonard Horowitz in the award winning book Emerging Viruses: AIDS & Ebola -- Nature, Accident or Intentional? (Tetrahedron Press, 1998; 1-888-508-4787; http:www.tetrahedron.org) Dr. Horowitz unearthed and reprinted stunning scientific documents and National Institutes of Health contracts proving that chimpanzees, contaminated with numerous viruses, were used to produce hundreds of hepatitis B vaccine doses administered to central African Blacks along with homosexual men in New York City at precisely the time Dr. Myers and colleagues claim the origin of HIV "punctuated event" occurred.

Unfortunately, as another Royal Society conference presenter, Dr. Julian Cribb, protested, too little attention is given by drug-industry-influenced medical journals, and the mainstream media, to controversial truths in science regarding the origin of HIV and AIDS. (See: Cribb J. The origin of acquired immune deficiency syndrome: can science afford to ignore it? Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond B (2001) 356:935-938.) As a result, documents such as those published by Dr. Horowitz, and others, showing AIDS apparently derives from contaminated hepatitis B vaccines, have never received adequate attention.

For a FEATURE ARTICLE on this topic

From http://www.obeygod.com/judgenot.html



*checks the Bible* Yep, I seem to be trying to emulate Christ. Are you? You who want sin to thrive in the world, moreso than it already is?


What?

You've given up a good job as a carpenter in your father's business and are
now hanging around with 12 or 13 other unemployed men in Israel, looking
for handouts and attracting a cult following?

We were both wrong :D

From http://www.originofaids.com/


I still was pretty much right where AIDS originated, and I was right about infection rate (nearly 95% cases globally are in heterosexual sex and drug usage).

Gays created AIDS? Can you prove this. Otherwise it's just more deception.



I was wrong, although the community is notorious for facilitating its spread in the US.

What?

You've given up a good job as a carpenter in your father's business and are
now hanging around with 12 or 13 other unemployed men in Israel, looking
for handouts and attracting a cult following?


You know what I mean, Mr. Semantics -.-

I don't think so. Recessive traits can survive even if they don't have a positive outcome. And first of all, homosexuality reduces population growth so that is positive.

Firstly, I agree that recessive traits can survive even if they don't have a positive outcome. Harmful dominant alleles are much more likely to be removed from the gene-pool because whenever an individual has said dominant allele they display the character. If this character/trait impedes the individual's abilit to reproduce the allele is less likely to be passed on (and therefore a higher chance of 'dying out'). On the other hand, individuals may possess one copy of a recessive allele and not display the trait. Heterozygous individuals (those possessing one copy of the recessive allele) will display the dominant characteristic, not the recessive one. If two heterozygous individuals reproduce they have a one in four chance their offspring will be homozygous for the recessive allele and therefore display the recessive trait. Harmful recessive traits are more likely than harmful dominant traits to be carried on in the genepool for the above reasons.

Many traits involve multiple genes and are much more complicated than the above scenario. I don't presume to guess which way 'homosexual traits' would be carried, but I think it is ridiculous to argue that they would die out because homosexuals do not have children. This completely ignores history. Throughout history, societal pressures meant that many homosexual individuals got married (to the opposite sex) and had children. Today, gay couples have children by IVF. I so no reason, no matter what the nature of the genes involved (dominant/recessive/multi-gene etc.) that homosexual genes would have died out in the human population.

I think that if individuals aren't hurting others with their behaviour, then other people should just mind their own business.

If you're one of the people who are religious and against homosexuality why don't you just be quiet and comfort yourself with the fact you will go to heaven and god will judge others. Leave the fate of other's souls alone.

And to state my position, I don't believe in god or souls and am for individual rights to human sexuality.

I was wrong, although the community is notorious for facilitating its spread in the US.

That's because of hideous neglect by the US government in the 1980s. If there is one thing I disagree with Reagan on it was how he handled that... the neglect of the gay community was horrid. Thank goodness there is more knowledge these days. But for the most part, the gay rights movement has been the one trying to spread that knowledge, not the US government.

That's because of hideous neglect by the US government in the 1980s. If there is one thing I disagree with Reagan on it was how he handled that... the neglect of the gay community was horrid. Thank goodness there is more knowledge these days. But for the most part, the gay rights movement has been the one trying to spread that knowledge, not the US government.



So, the government is responsible for our sexual activities? I thought we were the ones engaging in copulation, not the government?

If you're one of the people who are religious and against homosexuality why don't you just be quiet and comfort yourself with the fact you will go to heaven and god will judge others. Leave the fate of other's souls alone.

Are you talking to me? I only argue that sexuality is rooted in genetics.. and that's my opinion.

But I'm gay.. I'm not religious... atheist. Maybe you misunderstood the tone of my posts...

And it is thought to be the source of AIDS. That's negative :p

Actually the source of AIDS is pretty been blamed on the practice of Bush meat. Somebody ate a chimp that had the simian version of it and it mutated. At least what a couple people told me. Haven't looked into it as I kind of thought the same a long time ago.

So, the government is responsible for our sexual activities? I thought we were the ones engaging in copulation, not the government?

You misinterpreted my post, again.

The government was responsible for at least getting information out about AIDS (responsibility lays on the CDC). They were inadequate in their response because they underestimated AIDS. It is called sex education.

You misinterpreted my post, again.

The government was responsible for at least getting information out about AIDS (responsibility lays on the CDC). They were inadequate in their response because they underestimated AIDS. It is called sex education.



You think the precedent set by previous venereal diseases would tend to indicate that promiscuity, especially unprotected, isn't exactly the most healthy thing one can do....we don't need a government to tell us that.

I don't think so. Recessive traits can survive even if they don't have a positive outcome. And first of all, homosexuality reduces population growth so that is positive.


I used scicle siclecell for a specific reason. Because it like homosexuality is a persistant trait that removed those in whom it occurs from the gene pool. That is it is a surviving genetic trait that is negative (from a genetics standpoint) if it were'nt for the threat of malaria it would have bred itself out of the genepool which homosexuality has not. I can buy it as a meme to slow overpopulation just not as a gene.

You think the precedent set by previous venereal diseases would tend to indicate that promiscuity, especially unprotected, isn't exactly the most healthy thing one can do....we don't need a government to tell us that.

Well there were plenty of people, gay or straight, who engaged in promiscuity and did not know. Remember, many people don't understand because they aren't exposed to such facts. You are advocating neglect.

I used scicle siclecell for a specific reason. Because it like homosexuality is a persistant trait that removed those in whom it occurs from the gene pool. That is it is a surviving genetic trait that is negative (from a genetics standpoint) if it were'nt for the threat of malaria it would have bred itself out of the genepool which homosexuality has not. I can buy it as a meme to slow overpopulation just not as a gene.

Wha?!?1?

:confused:

That just did not make any sense at all. It is tied to genetics and numerous studies have showed this.

You think the precedent set by previous venereal diseases would tend to indicate that promiscuity, especially unprotected, isn't exactly the most healthy thing one can do....we don't need a government to tell us that.

Everybody tends to think "it can never happen to me." You also tend to think(or is it hope) your partner of the moment was not a slut.........

From http://www.obeygod.com/judgenot.html



Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matthew 7:1)

I often hear this statement of Jesus quoted by non-Christians and professing believers when they are confronted with their sin and refuse to change. Whether people are well-read in the Bible or not, it is amazing how many of them can quote this verse! Ignoring the context of the verse as well as what the rest of the Bible teaches, they take this single verse and try say that it is wrong to judge. What is this verse really saying? Does the Bible really forbid judging others? Let's read the context of this verse:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:1-5)

Verse one of Matthew 7 seems to be telling people not to judge because if you do not judge, you will not be judged. However, "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad" (II Corinthians 5:10)-everyone will be judged by God. Then verse two tells us that in whatever manner we judge others, we will be judged. Jesus then proceeds to explain HOW TO JUDGE. First, he says, you must take "the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:5) and if you do not do that first, you are being a hypocrite. This passage does not condemn all instances of judging others, but it does speak against judging another person IF YOU HAVE A PLANK IN YOUR EYE. What is meant by a plank? Jesus is using an illustration and telling people that if you judge someone else, you better make sure that your life is right first-get all the planks out and THEN you may proceed to CAREFULLY judge (which helps to remove specks from someone else's life). Romans 2:3 agrees with this: "So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?" The Apostle Paul is saying that whenever you (a mere man) make judgments you better make sure that you do not do the same things. We need to judge righteously, as Jesus said, "Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment" (John 7:24).

We will now move on and examine Scriptures that tell Christians to judge others. Yes, we are actually told by God to judge others; of course, when Christians judge others they must make sure their lives are blameless. I Corinthians 14:24-25 describes an unbeliever who comes into a church service that is operating properly: "He will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be JUDGED by all, and the secrets of his heart will be laid bare." Note that the unbeliever is judged by the church and that judgment leads him to God (I Cor. 14:25). Earlier in I Corinthians 5, Paul makes it clear that Christians are to judge those in the church. Concerning a man who sinned in the church Paul said, "I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present" (I Cor. 5:3). He also said, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked man from among you." (I Cor. 5:12-13). We are supposed to judge those in the church and if we find sin in their lives, we shouldn't even eat with them (I Cor. 5:11)! The Apostle Paul also said, "Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!" (I Cor. 6:3). And for you Greek scholars, it is particularly interesting to note that when the Apostle Paul discussed judging in I Corinthians chapters 5 and 6, he used the same Greek word that Jesus used in Matthew 7. (This is true in several other instances as well, but I will not examine the Greek everywhere.)

Paul also judged two people named Hymenaeus and Alexander in I Timothy 1:19-20: "Some have rejected these (faith and a good conscience) and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme." Paul judged that they had fallen away so he handed them over to Satan! Another example of Paul judging someone is in II Timothy 4:14-15 where he judged Alexander the metalworker and warned others against him. Truly, "the spiritual man makes judgments about all things" (I Cor. 2:15).

What if Christians do not judge? If a Christian does not point out the sin in someone's life he or she will be held responsible because they kept silent! God said, "When I say to a wicked man, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his evil ways in order to save his life, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his evil ways, he will die for his sin; but you will have saved yourself" (Ezekiel 3:18-19). Clearly, we have a responsibility to others! Another danger of failing to judge is that you can get deceived more easily if you do not judge. "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (I John 4:1). If you can't judge someone as a false prophet, you may be deceived. The Church of Ephesus was commended for judging false apostles as false: "I know that you cannot tolerate wicked men, that you have tested those who claim to be apostles but are not, and have found them false" (Revelation 2:2).

What about you? Not too many people recognize their responsibility to judge and that includes most professing believers. Before you judge anyone, you must recognize that you need to be living like Jesus (I John 2:6) and overcoming sin in your life (I John 3:3-10) before you should judge (Matthew 7:5). If you are one of the many professing believers who do not recognize the need to live like Jesus or to live above sin I would advise you NOT to judge because you would be a hypocrite.

Are you one of the many people who have quoted Matthew 7:1 flippantly at someone telling them, "You aren't supposed to judge anyone"? If so, you are wrong and in fact, you may have made a wrong judgment about the person you told that to. Many of you have probably been taught as I was that judging is wrong, but in reality it is often the responsibility of a Christian.



*checks the Bible* Yep, I seem to be trying to emulate Christ. Are you? You who want sin to thrive in the world, moreso than it already is?

This source is great. First, it starts with the mistake that people suggest that it says they won't be judged rather than they won't be judged by you. The point of not judging is not that it lifts judgement from you. I realize, and most realize, that the New Testament says you will be judged by Jesus. No one is suggesting that it lifts this.

Oh, but it gets better. It suggests that you can actually 'get your life right' as if we can ever entirely avoid sin. Ridiculous. You can strive to get the plank out of your eye, but you can never avoid sin entirely. What's next, was the phrase "let he who is without sin..." really Jesus trying to find the one without sin? No. We know there is only one without sin and thus no one is permitted to throw the first stone.

The rest of the article offers the same spurious, out-of-context examples you did. It speaks of the directions to the church regarding other church members (people who voluntarily congregate to work together to lead a better life).

As far as your last comment, that's entirely amusing. If I don't judge people, I'm advocating an increase in sin, huh? You know who you sound like? The pharasees. They suggested you had to hate the sinner or you were advocating the actions. Yes, denying rights to someone is hating the sinner. Sin exists and will always exist until Jesus comes again. You know this. You are a part of the problem. You sin. I sin. We ALL sin. Lead by example rather than flapping your gums and you'll do much more to discourage sinful behavior in others. You are christ-like, huh? I wonder if Christ would advocate prison-rape of people he disagreed with. What do you think there, Neo?

"overcoming sin in your life" = absolutely laughable. Apparently, you like to quote people who are completely unaware of the true nature of sin. This is exactly the kind of haughty crap writers (referring to your source) that make Christians look like a bunch of idiots that don't even understand their own source (the Bible).

Well there were plenty of people, gay or straight, who engaged in promiscuity and did not know. Remember, many people don't understand because they aren't exposed to such facts. You are advocating neglect.


People have known this for millenia. Sleep around, and you're bound to get a pestilence of some sort. It's an issue of common sense.

I used scicle siclecell for a specific reason. Because it like homosexuality is a persistant trait that removed those in whom it occurs from the gene pool. That is it is a surviving genetic trait that is negative (from a genetics standpoint) if it were'nt for the threat of malaria it would have bred itself out of the genepool which homosexuality has not. I can buy it as a meme to slow overpopulation just not as a gene.

*blinks*

Ok that doesn't sound right. I am going to have to re-read Mendal.

Somebody else care to comment?

People have known this for millenia. Sleep around, and you're bound to get a pestilence of some sort. It's an issue of common sense.

Unfortunately, many people don't have such common sense. That explains the extremely high infection rate in sub-Saharan Africa and South Africa. For goodness sakes, they think raping underaged virgins can cure them in South Africa.

You misinterpreted my post, again.

The government was responsible for at least getting information out about AIDS (responsibility lays on the CDC). They were inadequate in their response because they underestimated AIDS. It is called sex education.
Actually I suspect it was more re-interpret, as in understood what you meant then played at being obtuse...

The reason AIDS got so out of control before anyone did anything about it was demographics making an unfortunate connection with biggotry. It appeared that an unknown disease was killing off homosexual people, so no one did much of anything about it...in my opinion, had the victims been predominately white, middle class heterosexuals, the governmental response would have been very different. So whatever was the initial means by which HIV was introduced to the human population, at least some of the blame for its spread should be placed on biggotry.

People have known this for millenia. Sleep around, and you're bound to get a pestilence of some sort. It's an issue of common sense.
Not necessarily. Anthrolopogists in the 70s discovered some tribes in south America who were tribally polygamous--everyone had multiple partners--and there were no ill effects from the behavior.

[QUOTE=Relative Power]

Following that logic, I suppose those of us who aren't researchers in the very most complex aspects of biology, geology, archaeology, chemistry, and cosmology should disregard the theory of evolution? After all, those wicked men might be trying to deceive us with their false information :rolleyes:

Your last statement can be construed as flamebait--flamebait which I'm not biting, thank you very much.


If you want to make definitive statements about them,
particularly if you want to make the kind of statements that would indicate
that one person was of lesser worth than another.
Or that people simply had to behave in a particular way or else
then indeed you would need to be au fait with the most complex aspects
of any of those sciences.

For example there are many foolish people who like you think the bible
is something more than a reminder of the foolishness that mankind
once gave credence too.
Who then try to argue against
evolution using what can look to the uneducated like proper scientific
argument but which looks like simple childish nonsense to anybody who
has done any real study of the subject.

It is however rather sad to compare the pitiable study of a storybook to
mankinds development and study of sciences in an attempt to understand the history of our planet or the form and structure of ourselves and the universe .

Not necessarily. Anthrolopogists in the 70s discovered some tribes in south America who were tribally polygamous--everyone had multiple partners--and there were no ill effects from the behavior.


That's because they didn't have diseases introduced from outside the community, unlike America where there's no telling who another person has slept with.

People have known this for millenia. Sleep around, and you're bound to get a pestilence of some sort. It's an issue of common sense.

You sleep around and you will get the Plauge?

:p

I was wrong, although the community is notorious for facilitating its spread in the US.

The prevelance of AIDS in the (male) gay community is because a part of that community practices an act that is particularly succeptable to the spread of AIDS (due the transfer of fluids and damage to the anus). They are not however guilty of being more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Heterosexual sex is pretty much solely responsible for the prevelence of every other type of STD. AIDS happens to be blood-born so it is limited in the types of transmissions. However, all of these diseases are nearly 100% preventable with proper precautions.

The point still remains that you openly and happily slandered an entire community because it fit your argument. There's that pesky plank again.

You sleep around and you will get the Plauge?

:p

Well, fleas sometimes like to live in mattresses, so you might! :p

The prevelance of AIDS in the (male) gay community is because a part of that community practices an act that is particularly succeptable to the spread of AIDS (due the transfer of fluids and damage to the anus). They are not however guilty of being more promiscuous than heterosexuals. Heterosexual sex is pretty much solely responsible for the prevelence of every other type of STD. AIDS happens to be blood-born so it is limited in the types of transmissions.

Heterosexuals commit the same act (anal sex), and in fact thinking globally like 95% of AIDS cases are in heterosexuals.

The act can be safe if protection is used. Also if done right there is no damage to the anus.

Wha?!?1?

:confused:

That just did not make any sense at all. It is tied to genetics and numerous studies have showed this.


Maybe I'm recalling the wrong deseise but IIRC Scicle cell as a recessive trait occurs in populations where malaria is a common occurence correct? An full blown scicle cell is fatal correct? (Fatality and homsexuality both effectively removing you from the gene pool)

Maybe I'm recalling the wrong deseise but IIRC Scicle cell as a recessive trait occurs in populations where malaria is a common occurence correct? An full blown scicle cell is fatal correct? (Fatality and homsexuality both effectively removing you from the gene pool)

You really need to work on your coherency.

Homosexuality removes me from the gene pool? Man dude, obviously you never heard of sperm banks.

The point still remains that you openly and happily slandered an entire community because it fit your argument. There's that pesky plank again.


This is the 21st century

at least by one way of counting things


designer wooden sunglasses is the current in thing
Oak by preference
Pine for the price conscious

Heterosexuals commit the same act (anal sex), and in fact thinking globally like 95% of AIDS cases are in heterosexuals.

The act can be safe if protection is used. Also if done right there is no damage to the anus.

I understand. I was only pointing out that any variance in prevelence among sexually active adults in the US is not explained by the gay community being particulary promiscuous (no more so than the heterosexual community), but instead by the types of acts they participate in. It is a fact that anal sex has a particularly high succeptability to the spread of AIDS. It is also fact that if gay partners both pitch and catch, so to speak, then the AIDS is more easily transferred both ways. The incidence of the transfer of AIDS to a man through heterosexual sex is very, very low. If you're a man and you have AIDS and you claim it was transmitted to you through vaginal sex with a woman, the doctor is likely not going to believe you.

I understand. I was only pointing out that any variance in prevelence among sexually active adults in the US is not explained by the gay community being particulary promiscuous (no more so than the heterosexual community), but instead by the types of acts they participate in. It is a fact that anal sex has a particularly high succeptability to the spread of AIDS. It is also fact that if gay partners both pitch and catch, so to speak, then the AIDS is more easily transferred both ways. The incidence of the transfer of AIDS to a man through heterosexual sex is very, very low. If you're a man and you have AIDS and you claim it was transmitted to you through vaginal sex with a woman, the doctor is likely not going to believe you.

This is not the case anymore, as a growing amount of cases of AIDS are in fact in heterosexuals these days. Also you are not right about that last part about a doctor not believing you (dude you're just wrong.. AIDS does not discriminate.. it'll infect whoever). Heterosexuals do anal sex too you know. Well the majority of reported cases in the US are now in heterosexuals.. explain that!

And your logic is off too.. I'm a healthy homosexual male and if I do it with my boyfriend, who is also healthy.. does not mean I'll get AIDS. AIDS is not a gay disease. Get that out of your head.

I used scicle siclecell for a specific reason. Because it like homosexuality is a persistant trait that removed those in whom it occurs from the gene pool. That is it is a surviving genetic trait that is negative (from a genetics standpoint) if it were'nt for the threat of malaria it would have bred itself out of the genepool which homosexuality has not. I can buy it as a meme to slow overpopulation just not as a gene.
That's why I posted about retinitus pigmentosa.

With regards to homosexuality, it does not necessarily lead to removal from the gene pool.

There are a variety of scenarios in which one could see that if homosexuality was caused by a recessive gene, it could be either reproduction nuetral or even advantageous.

On top of this there are all the complications brought into play by our complex social and cultural practises.

You really need to work on your coherency.

Homosexuality removes me from the gene pool? Man dude, obviously you never heard of sperm banks.
Sperm banks are a decades old technology. Homosexuality goes back to pre-history. Remember we were talking about genetics where things take millenia to evolve? And closeted married homosexuals do not apply either as homosexuality is much older then the recent last few millenia where it begame in fashion for certain cultures to fag-bash.....

Sperm banks are a decades old technology. Homosexuality goes back to pre-history. Remember we were talking about genetics where things take millenia to evolve? And closeted married homosexuals do not apply either as homosexuality is much older then the recent last few millenia where it begame in fashion for certain cultures to fag-bash.....

Your argument is so incoherent I don't think I can continue this on.. I don't know what your addressing, or who you are addressing..

I'm not a genetic expert but I don't think that there is a simple 'gay gene'. This is based on the fact that a 'gay gene' is a 'non-repoduction gene'. But that does not matter if you don't believe in evolution ...

Fact is if you beleive God makes us you have to accept that God makes gay people gay. You don't think a divine being would make a 'mistake' of that size so often for hundreds of years do you?

This is not the case anymore, as a growing amount of cases of AIDS are in fact in heterosexuals these days. Also you are not right about that last part about a doctor not believing you (dude you're just wrong.. AIDS does not discriminate.. it'll infect whoever). Heterosexuals do anal sex too you know. Well the majority of reported cases in the US are now in heterosexuals.. explain that!

And your logic is off too.. I'm a healthy homosexual male and if I do it with my boyfriend, who is also healthy.. does not mean I'll get AIDS. AIDS is not a gay disease. Get that out of your head.
I'm afraid you've once again misread or misunderstood what is being said.

He was explaining why INITIALLY many people considered AIDS a gay diease, and why it's early spread was relatively rapid in the gay community. He also said that a man is fairly unlikely to get if off a woman, as compared to a woman getting from a man, or a man "receiving" anal sex from another man...you have a bit of a habit of putting your own spin on what people are posting rather than reading it objectively.

He was explaining why INITIALLY many people considered a gay diease, and why it's early spread was relatively rapid in the gay community. He also said that a man is realtivel unlikely to get if off a woman, as compared to a woman getting from a man, or a man "receiving" anal sex from another man...you have a bit of a habit of putting your own spin on what people are posting rather than reading it objectively.

Funny considering it was spreading the fastest, globally, in heterosexuals. We are talking about the 21st century right now. Not the 1980s.

I'm reading it very objectively.

This is not the case anymore, as a growing amount of cases of AIDS are in fact in heterosexuals these days. Also you are not right about that last part about a doctor not believing you (dude you're just wrong.. AIDS does not discriminate.. it'll infect whoever). Heterosexuals do anal sex too you know. Well the majority of reported cases in the US are now in heterosexuals.. explain that!

Reading comprehension is your friend. I said if a man said it was from vaginal sex, a doctor would likely not believe you. The physiology just makes the transmassion from the inserter to the insertee far more likely than the opposite.

Also, I didn't say heterosexuals do not spread AIDS. Heterosexuals are the majority of the population and a man can just as easily spread AIDS to a woman as another man. Also, drug users are still a major subset of AIDS cases.

And your logic is off too.. I'm a healthy homosexual male and if I do it with my boyfriend, who is also healthy.. does not mean I'll get AIDS. AIDS is not a gay disease. Get that out of your head.

Who suggested it was? Not I. You are a bit sensitive, methinks. I only pointed out that the sexual act that has the highest rate of trasmission is anal sex. This doesn't make it a 'gay disease' or any of the other things you are trying to ascribe to me. I'm not judging you. I'm pointing out facts.

Seriously, I know you've been attacked in this thread and others for being gay, but I am NOT attacking you. I am only offering up an explanation for why at one time it was so prevelent in the gay community. Obviously, when awareness was raised, proper precautions became a normality and that prevelence has since dropped.

Funny considering it was spreading the fastest, globally, in heterosexuals. We are talking about the 21st century right now. Not the 1980s.

I'm reading it very objectively.
Not the first time you've needlessly "attacked" someone who was basically on the same side as you...but let's not get into this again.

Your argument is so incoherent I don't think I can continue this on.. I don't know what your addressing, or who you are addressing..

Umm you said you could use a sperm bank and that left you in the gene pool. I explained why that is not so. Is anglish a second language for you?

Reading comprehension is your friend. I said if a man said it was from vaginal sex, a doctor would likely not believe you. The physiology just makes the transmassion from the inserter to the insertee far more likely than the opposite.

Congrats on using an ad hominem against me.

Maybe i can do this myself.. spell check is your friend.


Who suggested it was? Not I. You are a bit sensitive, methinks. I only pointed out that the sexual act that has the highest rate of trasmission is anal sex. This doesn't make it a 'gay disease' or any of the other things you are trying to ascribe to me. I'm not judging you. I'm pointing out facts.

That's because you are making blanket statements that should be a bit more carefully worded. You aren't pointing out the facts. I am (as I'm right about infection rates and the works).

Seriously, I know you've been attacked in this thread and others for being gay, but I am NOT attacking you. I am only offering up an explanation for why at one time it was so prevelent in the gay community. Obviously, when awareness was raised, proper precautions became a normality and that prevelence has since dropped.

Well that's fine.. I know there are only two or three people who have attacked me here.. one who has posted a lot in this thread (and many other gay threads). Awareness needs to be raised, for gay or striaght people alike... condoms..

Umm you said you could use a sperm bank and that left you in the gene pool. I explained why that is not so. Is anglish a second language for you?

I told how it is so. You're being pretty ridiculous.

And yes "anglish" (SIC) is a second language. But I have a strong grasp on the concepts... apparently you don't.

This is not the case anymore, as a growing amount of cases of AIDS are in fact in heterosexuals these days. Also you are not right about that last part about a doctor not believing you (dude you're just wrong.. AIDS does not discriminate.. it'll infect whoever). Heterosexuals do anal sex too you know. Well the majority of reported cases in the US are now in heterosexuals.. explain that!

And your logic is off too.. I'm a healthy homosexual male and if I do it with my boyfriend, who is also healthy.. does not mean I'll get AIDS. AIDS is not a gay disease. Get that out of your head.
He was in no way insinuating that AIDS is a gay disease, nor was he insinuating that anal sex itself somehow "generates" a virus through magical means.
To be specific, the fastest growing segment of the population catching AIDS is women. This further illustrates his point-- Anal sex fascillitates the spread of AIDS from an infected person to a non-infected person. Heterosexual men who do not shoot drugs don't get AIDS often enough to really be considered "at risk" (although there's plenty of other things they do get).
In the same way you don't get it via blowjobs (giving or receiving), you don't get it via vaginal intercourse if you're a male (although a female can catch it from an infected male).
This isn't bigotry, this is what we can reasonably conclude when looking at the statistics. I don't think he meant anything negative, and you should know that if you've seen his other posts.
Take it easy man, he's not Neo! ;)

Funny considering it was spreading the fastest, globally, in heterosexuals. We are talking about the 21st century right now. Not the 1980s.

I'm reading it very objectively.

No, you are, in fact, not. S/he paraphrased my point very well. You completely misunderstood my post, became sensitive and then attacked me. Take a breath. Calm down. And reread. Almost everything you claim I said or inferred, I didn't.

No matter how long you wait, the odds of transmission by one act versus another will still be the same. Unprotected anal sex like unprotected vaginal sex allows for the injection of a fluid into a cavity. The anal cavity is more likely to tear providing a mechanism for the transfer of AIDS. Does this say anything about the overall occurance in the Gay community? Nope. It just says what acts are more dangerous without protection. You don't like it. Yell at the wind. It's just as likely to change the science.

He was in no way insinuating that AIDS is a gay disease, nor was he insinuating that anal sex itself somehow "generates" a virus through magical means.

Heterosexuals do anal sex too.


Take it easy man, he's not Neo! ;)

I know that.. I'm pretty direct on things that need clarification.

No matter how long you wait, the odds of transmission by one act versus another will still be the same. Unprotected anal sex like unprotected vaginal sex allows for the injection of a fluid into a cavity. The anal cavity is more likely to tear providing a mechanism for the transfer of AIDS. Does this say anything about the overall occurance in the Gay community? Nope. It just says what acts are more dangerous without protection. You don't like it. Yell at the wind. It's just as likely to change the science.

Again you are misinterpreting me. I never said it wasn't dangerous without protection. In fact look at my posts clearly.. I have said unprotected sex is dangerous. I myself have my partner use condoms all the time. The anal cavity is more likely to tear? Not if you do it right and not in a rough manner.

Congrats on using an ad hominem against me.

I mistyped a single character. Hardly the same as misreading two entire posts.

Ad hominem - 2 : marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

It's not an ad hominem to notice that you are not properly reading my posts and then point it out. At that point, it's called an observation, my friend. Again, slow down, take a breath and start responding to what I said and not what you think I said. As was pointed out, others quite effectively read my posts.

It's not an ad hominem to notice that you are not properly reading my posts and then point it out. At that point, it's called an observation, my friend. Again, slow down, take a breath and start responding to what I said and not what you think I said. As was pointed out, others quite effectively read my posts.

I think an improper, and incorrect observation. Please take a breath when responding to my posts.

I forsee fundamentalists Republicans suffering an aneurism.

Simply put,
Yes, we can now use genetic engineering to rid the world of homosexuality! Oh wait, genetic engineering is immoral - but how do we get rid of all the gays?! Now we're back at square one! *brain explodes*

Can you please explain what the problem is? If we have Republican fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, or any other hate- or fear-based fundamentalist organizations (see, in smaller number, we call these GANGS) having their respective craniums imploding, is this really a bad thing?

Again you are misinterpreting me. I never said it wasn't dangerous without protection. In fact look at my posts clearly.. I have said unprotected sex is dangerous. I myself have my partner use condoms all the time. The anal cavity is more likely to tear? Not if you do it right and not in a rough manner.

False to the misnterpreting part. I am not interpreting you. I was restating the original point since you misunderstood it. Talking about the transmission rates while using protection wasn't my point, so I didn't address it.

False to the anal cavity part. The fact is it is more likely to tear. That is not the same as saying it will tear or it has to tear. With proper precautions and care it can generally be avoided. I said what was more likely. With the same level of care applied to both vaginal and anal sex, it is MORE likely that there will be tearing in anal sex. Again, that is a fact.

The flaw in your statements is that you assume that a statement about incidence of transmission during anal sex applies to ALL anal sex. A statement about likelihoods in unprotected anal sex is not hyperbolic statement.

I was very clear about what I was referring to. I never mentioned you or your partner or your personal practices. I never suggested that gay men are less likely to use protection than straight men and I, in fact, pointed out that they are no more promiscuous than straight men. You are being overly sensitive and thus trying to read things into my posts that are not there. Please refrain.

I told how it is so. You're being pretty ridiculous.

And yes "anglish" (SIC) is a second language. But I have a strong grasp on the concepts... apparently you don't.

Umm I've been PAID to write in english. I know my typing is atrociaous that's why I use spellcheck when I write seriously. I've notice that there is a particular sort of person on these and other forums that would rather point out typos than address the point at hand. I generally write it off as them noticing that they are in over their heads.

False to the anal cavity part. The fact is it is more likely to tear. That is not the same as saying it will tear or it has to tear. With proper precautions and care it can generally be avoided. I said what was more likely. With the same level of care applied to both vaginal and anal sex, it is MORE likely that there will be tearing in anal sex. Again, that is a fact.

And I take those precautions. Again you need to get your head out of the sand. All you need to do is take precautions.

You are being overly sensitive and thus trying to read things into my posts that are not there. Please refrain.

You again are misreading and misinterpreting my own posts.

Umm I've been PAID to write in english. I know my typing is atrociaous that's why I use spellcheck when I write seriously. I've notice that there is a particular sort of person on these and other forums that would rather point out typos than address the point at hand. I generally write it off as them noticing that they are in over their heads.

I try my best to understand people who have typos in their posts, but it borderlines to a point where I can no longer understand what they say. And it is beyond typos actually.. but the overall structure and point that is being made.

I think an improper, and incorrect observation. Please take a breath when responding to my posts.

And yet you did it again in another post before my post you are replying to here. You have several times suggested I made blanket statements about protection and incidence of AIDS among gays. I never said or suggested any such things. I only talked about transmission through unprotected anal sex. You also personalized my post as if I was talking about you and your partner. I made no specific or inspecific statements about the activities of gay males.

And yet you did it again in another post before my post you are replying to here. You have several times suggested I made blanket statements about protection and incidence of AIDS among gays. I never said or suggested any such things. I only talked about transmission through unprotected anal sex. You also personalized my post as if I was talking about you and your partner. I made no specific or inspecific statements about the activities of gay males.

I think you did make blanket statements and I'll stand by that. And you can think what you want about my postings.

I try my best to understand people who have typos in their posts, but it borderlines to a point where I can no longer understand what they say. And it is beyond typos actually.. but the overall structure and point that is being made.
So it's not the literacy issue I'm just going to fast for you? Ok what point did'nt you get?

So it's not the literacy issue I'm just going to fast for you? Ok what point did'nt you get?

This is just rich.

Is there something about the statement "You aren't making any sense, period" that you don't understand? It isn't dependent on speed.

And I take those precautions. Again you need to get your head out of the sand. All you need to do is take precautions.

You again are misreading and misinterpreting my own posts.

There it is again. My head isn't in the sand. I've never said it was unavoidable. I plainly said it was avoidable. See the following excerpt from my original post that you took exception to.

However, all of these diseases are nearly 100% preventable with proper precautions.

As to my blanket gay statments:

Here I am chastising Neo for making an incorrect blanket statement about the gay community

Gays created AIDS? Can you prove this. Otherwise it's just more deception.

Here I do it again.

The point still remains that you openly and happily slandered an entire community because it fit your argument. There's that pesky plank again.

Seems like the text of my posts do not support your premises. I think you should read them again, my friend. If you can find where I say it's a gay disease I'll happily apologize. I didn't. Everyone else here knows it. You won't accept it.

Then I don't think we were understanding each other...

Ah I'm ging Waaaay over your head then. Let me do it real slow like:

We've had sperm banks for a very short period of time.
We've had homosexuality for a very long period of time.
Homosexuals have for most of the history of mankind been out of the gene pool.
Can you understand that much?

I think you did make blanket statements and I'll stand by that. And you can think what you want about my postings.

I did. Perhaps you can find my inaccurate blanket statements for us. I'd be interested to see them.

I just reread all of my and all of your posts. Yours are clearly defensive in nature and insulting. You can consider my post on reading comprehension insulting except you demonstrated repeatedly that you had no interest in actually reading and comprehending my posts, but instead replied to what you decided the nature of them was. I didn't suggest you were incapable of reading comprehension, just that you weren't employing it. You have repeatedly proven me right.

Other than that you will find no reasonable attacks on you or your lifestyle made by me. In fact, I challenge you to find anything that could be construed as an attack on you or your lifestyle made by me in any thread EVER. Your claims are spurious and in direct contradiction with my actual beliefs.

Ah I'm ging Waaaay over your head then. Let me do it real slow like:

We've had sperm banks for a very short period of time.
We've had homosexuality for a very long period of time.
Homosexuals have for most of the history of mankind been out of the gene pool.
Can you understand that much?

I already stated why you aren't addressing me properly.... you aren't addressing my points.

Other than that you will find no reasonable attacks on you or your lifestyle made by me. In fact, I challenge you to find anything that could be construed as an attack on you or your lifestyle made by me in any thread EVER. Your claims are spurious and in direct contradiction with my actual beliefs.

Then there was an obvious misunderstanding, and i'm sure we can move ahead pass this..

Ah I'm ging Waaaay over your head then. Let me do it real slow like:

We've had sperm banks for a very short period of time.
We've had homosexuality for a very long period of time.
Homosexuals have for most of the history of mankind been out of the gene pool.
Can you understand that much?

Would you mind elaborating on how homosexuals have been out of the gene pool? I don't think I understand what you mean.

gays are evil because it says so in the bible I don't need your arguments. You're all just immoral if you support that kind of behaviour

Then I don't think we were understanding each other...

Oh, I understand you. You accused me of saying AIDS was a gay-disease. You accused me of not knowing that AIDS trasmission is preventable. You accused me of not knowing that damage to the anal cavity can generally be avoided with care. You accused me of not knowing that gays use protection. You accused me of not knowing that heterosexuals engage in anal sex. And not one of these conclusions can be drawn from my posts. It's not that we aren't understanding each other. It's that you are not understanding me.

You're going the wrong way up a one way street it's just unnatural

Oh, I understand you. You accused me of saying AIDS was a gay-disease. You accused me of not knowing that AIDS trasmission is preventable. You accused me of not knowing that damage to the anal cavity can generally be avoided with care. You accused me of not knowing that gays use protection. You accused me of not knowing that heterosexuals engage in anal sex. And not one of these conclusions can be drawn from my posts. It's not that we aren't understanding each other. It's that you are not understanding me.

Ok, then there was a big misunderstanding and I apologize on my part. And yes, you are not understanding me because I never said you didn't know those things. I simply pointed some things out. I accused you of not knowing that gay guys use protection? where did I do this?

I think this was more of a mutual misunderstanding.

Then there was an obvious misunderstanding, and i'm sure we can move ahead pass this..

We absolutely can. You've discovered your error. Apologize for it and you will be forgiven.

Nah, I'm just kidding. I just don't like people pasting hate-speech or ignorance onto me.

You're going the wrong way up a one way street it's just unnatural

No. I'm gay and it is very natural for me, because it is who I am.

Nah you just need to read the bible and you'll be cured

Nah you just need to read the bible and you'll be cured

I'm bisexual. I've read the Bible. Want to explain that?