NationStates Jolt Archive

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3"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? 4How 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? 5You 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.

Why is it that some Christians seem to forget this verse, which, IMHO to be one of the most important verse in the New Testament. Everyday I see Christians professing to love and follow Christ, and yet they condemn their fellow man for either not paying enough into the tithe, or being homosexuals. What really kills the whole thing is when the guy who's judging is later busted for either doing drugs, visiting prostitute or has a gay lover.

Every time I hear someone who is not Catholic telling me or my family that I'm going to Hell for being Catholic, I tell them to read Matthew Chapter Seven and start with Verse One. Most of them just gives this dumb founded look and continue with their rant. I believe that if the Bible was to be re-written today, this verse would probably be on the cutting floor.

See: "Holier-than-thou"

Why is it that some Christians seem to forget this verse,...Cuz it do be an inconvenient truth ;)

"Them that live by the sword shall perish by the sword." Gets forgotten a lot as well.

Looks/sounds better in the KJV. Dunno why - it just does. :p

Why is it that some Christians seem to forget this verse, which, IMHO to be one of the most important verse in the New Testament. Everyday I see Christians professing to love and follow Christ, and yet they condemn their fellow man for either not paying enough into the tithe, or being homosexuals. What really kills the whole thing is when the guy who's judging is later busted for either doing drugs, visiting prostitute or has a gay lover.

Every time I hear someone who is not Catholic telling me or my family that I'm going to Hell for being Catholic, I tell them to read Matthew Chapter Seven and start with Verse One. Most of them just gives this dumb founded look and continue with their rant. I believe that if the Bible was to be re-written today, this verse would probably be on the cutting floor.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
- Mahatma Gandhi

Yes, this is true, it's one of the most oft forgotten verses by contemporary Christians. But as Gandhi duly observed, contemporary Christians bear very little semblence to Christ's teachings, especially among the rural protestant evangelicals (not to put down on rural protestants...)

Why is it that some Christians seem to forget this verse, which, IMHO to be one of the most important verse in the New Testament. Everyday I see Christians professing to love and follow Christ, and yet they condemn their fellow man for either not paying enough into the tithe, or being homosexuals. What really kills the whole thing is when the guy who's judging is later busted for either doing drugs, visiting prostitute or has a gay lover.

Every time I hear someone who is not Catholic telling me or my family that I'm going to Hell for being Catholic, I tell them to read Matthew Chapter Seven and start with Verse One. Most of them just gives this dumb founded look and continue with their rant. I believe that if the Bible was to be re-written today, this verse would probably be on the cutting floor.

Your post sort of implies that you'd be comfortable if somebody who was an actual paragon of virtue were to make judgments. You wouldn't be. I wouldn't be. Nobody would be. Why? Because nobody's perfect to begin with. Even if they were, who would want to hear it?

The fact is, there's a fine line between making judgments against people and giving them a reasonable warning. If someone who smokes tells you to avoid smoking for health reasons, is the message invalidated because of the source? Of course not. Just like if I'm an adulterer but I counsel you to avoid it, it's not hypocrisy because I'm sharing with you the benefit of my experience and firsthand knowledge of what can happen.

On the other hand, for someone to say "You're a good person and I'm not!" when they have issues of their own is obviously foul play.

The difference? The former is not making a character judgment, the latter is.

I know how zealots often cross that line. I've had it happen to me on more occasions than I can count.

And now I'm going back to bed because my wife got me up at 5:30 this morning to unstick a frozen striker on the car door and now that she's safely on her way to work I'm gonna sleep more. Maybe I'm just grouchy but right now all I can think of is "what's up with all the threads demanding that Christians eat crow and take all this criticism lately?"

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and in fellowship [...] 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. Acts 2:42-45

Christians also forget this.

Why is it that some Christians seem to forget this verse

Because they have many, many more verses that say the complete opposite and that are more in tune with what Christianity and its deity are all about.

Your post sort of implies that you'd be comfortable if somebody who was an actual paragon of virtue were to make judgments. You wouldn't be. I wouldn't be. Nobody would be. Why? Because nobody's perfect to begin with. Even if they were, who would want to hear it?

I would. I believe that critical thinking and judgment are pretty much the core of human consciousness. I like when other people use them. I like to use them. I like to surround myself with people who are constantly judging and evaluating.

In the verse in question, it simply says that you shouldn't judge unless you are prepared to receive the same in kind. I think that's a good reminder. Don't set yourself on a pedestal, or think that you alone are entitled to judge. Remember that everybody is equally entitled to do so, and don't dish it out unless you can take it.


The fact is, there's a fine line between making judgments against people and giving them a reasonable warning. If someone who smokes tells you to avoid smoking for health reasons, is the message invalidated because of the source? Of course not. Just like if I'm an adulterer but I counsel you to avoid it, it's not hypocrisy because I'm sharing with you the benefit of my experience and firsthand knowledge of what can happen.

On the other hand, for someone to say "You're a good person and I'm not!" when they have issues of their own is obviously foul play.

The difference? The former is not making a character judgment, the latter is.

I'd say the difference is that the former is useful and the latter is not. Also, the former is specific feedback which can benefit the individual receiving it, while the latter is a general and vague statement of opinion. Also, the former is based on fact or experience, while the latter is not.

So, really, there are a lot of important differences there. I think it's perfectly fine to make character judgments, provided that they are useful and grounded in something more than a desire to feel superior.

For instance, "Bill is an untrustworthy person." This is a character judgment, but if you have direct experience showing Bill to be frequently dishonest then it's a useful warning to others. Don't hire Bill to remodel your house, or watch your baby, or take your shipment of precious stones to the bank.

Myself, I don't trust people who claim they don't judge. Most people who say that are lying, after all, and the ones who aren't are people who are proudly stating that they don't use their critical thinking skills. Either way, not a person I want to rely on for anything important.

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
- Mahatma Gandhi

"I like Jesus's style, but his followers were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting things that ruins it for me." -- John Lennon

Every time I hear someone who is not Catholic telling me or my family that I'm going to Hell for being Catholic

how is that even possible?

also your judging people tsk tsk :p

I would. I believe that critical thinking and judgment are pretty much the core of human consciousness. I like when other people use them. I like to use them. I like to surround myself with people who are constantly judging and evaluating.

Just to be sure I understand, you enjoy people evaluating your performance at work/school/gaming/whatever, but not judging your worth as a person, correct?


In the verse in question, it simply says that you shouldn't judge unless you are prepared to receive the same in kind. I think that's a good reminder. Don't set yourself on a pedestal, or think that you alone are entitled to judge. Remember that everybody is equally entitled to do so, and don't dish it out unless you can take it.


I think there's another meaning in there as well, namely, that it's not our place to judge people precisely because we aren't perfect, and are thus not qualified to do so. It's a lesson in humility. It relates to the incident in which Jesus saves a woman from being stoned to death by saying to the crowd, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."


I'd say the difference is that the former is useful and the latter is not. Also, the former is specific feedback which can benefit the individual receiving it, while the latter is a general and vague statement of opinion. Also, the former is based on fact or experience, while the latter is not.


It all ties in.


So, really, there are a lot of important differences there. I think it's perfectly fine to make character judgments, provided that they are useful and grounded in something more than a desire to feel superior.

For instance, "Bill is an untrustworthy person." This is a character judgment, but if you have direct experience showing Bill to be frequently dishonest then it's a useful warning to others. Don't hire Bill to remodel your house, or watch your baby, or take your shipment of precious stones to the bank.


Right. Because in making decisions on whom to hire, one must take into consideration someone's track record in areas related to the task at hand. At the same time, Bill's character flaws aren't justification for gossip or for one to think of him/herself as a superior person in terms of personal worth.


Myself, I don't trust people who claim they don't judge. Most people who say that are lying, after all, and the ones who aren't are people who are proudly stating that they don't use their critical thinking skills. Either way, not a person I want to rely on for anything important.

I think when a person says they don't judge, they're refering to the relative worth between him/herself and the individual to be judged. Like, if I say "I'm not judging you" I might very well have a problem with something you're doing or advocating, or I may have issues with your character, but I'm not pretending to suggest I'm a "better" person than you are. Naturally if I'm considering you for a job at my company, I have to evaluate your computer skills as well as personal integrity for professional purposes, but that's not the sme as "judging you" in my book.

*snip*
You can't take the Bible literally. For example, "turn the other cheek?" That's just a metaphor for "punch the other guy in the mouth."

Why is it that some Christians seem to forget this verse, which, IMHO to be one of the most important verse in the New Testament. Everyday I see Christians professing to love and follow Christ, and yet they condemn their fellow man for either not paying enough into the tithe, or being homosexuals.

Should Christians condemn murderers?

Should Christians condemn murderers?

They shouldn't condemn any person. Condemning murder is something else.

They shouldn't condemn any person. Condemning murder is something else.

With the exception of Fred Phelps, the major religious homophobes tend to make this distinction, sometimes even explicitly.

I think it's a meaningless and non-substantive one.

Looks/sounds better in the KJV. Dunno why - it just does. :p

Propaganda's like that. It's written in a particular way to make a point.

There's a reason all the witchcraft stuff first appears in the KJV.

With the exception of Fred Phelps, the major religious homophobes tend to make this distinction, sometimes even explicitly.

I think it's a meaningless and non-substantive one.
How is it meaningless and non-substantive? If you don't follow it, sure, but there are many things like that.

@Neo Brettonia

I have certain beliefs about what makes someone a good person, and I try to abide by them. I think that this gives me a certain amount of personal worth. And you are saying that you would completely ignore this, and consider me, as a person, the same as everyone else. I do not wish to be a good person for my own gain, but for the benefit of others, and would be happy if others didn't completely ignore it. I wish to be judged, as I judge others: it breeds progress.

Note that you can treat kindly a person you do not judge to be a good person. I'm talking about consideration of people, not judgement.

However, as I am willing to be judged, I cannot be criticised by the bible passage in question.

How is it meaningless and non-substantive?

How does one condemn a necessary attribute of a given type or class of person, without also condemning that person? Especially within the context of a religion whose "god" will cast the person into the eternally burning pit of sulfur for having been characterized by that particular attribute.

"God" isn't throwing the act of sinning into hell. "He" is throwing the sinner.

Why is it that some Christians seem to forget this verse, which, IMHO to be one of the most important verse in the New Testament.

They forget because they want to. The great thing about most archaic religious texts is that nearly every verse telling you how to act has another verse which directly contradicts it. This allows you to pick only those verses that you want to follow. Great marketing, if you ask me.

How does one condemn a necessary attribute of a given type or class of person, without also condemning that person? Especially within the context of a religion whose "god" will cast the person into the eternally burning pit of sulfur for having been characterized by that particular attribute.
Two errors: one, you assume God tosses all sinners into hell. If that were true, we're all screwed.
Second, you confused God with people. God is welcome to condemn anyone he wants. Heck, he can condemn everyone if he's in the mood, regardless of what we've done. But people are not allowed to condemn individuals, simply because it is impossible for people to know everything about that person. People know that murder is wrong, and therefore can safely condemn murder. But people do not know if a person is "wrong," and thus shouldn't condemn them.

It's trickier with something like homosexuality, which is why I don't entirely agree with many denominations teachings on that. However, even then people are condemning homosexual acts, e.g., sex, not homosexuality itself.

@Neo Brettonia

I have certain beliefs about what makes someone a good person, and I try to abide by them. I think that this gives me a certain amount of personal worth. And you are saying that you would completely ignore this, and consider me, as a person, the same as everyone else. I do not wish to be a good person for my own gain, but for the benefit of others, and would be happy if others didn't completely ignore it. I wish to be judged, as I judge others: it breeds progress.

Note that you can treat kindly a person you do not judge to be a good person. I'm talking about consideration of people, not judgement.

However, as I am willing to be judged, I cannot be criticised by the bible passage in question.

I think it's a mistake to interpret this passage as saying "as long as your ducks are in a row, have at it!" It's a reminder that we're humans, and nobody's perfect, and for that reason it's not our place to make judgments about each other. Ultimately, the final judgment is in the hands of the Lord.

probably because they truly believe they are virtuous. so basically, they're idiots.

How is it meaningless and non-substantive?

"You are forbidden to accept your sexual orientation as legitimate and acceptable, and must instead suppress every romantic and sexual inclination, because my heteronormative and heterosexist concept of sexual relations so decrees. But I love you... really."

:rolleyes:

Edit: More generally, it is absurd to insist that we can so clearly differentiate between actions and people. People are responsible: they commit actions. If you condemn murder, you condemn murderers as people who commit acts worthy of condemnation... especially if they commit murder willingly and unashamedly.

So, at best, "hate the sin, not the sinner" offers a sort of way out when dealing with gays and bisexuals who join the homophobes in condemning same-sex attraction. Not otherwise.

Why is it that some Christians seem to forget this verse, which, IMHO to be one of the most important verse in the New Testament. Everyday I see Christians professing to love and follow Christ, and yet they condemn their fellow man for either not paying enough into the tithe, or being homosexuals. What really kills the whole thing is when the guy who's judging is later busted for either doing drugs, visiting prostitute or has a gay lover.

Every time I hear someone who is not Catholic telling me or my family that I'm going to Hell for being Catholic, I tell them to read Matthew Chapter Seven and start with Verse One. Most of them just gives this dumb founded look and continue with their rant. I believe that if the Bible was to be re-written today, this verse would probably be on the cutting floor.

The same reason that cherry pickers of the bible don't realize that God teaches us to hate sin, any and every sin. No, we shouldn't judge, because we are not the Judge, as in we are not God. at the same time, we should let people know about sin, and the consequences of it.

You can't take the Bible literally. For example, "turn the other cheek?" That's just a metaphor for "punch the other guy in the mouth."

I'm already liking this version of Christianity. :)

Cuz it do be an inconvenient truth ;)

Leave Gorebal Warming out of this perfectly original religious debate thread, the likes of which I have never seen. Ever.

I keep verses like that around for when I get bashed for being atheist. Usually afterwards there is a long pause like they didn't expect me to know it and then walk away.

Quite possibly one of the most disgusting things about religion is it's allowance of whatever you like, and a pseudo-legitimate reason to hate anything you want. That is the real crime, honestly.


As for the verse itself? Just an obvious social insight. Not like it was extremely profound in the first place, but the way it's played off makes you think otherwise.

"You are forbidden to accept your sexual orientation as legitimate and acceptable, and must instead suppress every romantic and sexual inclination, because my heteronormative and heterosexist concept of sexual relations so decrees. But I love you... really."

:rolleyes:

Edit: More generally, it is absurd to insist that we can so clearly differentiate between actions and people. People are responsible: they commit actions. If you condemn murder, you condemn murderers as people who commit acts worthy of condemnation... especially if they commit murder willingly and unashamedly.

So, at best, "hate the sin, not the sinner" offers a sort of way out when dealing with gays and bisexuals who join the homophobes in condemning same-sex attraction. Not otherwise.
That's the best summation of the religious homophobic arguments I've ever read.

Thanks.

Human nature. Human beings love to be superior to one another, at any cost, even the integrity of their own ideals. Never mind the fact that the commandment you pointed out is important enough to be included in the Lord's Prayer, never mind the fact that what Jesus was fighting was an oppressive authority, there will be certain people who call themselves Christians but for whatever reason let their own nature trump this.

If it's any consolation though, not every Christian forgets that verse. But it is tragic that some do. Pity them, for no matter how great you are hurt by their actions, the greatest pain caused by this transgression will be the pain they inflict on themselves.

The same reason that cherry pickers of the bible don't realize that God teaches us to hate sin, any and every sin. No, we shouldn't judge, because we are not the Judge, as in we are not God. at the same time, we should let people know about sin, and the consequences of it.

So, if you berate and condemn everyone, and stick your nose uninvited into everyone's private lives, and act holier-than-thou to everyone, it doesn't count as judging them. OK, got it. Nice philosphy. :rolleyes:

heh..."At times those who do not want to have their inconsistencies pointed out say in a super-sweet voice to me 'Judge not, lest ye be judged.' I reply 'O.K., judge me, then.'"

Two errors: one, you assume God tosses all sinners into hell. If that were true, we're all screwed.


"God"'s need to spare a particular class of "sinner" simply because they stroke his ego presents all sorts of other problems and inconsistencies ("God" doesn't oppose "sin" or "sinners" so much as "he" opposes non-sycophants) that I decided to leave it out in order to keep things relatively simple.

The general point still stands; the stated doctrine that one should condemn the action (sin) and not the actor (sinner) flys in the face of other stated doctrine that actors will be directly condemned via eternal hellfire.


Second, you confused God with people. God is welcome to condemn anyone he wants.


Of course. I would expect such inconsistent and arbitrary standards and prescriptions for behavior from any petulant dictator. This is essentially my point.


However, even then people are condemning homosexual acts, e.g., sex, not homosexuality itself.

Homosexuality is a kind of sexual orientation. As with any other sexual orientation, the actual act itself is an integral part of the definition. One may as well try to condemn atoms consisting of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen without condemning water.

"I don't condemn you, so long as you restrain yourself from being what you are, as long as you refrain from being you."

What absurd nonsense.

Just to be sure I understand, you enjoy people evaluating your performance at work/school/gaming/whatever, but not judging your worth as a person, correct?

I don't necessarily ENJOY being judged, because it's often very uncomfortable. But going to the dentist is also frequently uncomfortable, and I do it anyhow because I believe it's a good idea in the long run.


I think there's another meaning in there as well, namely, that it's not our place to judge people precisely because we aren't perfect, and are thus not qualified to do so.

Perfection is not required for judgment. Indeed, from the standpoint of empathy I don't think I'd really listen to what a perfect being has to say the way I'd listen to a fellow imperfect being. I live with imperfect beings, after all, and my entire lifetime will be spent as an imperfect being.


It's a lesson in humility. It relates to the incident in which Jesus saves a woman from being stoned to death by saying to the crowd, "Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone."

I always viewed that as more about dispensing punishment, as opposed to judgment.

I don't think you have to be sinless to judge whether or not another person fucked up. I stole a pack of smokes when I was twelve, but I don't think that makes me unqualified to say that somebody is out of line when they rape my friend.

The lesson, to me, was about thinking twice before you set yourself up as judge, jury, and executioner. It was really a lesson in empathy. How many men in that crowd do you think had engaged in extramarital sex? How many do you think had paid for a prostitute? If it was less than 80%, I'd eat my hat. Jesus was obliquely reminding them that they were presuming to murder a woman for doing something THEY THEMSELVES had done.

I think the real message is, don't hold other people to a higher standard than you hold yourself. If you know that you're a fundamentally decent chap even though you've fucked up a few times in life, then extend the same consideration to others. Don't condemn somebody who has sinned unless you've taken a good look at your own sins and done the math.


Right. Because in making decisions on whom to hire, one must take into consideration someone's track record in areas related to the task at hand. At the same time, Bill's character flaws aren't justification for gossip or for one to think of him/herself as a superior person in terms of personal worth.

Gossip is a vague term. I'm not much in to bashing people for the sake of bashing them, but I'm a strong believer in the grapevine of personal information. I'd want to hear about Bill's dishonesty before I hired him for something, and I don't need it to come through an official memo. Hearing about it in the staff room would be fine.

As for thinking of oneself as superior, it's quite possible to do that in any given area. I might not be superior to Bill when it comes to laying tile or riding a bike, but I can be pretty damn sure I'm superior to him when it comes to trustworthiness.


I think when a person says they don't judge, they're refering to the relative worth between him/herself and the individual to be judged. Like, if I say "I'm not judging you" I might very well have a problem with something you're doing or advocating, or I may have issues with your character, but I'm not pretending to suggest I'm a "better" person than you are.

I find it an insipid statement and a pointless distinction, personally. You ARE judging me. Own that. It's okay. Judge away, just don't bullshit around about it.

You seem quite aware that it's possible to judge a person's individual characteristics without assuming that you are of superior worth as a human, which kind of confuses me given your earlier statements.


Naturally if I'm considering you for a job at my company, I have to evaluate your computer skills as well as personal integrity for professional purposes, but that's not the sme as "judging you" in my book.
It is judging me. It's okay. You should do that. You'd be a moron not to judge. All that is required is that you keep your perspective and remember that you're being judged too. That's enough to keep you humble. Well, at least it is for me.

"You are forbidden to accept your sexual orientation as legitimate and acceptable, and must instead suppress every romantic and sexual inclination, because my heteronormative and heterosexist concept of sexual relations so decrees. But I love you... really."

:rolleyes:

With love like that, who needs hate?

Human nature. Human beings love to be superior to one another, at any cost, even the integrity of their own ideals.
Guess I'm not human, then. :(

"I like Jesus's style, but his followers were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting things that ruins it for me." -- John Lennon

Was Lennon clean at this time, or was he still in the mindset of desiring people to worship him, ala "bigger than Jesus" comment...

Why is it that some Christians seem to forget this verse, which, IMHO to be one of the most important verse in the New Testament. Everyday I see Christians professing to love and follow Christ, and yet they condemn their fellow man for either not paying enough into the tithe, or being homosexuals. What really kills the whole thing is when the guy who's judging is later busted for either doing drugs, visiting prostitute or has a gay lover.

Every time I hear someone who is not Catholic telling me or my family that I'm going to Hell for being Catholic, I tell them to read Matthew Chapter Seven and start with Verse One. Most of them just gives this dumb founded look and continue with their rant. I believe that if the Bible was to be re-written today, this verse would probably be on the cutting floor.

Some non-Christians do this too. They say you are not supposed to judge someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes, so that when you do, you will be a mile away and have their shoes, but most everyone is too lazy to take such advice.

Guess I'm not human, then. :(

you prolly aren't female either

evidences

1 is on the internet
2 is good at learning stuff
3 has own thoughts/ideas

Hey, you can't cherry pick bible verses like that. Only church leaders can do that, and only when they're telling their flock who to hate.

you prolly aren't female either

evidences

1 is on the internet

*interrupts*
Court finds that Bottle is not female. Next case.

Christians like to pretend that all the awful parts of the bible (condoning slavery, sexual slvery, oppression, genocide, holy wars, etc) dont exist or dont count. I guess they are starting to ignore the good parts too because it means they have to tolerate homosexuals and unwed mothers.

Thats why Im usually more fond of catholics, they at least acknowledge the horrible parts of the bible and then make a church doctrine based on ignoring it, as opposed to just covering their ears and yelling "LA LA LA!!!"

Was Lennon clean at this time, or was he still in the mindset of desiring people to worship him, ala "bigger than Jesus" comment...


Thats not out of context at all. He was hoping for money, probably more than people worshiping him. They already did that, and while he cared, I think he probably wanted to spread ideas more than be worshipped. Of course, hes not perfect. He probably wanted money too. But I think it was more about the spreading of the ideas rather than anything else.

You can't take the Bible literally. For example, "turn the other cheek?" That's just a metaphor for "punch the other guy in the mouth."

Sure it's not a sexual reference?

*interrupts*
Court finds that Bottle is not female. Next case.
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Health/Sex/story?id=4143082&page=1

Why is it that some Christians seem to forget this verse, which, IMHO to be one of the most important verse in the New Testament. Everyday I see Christians professing to love and follow Christ, and yet they condemn their fellow man for either not paying enough into the tithe, or being homosexuals. What really kills the whole thing is when the guy who's judging is later busted for either doing drugs, visiting prostitute or has a gay lover.

Every time I hear someone who is not Catholic telling me or my family that I'm going to Hell for being Catholic, I tell them to read Matthew Chapter Seven and start with Verse One. Most of them just gives this dumb founded look and continue with their rant. I believe that if the Bible was to be re-written today, this verse would probably be on the cutting floor.

Well, in the the very next paragraph in the same sermon Jesus promotes judging. Remember the whole "You will know a tree by its fruits" thing?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%207:%2015-19;&version=47;

Jesus is clearly telling us to look at the words and actions of people and decide whether they are right or not. That's judgement. Am I to believe that Jesus contradicted himself in the very same sermon? Probably not, even if he wasn't God.

What about warning people of their impending doom if they do not repent?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:16-20;&version=47;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=4&verse=17&version=47&context=verse
The first is Jesus commanding His disciples (not only the Apostles) to go forth and preach all that He commanded them. That includes repentence (only one example of which is the second passage). And you can't repent of something unless you know that it is sin. And knowing that something is a sin requires that the action or thought or word or whatever in question be judged as to its moral quality.

Further, if there be any doubt as to the lack of the ability of the conscience to make known to Man the only way to repentence, Paul lets confirms that God most often (though not always) works through evangelism.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2010:14-17;&version=47;

Further more, the Church is given the power and responsiblity to bind and loose sins (called the Office of the Keys, for those of a theological mind).
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:18-19;&version=47;

Finally, here's food for thought. When I say "You're sinning here, here and here," I'm not judging you. God's done that already. I've just looked at what you're doing, judged it against God's word and said "Here's the verdict." The judgement of whether it is truly right or wrong (and indeed whether you are truly right or wrong) was made by God.

There are many who abuse this. I am not guitless. I have many motes in my eyes. But so does everyone. The thing is that we are to help each other. We are to point out to each other, for our spiritual edification, not our pride, what sins we have. We should bear with one another to keep each other for sin. If we have a judgemental spirit, such as the Pharisees did, we have a problem. But, if we are merely saying "You're breaking God's Law! Repent!" (which is a very difficult thing to do) we are doing what we ought.

And, I also saw that Christians promoting the use of the sword by the civil government was being cried against. To see that the use of the sword is being commanded, we need only look to the Law of the Old Testament. Execution and war are mandated many times therein. And if there is quesiton as to the use of the sword under the New Covenant, Paul urges obedience to the civil government, because it is not for nothing that it has been given the sword.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013:1-4;&version=47;