ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

[john2001]

Originally posted by LightSon
It is not my place to condemn you John. Condemnation is God's alone.

I maintain that there is great value in a showing honor to the person of God; He gave me life and has cleared the way for my eternal joy. That's gotta be worth something to me.

I also want to recognize the fact that while you dispose of the trappings of the useless religious mindset, you still come to this theology board and spend your time engaging with us. What might be the value to you in arguing with us?

Are there answers that you are looking for? Is there anything that you do not know? Do you have the innate ability to open your mind to the possibility that God loves you and has a better plan for you than the existence you now experience?

God has been gracious "John". Even your name presumes His Providence.

Condemnation takes many forms. One may be direct, as with the snide comments of Knight, or it may take the indirect form of pointing out that "God'll get yah".

If thanking "God" is done at the expense of thanking your fellow man, then I beleive that even in your own worldview you have cancelled out any benefit that you may have achieved for doing this.

Indeed, on Thanksgiving, I have made it a point to send thank you cards to my friends, mentioning something personal to each of them that I am thankful for. If people did this, they could put their thanks where it belongs, and not waste it on religious plattitudes and phoney public "deisms".

As to why I post in this "theology" group, I primarily view it as entertainment and an opportunity to hone philosophical arguments. In our society, secular as it is, it is viewed as being ok to wave Jesus in a person's face, but make one hint of non-belief and this is viewed as being "rude". (It's kind of like telling a small child that there is no Santa, I suppose.) As a result, I believe that there are many nonreligious people who are afraid to be honest about their skepticism.

I would tell anybody reading this who has doubts, and may have felt that religion simply doesn't add up, to explore those feelings more deeply. They should stop pretending to be religious, and definitely stop the pretense of prayer---which is merely vehicle for self brainwashing.

As to my name presuming anything, it merely indicates that I have been born into a culture that names children after dead people in the Bible. This sort of thing is interesting, but is not in itself significant.

As to why you have chosen "LightSon" as your handle, perhaps it is because you hang out with gritty old smokers who foul-breathedly growl through their rotten teeth "gimme a light, son".

 

[Corky the Cat]

John2001....... :up:

Well put. I really wish I could express it so well.

It's our duty to expose the fraud where ever it exists, for to condone it is to accept it.

maybe the Bright movement will help, I guess many closeters do not like the term atheist.

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by Corky the Cat
John2001....... :up:

Well put. I really wish I could express it so well.

It's our duty to expose the fraud where ever it exists, for to condone it is to accept it.

maybe the Bright movement will help, I guess many closeters do not like the term atheist.

I, myself, prefer the term "nonreligious" to "atheist".

 

[1Way]

(Note, this post has underwent several recent editorial improvements, so please revert to using this improved version wherever the edits take effect, sorry if this causes any inconveniences. Thanks.)

Jim – I got stranded out here is S.Dakota in a stinky chicken/egg factory waiting for a delivery truck to bring the rest of my load, I’ve been here for nearly 7 hours. Good news, I just heard it will arrive shortly. And I’m surfing the web via my snail speed cell phone. It’s slow but technically fun.

Hey, I think this could be more productive and edifying if we gave it some effort.

In the mean time, we’ll see who’s confused and as I have been suggesting, avoiding the wider meaningful context.

I’ll start with my (1Way’s) first point of late, offered to you (Jim) from the last post.

Point 1

Your position rests on an assumption (among others) that atheists have no faith, you demonstratively grant that claim (assume it to be valid for the sake of the debate, just as we grant that atheists exist) by claiming that there are no belief/faith statements that an atheist will agree with.
I demonstrated that the issue of personally evaluating and judging the truth of a claim into a category of trust or confidence (to one level or another) necessarily entails belief or faith. Immediately dispelling the validity of the claim that they have no faith in their belief system, because at the very least, they believe their atheism to be true. To deny the belief that atheism is true, is to deny being an atheist, so one can not be an atheist and deny the belief that atheism is true, so we come full circle knowing without doubt that affirmed atheism necessarily involves faith.

Your response to that point.

No response.

You cut up my point into smaller segments that I did not present, if I wanted you to address my point in several smaller units like you did, I would have segregated them accordingly, but I did not, I presented them as a complete unit, so you avoided my point altogether, but you used the “opportunity” redeem the time, opps, no, sorry, wishful thinking, you used the opportunity to personally insult my intelligence and ability to read and ironically to comprehend. You claim I’m confused while you constantly miss my point via aversion by chopping my points into oblivion. Maybe somewhere somehow you do understand what I am actually saying, but you sure can’t tell you do by your responses

Point 2

I offer a definition for what atheism is, in hopes of further supporting P1 that atheism involves faith, and to help solidify our understanding in the basic terms towards mutual clarity. I define an atheist as one who believes that the claim no God exists is true.

Your response to that point.

You charge me with going against the bible for believing what they believe. Which is begging the question of this discussion. Sure, I know you and I disagree on that point, so don’t presume that restating your claim supports your claim, it doesn’t. I assert you have no bible teaching for your rebuke that is not a perversion of scripture. As I’ve suggested to you several times, God’s word demonstrates the assumption that atheists exist, not only that, it teaches us what they believe, they say in their heart there is no God.

I could continue to correct you for ignoring this teaching and even contradicting it by suggesting that there is no such thing as an atheist, but I am still simply trying to get you to deal with that teaching. You seem terrified of it for some reason.

I’ve given you the passage, and you’ve responded tangently that you have other passages that evidently you think mitigate the meaning of that passage. So instead of responding to my support argument that atheism involves faith, you avoid that point and misuse God’s word in an effort to rebuke me for being unbiblical while you are unable to give a “consistent” bible teaching to validate your charge and in so doing, you avoid my point, while trying to make me look stupid and ignorant.

Point 3

Support reasoning for P1 in the form of a challenge.

I give a challenge that you can not be an atheist if you deny belief/faith in atheism so as to help steer you in the right direction for your response because I know how aversive you are.

Your response to that point.

You gave no direct meaningful response. Instead you explain what you think the problems might be with what atheists believe and how that makes things difficult. You said:

I'm guessing they would say that believing a claim is not the same as putting one's faith in some deity (ask them). It's going to boil down to semantics with the so-called atheist, ...

In review, you treat some aspects of their beliefs as though it’s gospel truth, it’s - Your wrong and I’m right, they claim to have no faith, ... they will NOT affirm any statement of faith ...”

Ok, so it’s obvious you have a heavy bias against me, but you go over the top with the personal insults and chopping up my words as though my thoughts need you to whack them down to the size you feel more comfortable with. You are hard to figure out, you believe they have an object of their faith, but at the same time, you attack me for claiming they have faith in their beliefs. I know you think I am simply confused about your position and you use five dollar words like presuppositional and the like, but when I say, God presumes atheists exist, it’s the only way He can talk about them and describe what they believe, you say nothing what so ever to that point. The longer you wait to deal with that point, the better I will know of your fear, that much I do know.

My point remains, and I think we all agree that they are fools, they are deluded, they believe false teachings, and one of them is that they have no faith/belief. I’m presenting a new support argument in this line. They reason their position based upon the observable material world, they like science and dislike religion. But their trust in the verifiable physical world should preclude them from saying anything of belief concerning the spiritual world. In that regard, the agnostic claims more reasonably that one can not know one way or the other, but the atheist claims to “know” that there is no God. The nature of their world view stands upon humanly verifiable observation about the material world, but then without any scientific nor logical necessity, they leap into the spiritual world and decide that they “know” there is no God, while at the same time claiming this knowledge is not faith/belief based, it’s some sort of rational part of their understanding, but not by faith. What a contradictory crock that is. That is pure faith and without reason.

Now, we haven’t even left my first point, along with 2 support arguments or line of reasoning to demonstrate your aversion. Next you say the following.

They say they don't hate God any more than they hate the tooth fairy. Will you believe them and disbelieve the scripture?

I have agreed with you (and God’s word) on this issue only numerous times that they are deluded and that they know of God. I have never contradicted nor neglected your isolated but valid bible references, instead, as you should recall, I have constantly affirmed them.

As I’ve previously said, there are more than just one set of scriptures over this issue, and I hope someday you will rightly work them into your beliefs.

Now, mind you, you falsely charge me with giving the atheist too much credit, while I demonstrated that you assert your point is based on their claim, and what do you do next, ? ! ? you do the same thing again by saying:

Belief and faith are biblically similar but the atheist will object to faith because it implies “much more ... at least among the atheists I’ve encountered and read.”

So instead of standing on the truth of the matter which is taught in scripture,

atheists have believe there is no God,

you position yourself with the atheist against me (and scripture) because I say that they have faith/belief that God does not exist. I am not arguing that they don’t claim any such things, I am arguing against the meaning of their claim and would expect any reasonable theist to do the same, but instead you agree with the atheists that I’m wrong and they are right in that they really do not have any faith/belief, demonstrating that if you think it’s in your best interested, like trying to support your difficult and week position, you’ll join the atheists against the theist if it defends your personal view.

I demonstrate that if having a claim has nothing to do with believing it to be true, then watch the theist claim that God does not exist and then explain that he does not believe that claim to be true but the atheist believes it to be true. I did that to help demonstrate the inextricable necessity of faith/belief in atheism,

Your response to that argument.

You gave no contextually consistent remark, but instead at one point you contradicted the meaning I offered as though I was presenting atheistic theism, you ignore my point altogether in favor of inventing a personal slander against me. You also claimed that I was equivocating and my point is irrelevant. So because you disagree with me, you somehow feel justified in ignoring a direct response to my arguments, in effect, you just say, they are dumb and you are right, but far be it from you to enlighten anyone why you will not respond to my points as offered and without chopping them up.

You can not see the forest because of the trees. You even pretended that I was proposing atheistic theism by completely perverting my words, even though you probably did that in some sort of demented ridicule, your aversion to the meaning of a point given is consistent and much louder than you imagine it is, as well as your penitent for breaking a point down into smaller units that effectively destroy the point originally offered. Of course, then you poor on the personal strife and slander like icing on the cake, your version of brotherly love I guess.

God demonstrates the existence of atheists by teaching about them and what they believe, which is that they believe there is no God. God’s word says that, but evidently on the contrary, you believe you know better, you believe no one actually believes there is no God (= atheists) and if the truth be known, there really is no such thing as an atheist even though God’s word teaches about them and what they believe.

Now, I’ve given you this bible teaching plenty of times, and you’ve never directly and contextually responded to it, conversely, you have offered other passages that you evidently think supercedes this one, but unlike yourself, I respond to your argument, however tangent it remains, saying that I agree with them, atheists are deluded and know about and hate God. The difference between you and me is, I am wise enough to know that I should not take that teaching in such a way that would violate another clear bible teaching. Both your scripture and my scripture is right and true, so far, the way I see you responding, your view violates and contradicts my scripture, but I agree with and constantly affirm yours.

So Jim, please plainly and with contextual consistence, tell us what God’s word means when it describes the atheist as believing there is no God? God’s word says that they “say in their heart” there is no God. What does that mean if it doesn’t mean that real fools really believe that lie? Does it really mean, no one believes that God does not exist? God’s word says that fools believe there is no God. How can that be twisted into meaning, no one believes there is no God? Your view directly contradicts what this scripture says. I trust God a lot more than I trust you.

Please explain yourself. Here are some helpful hints of what I’d like addressed.

Do you believe God was wrong for letting that false teaching in the scriptures? Do you deny that that verse is scripture?

What is your understanding of that teaching? (Note, I am not seeking your personal estimation of it in comparison to others, I am not seeking your subjective remarks about any insinuations that I may have placed upon it, I am asking you to give your understanding of what God’s word says in that instance, nothing more, nothing less. You may of course then proceed to explain yourself concerning other bible teachings.

I’ll spare everyone the pain of demonstrating how you do this with everything I say, by simply suggesting that you do that on an almost constant basis. I could go back and see how many times I offered the passage about the fool saying in his heart there is no God, to demonstrate what would probably be the loudest example of your silence in directly addressing the point. Lets get to the heart of the matter and here your understanding of that bible teaching so that we can find out that you can actually respond to a point without first dissecting it out of meaningful existence.

 

[1Way]

bmyers – As to

But clearly, "pagans" are not "atheists" (i.e., the pagans mentioned here clearly DID believe in SOME God, just not the one Paul had in mind), so what is the relevance of this example?

I was responding to Jim’s idea that because the atheist’s belief are untrue and delusional, we should not presume they really are an atheist. I tried to demonstrate the analogy between atheists and idolaters, because they both are deluded and believe false teachings, but the bible shows us that Paul witnessed to them anyway, using their beliefs as a stepping-stone for evangelism. Another way of saying that is to say that Paul granted their belief in a God that did not exist, the unknown God. By Jim’s definition, there is no such thing as an unknown God. So I drew the analogy (not surprisingly, Jim doesn’t like my analogy even though they correlate quite well) that the biblical method was to use the false belief (grant it for consideration) in a redemptive way, and by affirming the belief for the sake of exposing the truth, Paul reached those whose problem was just like the atheist. The atheist knows God, hates God, and yet believes there is no God. Same with the Idolater, he knows God, he hates God, and yet he believes in other false non-existant gods instead. They are both lying to themselves about the true God. Jim believes there is no such thing as an atheist, so Jim’s rule for when to consider a person of faith as non-existent is anti-biblical, he made it up himself and so far has pretty much been avoiding the teaching below. The bible demonstrates that atheists exist even though Jim says they do not exist. Hilston = Jim. He calls them atheists, actually he prefers anti-theists because he does not believe that atheists exist. His reasoning for disbelief in atheists is because their belief is false, and they claim to have no faith, which is different than the idolater who obviously claims faith, but a claim does not reality make. The atheist has faith that there really is no God, if he did not believe that there is no God, then he would be a theist, not an atheist. Its really simple but Jim sees things very differently.

Ps 53:1 <<To the Chief Musician. Set to "Mahalath." A Contemplation of David.>> The fool has said in his heart, "[There is] no God." They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; [There is] none who does good.

Place Jim’s idea that atheists do not exist, and that would render this teaching meaningless, even though God’s word never returns void (Isa 55:1) although man’s problem is that he is fully willing and able to void God’s word by his error (Matt 15:6). So obviously anyone who contradicts the word of God is meaningfully voiding it, which is a mishandling of scripture. God’s word remains true, but people get it wrong all the time.

 

[1Way]

John2001 and lightson – Lightson said to John2001

It is not my place to condemn you John. Condemnation is God's alone.

And John2001 did not disagree. But God does. So I say this to your shame for wrongly understanding God’s word and for your ignorance over such a foundational issue of morality. If we purposely don’t condemn the child molester or rapist or murderer, then what good are we in the face of such great wickedness? May the truth set you free.

Mt 12:41 "The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah [is] here.

Lu 11:31 "The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon [is] here.

The following is speaking of judgment day, which involves a great amount of condemnation and judgment and then given the context and exhortation, we are supposed to rightly judge people all the much more here and now.

1Co 6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?

Now lets see if these two will respond in a Godly way.

Pr 9:8 Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise [man], and he will love you.

Pr 17:10 Rebuke is more effective for a wise [man] Than a hundred blows on a fool.

Pr 27:5 Open rebuke [is] better Than love carefully concealed.

Oh, and don’t forget about the 3 steps forgiveness program Jesus teaches.

Lu 17:3 "Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.

First confront/rebuke if necessary, second, discern if he repents, and then IF he does, then forgive, if not, you can’t forgive because repentance is a prerequisite for forgiveness.

Ps 37:30 The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom, And his tongue talks of justice.

 

[coffeeman]

I remember studying the word "judgement" a long time ago and found two major types. One type is translated from a root word that means Condemn...Judge not lest you be judged is this type condemn not lest you be condemned. The other is from the root word appraise...a spiritual man judgeth all things...a spiritual man appraiseth all things.

It may be a great excercise to place each of these words in the place of judge or judgment in the verses and see what they look like.
appraise would seem best when we are talking about two Christians...how can we condemn someone who is bought by the blood of Christ....yet, we can appraise actions to see what values are gained.
I'm not judging(condemning your post)...just judging (appraising) it.

Cheers

 

[LightSon]

Hi 1Way,
Thanks for the challenge. If I should feel shame or otherwise need to be rebuked, then I would certainly want to know that.

Originally posted by Lightson
It is not my place to condemn you John. Condemnation is God's alone.

To which you responded:

Originally posted by 1Way
And John2001 did not disagree. But God does. So I say this to your shame for wrongly understanding God’s word and for your ignorance over such a foundational issue of morality. If we purposely don’t condemn the child molester or rapist or murderer, then what good are we in the face of such great wickedness? May the truth set you free.

When I said “It is not my place to condemn you”, I was NOT using some generic term which might be loosely applied to child molesters or rapists. The context was specific to one “who is going to hell”. It is only in the context of eternal condemnation that my statement can be properly judged.

Originally penned by the Apostle in John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already , because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Since an unbeliever is “condemned already”, there is no role for me to play. This is God’s role. My statement comports to be Biblical.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, and that of the Coffeeguy, with the exception of your treatment of 1st Corinthians 6. This text deals with the saints judging matters within the church and the brethren. In this context, Paul said, “I say this to your shame.” I don’t think one should extricate this “shame” from the context and apply it to me engaging apologetically with an unbeliever.

Originally penned by the Apostle in John 3:18
Now lets see if these two will respond in a Godly way.

Did I respond in a Godly way?

 

[1Way]

Coffeeman 1of2 - I took a spattering of various common or clear judging and condemning examples to do a quick word study to see into your suggestions. Scriptures quoted from the NKJV unless otherwise noted.


Condemning.

Mt 23:14 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. (2917 krima) (kjv=damnation)

Mt 23:33 "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation (2920 krisis) of hell?

Mr 3:29 "but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation" —— (2920 krisis)


Both judging and condemning

Mt 12:41 "The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment (2920 krisis) with this generation and condemn (2632 katakrino) it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah [is] here.
Mt 12:42 "The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment (2920 krisis) with this generation and condemn (2632 katakrino) it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon [is] here.

Lu 6:37 "Judge (2919 krino) not, and you shall not be judged. (2919 krino) Condemn (2613 katadikazo) not, and you shall not be condemned. (2613 katadikazo) Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

Ro 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge (2919 krino), for in whatever you judge (2919 krino) another you condemn (2632 katakrino) yourself; for you who judge (2919 krino) practice the same things.

Ro 5:16 And the gift [is] not like [that which came] through the one who sinned. For the judgment (2917 krima) [which came] from one [offense resulted] in condemnation (2631 katakrima), but the free gift [which came] from many offenses [resulted] in justification.


Judging

Mt 7:1 "Judge (2919 krino) not, that you be not judged. (2919 krino)

1Co 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges (350 anakrino) all things, yet he himself is [rightly] judged (350 anakrino) by no one.

Joh 7:24 "Do not judge (2919 krino) according to appearance, but judge (2919 krino) with righteous judgment." (2920 krisis)

1Co 11:31 For if we would judge (1252 diakrino) ourselves, we would not be judged. (2919 krino)

When trying to determine the meaning of a word, the context provides the highest order of direction for it’s meaning. The contest is how we determine things like figures of speech, whether or not a noun is a subject or object, whether we are stating, exclaiming, quoting, or asking a question, etc. Also, one can be somewhat careless with their word choice and because of the context, we still know what they really meant and is why many of us are found saying, listen to what I meant and not necessarily what I said. Often, if you understand the context well enough, you can literally remove a key word or phrase from a sentence or paragraph and you can fill in the gap because of the surrounding context that in it’s totality, carries the meaning even with the gap not filled in.

Of special interest are the uses of both words in the same communication where they are naturally somewhat in contrast to each other. Also, when other associated words/phrases are combined with our words, sometimes that helps offset the meaning in such a way as to help clarify what the word really means, or how it was used.

Here is the word groupings found by the English translated word in the NKJV.

Condemn(ation) (NKJV)
Strongs# and word

2917 krima
2920 krisis
2632 katakrino
2613 katadikazo
2631 katakrima

roots

krima
krisis
krino
dikazo


Judge(ment) (NKJV)

2920 krisis
2917 krima
2919 krino
350 anakrino
1252 diakrino

roots

krisis
krima
krino

Also, kata is commonly used in combination, which is

2596 kata kat-ah’

a primary particle; ; prep

AV-according to 107, after 61, against 58, in 36, by 27, daily + 2250 15, as 11, misc 165; 480

1) down from, through out
2) according to, toward, along

So far, it does not seem clear by simply looking at the definitions that these words have to go one way or the other, except for 2613 which seems to simply be condemn.

I was going to supply the Strongs definitions, but you can look them up yourself. But, I find several verses helpful, one in particular that seems logically very helpful. Luke gets the honors for presenting an especially helpful verse.

Lu 6:37 "Judge (2919 krino) not, and you shall not be judged. (2919 krino) Condemn (2613 katadikazo) not, and you shall not be condemned. (2613 katadikazo) Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

But then, just as helpful in coloring in the meaning, John and Paul offer the following.

Joh 7:24 "Do not judge (2919 krino) according to appearance, but judge (2919 krino) with righteous judgment." (2920 krisis)

1Co 11:31 For if we would judge (1252 diakrino) ourselves, we would not be judged. (2919 krino)

Notice Lu 6:37. It’s in the form of couplets, so the pairs naturally go together. Is it possible that the intended meaning of each side of this couplet means the exact same thing? I don’t think so. It doesn’t mean that if we judge noone, then noone will judge us. If that were true, then every wicked vile and evil act could be relegated from any judgment if the perpetrator simply refuses to judge others. So perfect equality on each side can not be the meaning. Same for condemning, and same for forgiving. This formula therefore requires some attention in order to get the meaning originally offered. I consider the implication that I think is intended for each of the three sets, which is found in the second half of each couplet in the subtle form of a warning. I think this implication might be stated as follows.

“You shall not be judged”, meaning, if you don’t want to be judged against
“You shall not be condemned”, meaning, if you don’t want to be condemned
“You shall be forgiven”, meaning if you want to be forgiven

Given these natural implications of those couplets, we simply examine the nature of the implication and then see if that same sort of implication might suit the first half of the couplet to see if the couplet unit then makes good or better sense. But first, lets reduce the couplets into their most concise and clear form to make it easier to evaluate.

Do not judge in order to not be judged

Do not condemn in order to not be condemned

Forgive others in order to be forgiven

(cont. next post)

 

[1Way]

Coffeeman - 2of2

Now lets insert the implications

• Do not judge
  in order to not be judged (against yourself)
  
• Do not condemn
  in order to not be condemned (against yourself)
  
• Forgive others
  in order to (yourself) be forgiven

Now lets insert the implications on both sides to see if it helps us understand the intended meaning.

• Do not Judge (yourself)
  in order to not be judged (yourself)
  
• Do not condemn (yourself)
  in order to not be condemned (yourself)
  
• Forgive (yourself)
  in order to (yourself) be forgiven

Now, that just doesn’t quite make good sense, besides, in the first example, we have another verse that says the exact opposite and that verse makes perfectly good sense without any problems with doubtful implications. See 1 Cor 11;31. Also, that verse is a couplet where the implication is easy to figure out.

So lets try another implication, this time, instead of focusing on ourselves, lets focus on what these three ideas all have in common, judgment and condemnation and forgiveness all are aspects of what? Righteousness and justice. So lets see if we can do better this time.

• Do not Judge (wrongly)
  in order to not be judged (as wrong)
  
• Do not Condemn (wrongly)
  in order to not be condemned (as wrong)
  
• Forgive (rightly)
  in order to (rightly) be forgiven

That seems to work pretty good. Yet there still remains somewhat of a question about who is doing it to who.

• Do not Judge (others) (wrongly)
  in order to not be judged (as wrong) (yourself)
  
• Do not Condemn (others) (wrongly)
  in order to not be condemned (as wrong) (yourself)
  
• Forgive (others) (rightly)
  in order (for others) to (rightly) forgive (you)

That is what I believe the implication is of that verse. I consider the warning implied in two ways, who is this warning for, and what is the nature of the warning, is it about justice and righteousness, or is it just about me doing something to me which correlates to making no sense at all.

Now consider the other two verses to see if this understanding is consistent.

Joh 7:24 "Do not judge (2919 krino) according to appearance, but judge (2919 krino) with righteous judgment." (2920 krisis)

1Co 11:31 For if we would judge (1252 diakrino) ourselves, we would not be judged. (2919 krino)

Jesus teaches us to judge with righteous judgment, but not by superficial outward appearance. And we should judge ourselves so that others will not judge against us. Notice the implied meaning in that verse.

• Judge ourselves (rightly)
• In order that we will (not) (rightly) be judged (against) by others

To consider this verse as meaning the exact same thing on each side of the couplet is absolute contradictory nonsense!

Judge ourselves that we be not judged

If we are judged, then we are judged, it’s impossible to be (at the same time and in the same relationship) both judged and not judged. We simply have to engage our brain a few seconds to know what it can not mean, and then consider a reasonable options and the context provided in order to discover what the author intended.

As if often the case, without the implied meaning naturally and logically supplied, the meaning is nonsense. So we know that we must figure out what the author intended to convey, and we should do so in such a way as to not create a contradiction, or not to cause the meaning to be less clear.

So, judge not, does not fully mean judge not, in that verse, judge not can not mean that unless you think a contradictory meaningless statement was intended. (?!?) Rather, “judge not” “to be not judged” means, “don’t wrongfully judge against others” “if you don’t want others to judge "against" yourself”. In summary, I think the application in general is, don’t be a hypocrite, don’t be guilty of doing yourself what you judge against others in doing the same thing.

So God’s word teaches us to judge all things, but to not judge in a hypocritical way, instead judge with justice and righteousness. That is the bible wide consistent message about judging and condemning, do it right.

And as to what we should judge, it’s not just actions, it people too. After all, no where in the bible does it separate the actions from the doer. Morality of a deed done is always inextricably combined with the moral agent doing the moral deed, the sin always goes with the sinner and never otherwise.

Come judgment day, we will judge the world and the angels, but interestingly, many believe that only God judges and condemns. So when they find out that God placed judgment into our hands, it feels awkward to them. But God’s word explains what is going to happen in the simplest of terms. Here it is again, men judging against men.

Mt 12:41 "The men of Nineveh will rise up in the judgment (2920 krisis) with this generation and condemn (2632 katakrino) it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah [is] here.
Mt 12:42 "The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment (2920 krisis) with this generation and condemn (2632 katakrino) it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than Solomon [is] here.

Notice the reasoning offered for our benefit. The men of Nineveh will judge and condemn other men “because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and indeed a greater than Jonah [is] here.” That is really not a reason, unless we supply the implied meaning that we know is there. It means, they will be judging and condemning because Nineveh repented and they did not repent even though the Christ was among them! Implied meaning that we are forced to supply, that generation did not repent, but should have.

So we are supposed to judge others, Christians and non-Christians alike. We treat each group differently, but they are each game for judgment from the Christian.

 

[1Way]

Lightson – Your first point:

When I said “It is not my place to condemn you”, I was NOT using some generic term which might be loosely applied to child molesters or rapists. The context was specific to one “who is going to hell”. It is only in the context of eternal condemnation that my statement can be properly judged.

Granted your use has a specific context of those going to hell, but I did not address that portion of your point, I was addressing the “condemnation is God’s alone” part. But just for the record, you are not accurate about the condemnation of damnation as being God’s alone. Sure, the reasoning of justice is already provided and they are already condemned, that is all true, BUT, we do have a role to play in their judgment and condemnation, see my previous post to coffeeman for unambiguous bible teachings that we saints will judge the world and the angels come judgment day, and the men of Nineveh will judge and condemn men for not repenting, so your claim that the saints have no role to play in judgment and condemnation in judgment day is simply false.

BTW, simple humble correction was all I was seeking, not rebuke.

As to:

I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, and that of the Coffeeguy, with the exception of your treatment of 1st Corinthians 6. This text deals with the saints judging matters within the church and the brethren. In this context, Paul said, “I say this to your shame.” I don’t think one should extricate this “shame” from the context and apply it to me engaging apologetically with an unbeliever.

Not so, the immediate application of a teaching is the not delimiting factor of the scope of a teaching, that is thinking backwards from the application to the teaching, no, you understand the application from the teaching and not the other way around.

The teaching is, you should be judging, don’t you realize that you will be in judgment against the world and the angels, how much more so the things in this life. the reflexive balancer is identified as contrasting things of this life and the things of the next life, paul makes no such contrast between saved and unsaved people in that teaching, but the immediate application of that bible truth was over saints having conflict w/other saints.

If you were to try to remain consistent by making a single application of a teaching delimit (restrict) the teaching, then every time anyone would state a teaching that may have various applications or a wider scope, you would be required to give every example for how to apply that one teaching. :shocked: But of course, that is ridiculous. So the point is, discriminate between the application and the lesson/truth.

One of the heroes of the Christian faith, :up: John the Baptist publicly railed harsh condemnation against the king for great wickedness. Was he sinning or was he Godly for so doing? How about David when he harshly judged against atheists for being fools. How about the prophet who richly mocked and ridiculed the false prophets just hours or minuets before he went about executing them. What about the saints role in condemning the world for it’s wickedness when we use the law against them for the sake of the gospel. If all these are not allowed as Godly judgment/condemnation against unsaved sinners, then I have to wonder what bible you’ve been reading.

As to:

Did I respond in a Godly way?

As to your motives, I’d think so, as to your bible understanding, I’d say you obviously need more correction. Notice, if we take your view that Christians should not judge non-believers, then we could not judge/condemn the murder or adulterer like John did for example. Of course we Christians are supposed to judge the unsaved world, that is step number one in evangelism.

The saints in this dispensation of grace are under Grace, not the unsaved world, they are under law and are condemned by the godly. Amen. :ahso: So get redemptive and start judging sinners!

 

[LightSon]

Hi john2001,

I tried to strike a non-judgmental tone with you and got into a little trouble. 1way got on my case. So, it looks like I’m going to have to take off the gloves.

Originally posted by john2001
If thanking "God" is done at the expense of thanking your fellow man, then I beleive that even in your own worldview you have cancelled out any benefit that you may have achieved for doing this.

I’m not sure what this means. My attitude of gratitude to God does nothing if not compel me to be a better neighbor. If you were suggesting that I can be thankful to God and trash my fellow man, then I must protest.

1 John 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Originally posted by john2001
Indeed, on Thanksgiving, I have made it a point to send thank you cards to my friends, mentioning something personal to each of them that I am thankful for. If people did this, they could put their thanks where it belongs, and not waste it on religious plattitudes and phoney public "deisms".

In this quote I focus on the use of “phoney”. Nobody likes a phoney. “That Jerry Seinfeld; He’s so phoney.”

Originally posted by john2001
As to why I post in this "theology" group, I primarily view it as entertainment and an opportunity to hone philosophical arguments. In our society, secular as it is, it is viewed as being ok to wave Jesus in a person's face, but make one hint of non-belief and this is viewed as being "rude". (It's kind of like telling a small child that there is no Santa, I suppose.) As a result, I believe that there are many nonreligious people who are afraid to be honest about their skepticism.

I would tell anybody reading this who has doubts, and may have felt that religion simply doesn't add up, to explore those feelings more deeply. They should stop pretending to be religious, and definitely stop the pretense of prayer---which is merely vehicle for self brainwashing.

Again, I recognize your disdain for a person not being true to their beliefs. I agree that many people feign religious piety, and that such is not helpful. I personally have struggled to have my public persona align with my internal convictions.

Would you concede that prayer need not be a pretense, and that one’s personal faith in God can rise to a level where public displays of that faith can be genuine?

Suppose a friend of yours had you over for dinner and paused to "say grace". What is your normal posture? Do you bow your head? Do you show respect? Or do you wait for the next lull in conversation to mock him? I mean. That would be a little rude too, don't you think?

Originally posted by john2001
As to my name presuming anything, it merely indicates that I have been born into a culture that names children after dead people in the Bible. This sort of thing is interesting, but is not in itself significant.

Okay.

Originally posted by john2001
As to why you have chosen "LightSon" as your handle, perhaps it is because you hang out with gritty old smokers who foul-breathedly growl through their rotten teeth "gimme a light, son".

A clever and animated speculation, but no.
In my case, I chose this moniker to reflect my having been set apart for God’s use.

Ephesians 5:8 “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light.”

 

[coffeeman]

Hi 1way

What really worries me is the fervor some Christians have over condemning people to hell.

There is a HUGE difference between judging a criminal of a crime and damning someone to hell. The Bible is clear about society being subject to authority. We are not the authority ...God has authorized rulers to punish law breakers.

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

The Bible is also clear about not judging as the Pharisees did...

John 7:24 is talking about the Pharasees attempting to judge Christ. I doubt you want to join in with this group. As for righteous judgement, only Christ can do this and He has done this upon the act of judging satan and sin and paying the price for that sin upon the cross.

23If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? 24Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

Are we to judge a man if he keeps the law or not? Paul says Christ is the end of th e law...shouldn't we preach that everyone can be saved if they believe instead of preaching that every one is damned!.

4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
5Moses describes in this way the righteousness that is by the law: "The man who does these things will live by them."[1] 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?'[2] " (that is, to bring Christ down) 7"or 'Who will descend into the deep?'[3] " (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[4] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[5]

This judgment is for believers to judge themselves by not being gluttons at the Lord's Supper. Has nothing to do with judging anyone else but ones self.

1Cor 11
27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood[4] of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner[5] eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's[6] body. 30For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

The Beatitudes
Funny how we can take this and make it mean that we SHOULD judge...should condemn.
Are we also going to say we should not give or not forgive?
Any excuse to feel good about damning others, I suppose....scary!

Luke(7) 37 "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."

Both of these excerpts from Romans puts the act of JUDGMENT in a negative light.

Do you see where JUDGEMENT OF CONDEMNATION is contrasted with the FREE GIFT
Ro 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge (2919 krino), for in whatever you judge (2919 krino) another you condemn (2632 katakrino) yourself; for you who judge (2919 krino) practice the same things.

Romans 5
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-- 13(For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man's offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17For if by the one man's offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.
20Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more, 21so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 2:4
Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

Everyone is under GRACE in this dispensation because Christ died for the ungodly...just some will accept and some will reject that grace. We are not the ones to decide who is damned and who is not...
I choose to tell others about GRACE AND LIFE for it is the GOODNESS OF GOD that leads to repentance.

 

[1Way]

Coffeeman 1of2 – I think you are trying to be nicer than God. You said

(1) What really worries me is the fervor some Christians have over condemning people to hell.

(2) There is a HUGE difference between judging a criminal of a crime and damning someone to hell. (3) The Bible is clear about society being subject to authority. We are not the authority ...God has authorized rulers to punish law breakers.

1 – What worries me is people like you who are worried about people like me who want to properly warn the world about their wickedness and the need to repent. You are worried about some Christians fervor over condemning people to hell. It’s love and caring mixed with righteousness and justice, a combination not many grasp very well. You want to be worried about such fervor in an objectionable way, then I feel sorry for your misunderstanding and aversion to the pulse of the gospel message.

2 – While we should be just as much in abhorrence to someone going to hell as we are with any other wickedness and evil, some sins are indeed worse than others. I agree that it is a greater evil to reject God and end up going to hell than it is to commit any other lesser wickedness. But I do not see the connection of this argument to your advantage. Going to hell is no comparison to some general crime, which lends support for my view that we should be eager to redemptively judge the world about that issue all the more than when someone gets a speeding ticket, but you disagree with an emphasis on judging the world concerning damnation, so I have no good idea why you provided this argument which supports my view and not yours. Well, expect that you attached it to argument 3.

3 – You are changing the subject. We were talking about using the law lawfully and redemptively toward the unsaved world. The governing authorities are God’s minister for wrath, executing vengeance against the criminals, but we Christians are Gods ministers of the gospel with a ministry of reconciliation and as such this teaching is applicable to every saved person, no matter if it’s the new born babe in Christ or the seasoned vet, God is relying on individuals and families and churches and ministries to spread the gospel message and lead people to Christ, it’s not just about the governing authority, as though they are the only institution that can righteously condemn the world. By your response, I guess we should have to tare the following out the bible

1Ti 1:8 But we know that the law [is] good if one uses it lawfully,
9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
10 for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God which was committed to my trust.

because that teaching is directed at Christians and not the governing authority. Either that, or we should obey scripture and not your mistaken errant belief.

Then you say

(4) The Bible is also clear about not judging as the Pharisees did...

(5) John 7:24 is talking about the Pharasees attempting to judge Christ. I doubt you want to join in with this group. (6) As for righteous judgement, only Christ can do this and He has done this upon the act of judging satan and sin and paying the price for that sin upon the cross.

4 – Right, they were hypocrites and they grossly mishandled the righteous use of the law and God’s word. The teaching again is to judge rightly, not wrongly like the Pharisees did. (knock knock, hello, wake up, anyone in there?)

5 – That is terrible error. John 7:24 is not about judging (against) Christ, Christ plainly says that we should judge with righteous judgment, and the context fully develops this thought by example in the previous 2 verses and more. I’m sure the Pharasees were involved in false judgment against Christ, but in verse 24, Christ is the one speaking, and He is saying what we should do, He is not teaching judgment against Himself or whatever you think that verse is saying.

6 – Where do you come up with this junk. We are examining Christ’s teaching that we should judge with righteous judgment, and you say that only Christ can do that. Sorry, I can’t argue against an argument that is as off base as that, you’ll have to come back to the discussion if you want a response to your so called point.

You also said

Are we to judge a man if he keeps the law or not? Paul says Christ is the end of th e law...shouldn't we preach that everyone can be saved if they believe instead of preaching that every one is damned!.

I did not say that men should place themselves under the law or not, “keeping the law” is usually a reference to being subject to all of God’s laws as a system of faith. However, being under the law may also happen because you are not saved, see the following.

Ro 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Ga 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

rm 3.19 says that the world is under the law that they might become guilty before God, and Ga 5.18 says that the prerequisite to not being under the law is being led by the Spirit, and generally speaking, to be led by the spirit of God, you have to have Him living in you. So again we have God’s word teaching that the unsaved world is under the law, that is, they are guilty of breaking it, that is not to say, they are today obligated to “keeping the law” of God for salvation the way Israel did in the previous dispensation.

BTW, your idea is a direct contradiction. The gospel message is salvation from damnation, you can’t leave out the damnation if you want to understand what it means to be saved, they are mutually inclusive ideas.

continued next post.

 

[1Way]

Coffeeman 2of2 - As to

The Beatitudes
(7) Funny how we can take this and make it mean that we SHOULD judge...should condemn.
(8) Are we also going to say we should not give or not forgive?
(9) Any excuse to feel good about damning others, I suppose....scary!

Luke(7) 37 "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."

7 – Funny how you misunderstand and pervert what I said. I did not say that v.37 teaches we should judge and condemn, it is rather teaching what we should not do, as I said, it is basically teaching against hypocrisy. Now, I posted a huge chunk of work over this issue and made it abundantly clear that it cannot mean the same thing (at the same time and in the same relationship) on each half of the couplets.

Do not judge so that you be not judged
Do not condemn so that you be not condemned
Forgive and you be forgiven

It can not mean such contradictory nonsense, because,

If you are judged, then you can’t possibly not be judged (at the same time and in the same relationship), same with condemning. The supplied implication can’t simply be about two different times as the only difference between the first and second halves of each of the three couplets. Otherwise you could go out and commit terrible wickedness and then escape all judgment and condemnation by simply not judging and not condemning others, and you could also get forgiven if you yourself are forgiving, then just go out and murder and rape and nothing can happen to you and everyone will forgive you according to your contradictory way of viewing this teaching.

No, it can not mean that, it assumes the contextual implication of justice and righteousness, do not judge wrongly and expect to not be guilty of wrongful judgment, same with condemn. As for forgiveness, how can you expect to be forgiven if you are unwilling to forgiven others, like I said, bottom line is, don’t be a hypocrite.

8 – I said how we should understand that passage, your question only betrays your willful ignorance or inability to understand what I already explained.

9 – So you mock the gospel message for being too harsh and judgmental, as well as feeling good about godly justice being served whenever anyone is damned to hell.

Ps 58:10 The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance; He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked,

Re 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

The godly person rejoices in righteous vengeance, and he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. Also, the saints in heaven are seeking vengeance on their own behalf, people in heaven pleading with God to act more quickly against those who shed their blood. But such sentiments are surely too harsh for you. I could just hear you trying to shush them up as they cry out loud in heaven for vengeance and to correct the psalmist for such off color remarks. However, God’s word is true and righteous, and you are wrong and unjust for judging against me for judging and condemning evil people.

Then you say

Both of these excerpts from Romans puts the act of JUDGMENT in a negative light.

Forgiveness in the NT is spoken of using banking and legal terms. Being forgiven is like having a debt wiped clean, being forgiven is an act of judgment, where the person doing the forgiving makes a judgment in favor of the person being forgiven. Judgment is not in and of itself a good nor bad thing. You have to weigh the contextual use and associated implications prior to suggesting that “judgment is presented in a dim light”. By that rational, forgiveness is in a dim light, judging to love someone is in a bad light, etc. etc. etc.

You end by saying

(10) Everyone is under GRACE in this dispensation because Christ died for the ungodly...just some will accept and some will reject that grace. (11) We are not the ones to decide who is damned and who is not...
(12) I choose to tell others about GRACE AND LIFE for it is the GOODNESS OF GOD that leads to repentance.

10 - Everyone is not under grace because Christ died for the ungodly ... by that reasoning then several things become ruined. First, certainly those in the body of Christ are under grace, but if we include your reasoning, then everyone should be as the saved person because Christ died for all, and saved people are under grace, and you say all people are under grace, so by your thinking everyone should be saved, but of course, they are not and you are wrong, the only people under grace is saved people.

11 – We are the only ones who can warn the hell bound world to get saved, so if we never decide that the masses are going to hell, then we will never help anyone get saved from their certain destruction. Like God’s word said, we will judge the angels and the world. If you don’t agree with that, then take it up with God, not me, I am not making this stuff up, but you are ignoring it.

12 – It is not gracious to withhold the redemptive information that says that unless you repent, you will die in your sins and be eternally damned. Instead, you are probably being selfish, wanting to be viewed as nice and approachable instead of telling them the first important truth towards their salvation, and that is that they are a sinner who will go to hell unless he repents ...
etc.

Remember

Pr 27:5 Open rebuke [is] better Than love carefully concealed.

If you love them, then warn and rebuke and correct them.

“The goodness of God” is not in favor of the dying world, nor is the goodness of God at odds with the gospel message unto salvation, which is the hope of salvation FROM A TERRIBLE HELL.

Eze 33:11 "Say to them: ‘[As] I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’

In summary, Christians should judge and we are nowhere biblically limited to just judging other Christians. That was just one application of the teaching, Christians should be judging matters in this life.

 

[coffeeman]

Originally posted by 1Way


9 – So you mock the gospel message for being too harsh and judgmental, as well as feeling good about godly justice being served whenever anyone is damned to hell.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're a real piece of work aren't you...it didn't take you long to get around to saying I mocked the gospel. I never mocked the gospel and I never will. If pushed in a corner I would admit to mocking you...but hey! You don't believe that you are the gospel...uhmmmm do you? If so, then we got bigga fish to fry!

The gospel is clear and strong about those who reject Christ and die in that rejection. It is also clear and strong in it's message that you and I don't know who those people are and we shouldn't be so eager to label who are damned.

You seem to feel that condemnation leads to repentance and I know the goodness of God leads to repentance. So what's it gonna be...feelings or the Word?

The whole crux of this discussion comes from the word FERVOR...I still believe we Christians should not be so eager to condemn...I believe the Word of God backs that belief and you believe we should preach a message of condemnation. If I misread you please clear this up...but don't accuse me of mocking the gospel.....this is where the habit of accusing and condemning leads to ultimately...condemning the brethren of blasphemy if they see some Biblical points differently.

see ya around the campus

 

[john2001]

Originally posted by LightSon
Hi john2001,

I tried to strike a non-judgmental tone with you and got into a little trouble. 1way got on my case. So, it looks like I’m going to have to take off the gloves.

Of course, you don't want to look bad in front of your friends by being concilliatory to a nonbeliever.

(referring to john2001's point about thanking God at the expense of your fellow man)
I’m not sure what this means. My attitude of gratitude to God does nothing if not compel me to be a better neighbor. If you were suggesting that I can be thankful to God and trash my fellow man, then I must protest.

1 John 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

That is nice in theory, but the reality is that many people find it easier to love God than to love their fellow man, because effectively they create and recreate God in their minds as they go along. They do not have the same control over their fellow man as they do over God, so they must deal with their fellow man "warts and all", and that is not so easy.

If, on the other hand, they have created an unforgiving deity, then they are in the position of a lacky to a dictator. They appease the dictator at the expense of the other fellow subjects.

Again, I recognize your disdain for a person not being true to their beliefs. I agree that many people feign religious piety, and that such is not helpful. I personally have struggled to have my public persona align with my internal convictions.

I distain people for not being true to their fellow man, regardless of their "beliefs". Ultimately, all religions and social structures are tied together, not by faith in some Deity, but trust in human nature.

Would you concede that prayer need not be a pretense, and that one’s personal faith in God can rise to a level where public displays of that faith can be genuine?

It is obvious that there are people who genuinely believe that there is somebody on the of the line when they are praying. I find it appalling that such beliefs still exist. Just as I find it appalling when people express belief in astrology.

Suppose a friend of yours had you over for dinner and paused to "say grace". What is your normal posture? Do you bow your head? Do you show respect? Or do you wait for the next lull in conversation to mock him? I mean. That would be a little rude too, don't you think?

I tend to be respectful. However, any attempt to proselityze to me is met first with polite resistance. If it persists then I will counter with necessary force. If somebody wants to banter or debate, I am always open to that.

So, to put the question to you, if you were at a meal and the saying of grace began with "In the name of the Prince of Darkness...." what would your demeanor be?

(In response to john2001's speculation that
LightSon was short for "gimme a light, son".)

A clever and animated speculation, but no.
In my case, I chose this moniker to reflect my having been set apart for God’s use.

Ephesians 5:8 “For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light.”

No kidding? You are otherwise undistinguished, but have this secret double life where, like a sort of a superhero, you are "set apart for God's use." How delightfully pretensious! I suppose that you will start telling me how humble you are, and how you have a footwashing concession at the local shopping mall, and the like.

I do think you are being used, but not by God.

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by john2001
Of course, you don't want to look bad in front of your friends by being conciliatory to a nonbeliever.

1way is not a friend - not yet. I know him about as well as I know you. He does purport to be a believer and does have a spiritual sense about him, so it is only fitting that I try to listen and learn from his wisdom.
I was being just a little facetious. 1Way made some good points to me. I haven’t necessary bought his ideas totally, and will probably redress myself to him at some point. I hope I’ve been courteous to you. But I also hope you recognize that I am obligated to a higher authority and that authority isn’t 1WAY.

Originally posted by God
1 John 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

Originally posted by john2001
That is nice in theory, but the reality is that many people find it easier to love God than to love their fellow man, because effectively they create and recreate God in their minds as they go along. They do not have the same control over their fellow man as they do over God, so they must deal with their fellow man "warts and all", and that is not so easy.

If, on the other hand, they have created an unforgiving deity, then they are in the position of a lacky to a dictator. They appease the dictator at the expense of the other fellow subjects.

Yes it is hard to love my neighbor sometimes. I admit it. But that is the mandate God has handed me. You are free to hold me accountable. I phrase my attitude as being in submission to my God. You pose that this MIGHT be “the position of a lacky to a dictator”. I just want to note this difference in passing, as I see it indicative of our respective tenors.

I understand that you are a skeptic. That is fine. Just please know that your negative phrasing cannot be taken as much else than a slight. I afford you that latitude and take no offense.

Further, I acknowledge that your skepticism will manifest itself, not just in attitude, but also in the judgments you make about Christians (me in this case). Because deities do not exist, all Christians are brainwashed, self-deceived, duplicitous and pretentious.

I will resist your cynical characterizations at every step. I realize my faith my seem pretentious to you. I will try to make as many concessions as I can in support of your skeptical assertions, but at some point, it would be nice if you gave me some credit that my demeanor is not just an elaborate smoke screen to get you to “buy into” my self-generated deity. I’m not playing about this.

So again, here’s “the theory”:

Originally posted by God
1 John 4:20
If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

This is the standard to which I’ll be held accountable. I fail often, but am not released from waking up tomorrow and trying again.

Originally posted by john2001
I distain people for not being true to their fellow man, regardless of their "beliefs". Ultimately, all religions and social structures are tied together, not by faith in some Deity, but trust in human nature.

If you look around you will see that man can be extremely cruel and hateful to his fellow man. History documents such abuse. This is IMO what the Godless and unregenerate heart of man does.

I can’t speak for all men. My “religion” is not like any other. I realize that too may sound pretentious, but that’s my position and I am ready to defend it. God specifies the values He respects and the mode by which I may approach and please Him. God and His truths are good for me. What is good for me, I will honestly offer as good for my neighbor.

Without God, there is no such thing as “being true” anyway. IMO

Originally posted by john2001
It is obvious that there are people who genuinely believe that there is somebody on the of the line when they are praying. I find it appalling that such beliefs still exist. Just as I find it appalling when people express belief in astrology.

Then I will as a matter of course, appall you. Thank you for giving me the presumption of being genuine.

Originally posted by john2001
I tend to be respectful. However, any attempt to proselityze to me is met first with polite resistance. If it persists then I will counter with necessary force. If somebody wants to banter or debate, I am always open to that.

Why do you think I am “debating” with you? If you ask for my motives, I will be forthright.
You must find value in this ‘debate’, or you would go away and work on your other hobbies.

Originally posted by john2001
So, to put the question to you, if you were at a meal and the saying of grace began with "In the name of the Prince of Darkness...." what would your demeanor be?

If I had any sense that a prospective host was in cahoots with the Evil One, I would not go to dinner with him or her.

But, not to skirt the confines of your question, I would leave the table.

That may irritate your sensibilities, but let me explain. From your perspective, all “religion” is the same: it is just a bunch of superstitious garbage. So whether one addresses a made-up god called Jehovah, or a made-up god called Satan, it doesn’t matter.

From my perspective, not all values, people (or gods) are equal. Some are good; some are bad.
love – good
rape – bad.

Billy Graham – good.
Hitler – bad.

Ice Cream – good.
broccoli – bad.

Jehovah – good.
Satan –bad.

Now suppose I have a Hindu friend that invited me to dinner. I do not know if they pray over their food, but for the sake of argument, suppose they do and I know this. If I chose to go, I would be respectful while they pray. There is a slight difference between a person honestly seeking goodness and one seeking evil. Satan is evil and isn’t even on the same plain as a genuine religion, even though I do consider Hinduism false.

On this point I can imagine 1WAY reacting; we’ll wait and see.

Originally posted by john2001
No kidding? You are otherwise undistinguished, but have this secret double life where, like a sort of a superhero, you are "set apart for God's use." How delightfully pretensious! I suppose that you will start telling me how humble you are, and how you have a footwashing concession at the local shopping mall, and the like.

Here’s that manifest skepticism again. I understand that my posture may seem pretentious. I do not mean for it to be. Am I humble? Well I am supposed to be humble. The problem with humility is that once you realize you are humble, you aren’t. The fact is, pride is one of my biggest downfalls.

footwashing? Ha. Good one. No. Never washed anyone’s feet per se. But I do pray every day to learn to be more selfless and helpful to others. I recognize that it will be hard for you to argue with that goal, but you can still be snide and tease me about being pretentious. That’s always an easy one. A cheap shot, but usually tenable. Here’s a few more facts to help you. Next to my pride, my selfish nature is my next biggest problem. It is a good thing I have a God who drives me to be more ChristLike (i.e. selfless and more interested in others), or I’d only be looking out for #1.

God has called all of His children to be “set apart”. I could offer a dozen scripture verses, but will wait until asked to do so. It is not presumptuous to believe that God has chosen me, if He has in fact chosen me. I am just one in a sea of billions. I will confess that it does feel good to know that the Creator has not forgotten about me as an individual, but rather God has a grand plan into which I can fit, if I am willing to follow. This is a truth for all mankind. My heavenly Father calls all men to Himself, so that we can experience the race and the joy set before us.

 

[1Way]

Coffeeman – Set your mug down a moment and take a load off.

You acted like I just couldn’t wait to rebuke you for being unbiblical concerning the gospel message, not true, it’s the last thing I’d wish to encounter with fellow Christians, so you are 100% wrong on your wishful thinking about me and my heart’s intentions. But concerning your mishandling the gospel message, don’t feel like your above any such thing, even the apostle who was given charge of the gospel for the circumcision, Peter was guilty of gospel hypocrisy and dishonesty. But since apparently Peter did not receive further Pauline corrections that was recorded in scripture, it would seem likely that Peter had the humility to stand corrected, even though I’m quite sure he thought he had done no wrong. You can and you have offended the gospel, including when you suggest you never would. Pride before the fall.

But you took a tiny possibility that one might try to exploit into something that it is not, and mock me personally, because after all, I disagreed with you.

Keep your degrading personal slander to yourself when it comes to responding to a bible teaching, who cares if you are personally in opposition to me, I am claiming that you are in personal opposition to the bible, and you are. During this entire discussion, you have been siding against those who focus on the teachings of God’s righteous justice and wrath towards all that is damnable. We purposely try to keep our love from hypocrisy by following the rule of non-hypocritical love.

Ro 12:9 [Let] love [be] without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.

You would do well to practice both sides of that coin, God does and so should you. But you’ve been very one sided, even admitting a focus of the one over the other!!!, you consistently and effective say that we should focus on the good not the bad. So I have been exposing this problem in your, your obvious preference towards good and against abhorring evil for the lopsided view that it is. And when you richly mocked us (with a rather fallacious ridicule diatribe) who are not ashamed of the entire gospel message and it’s divine implications BOTH GOOD AND BAD, then I returned the favor because some appropriate ridicule was called for by your leading the way.

Here, I’ll re-quote you where you enter into obvious mocking and even perverting our side of the debate. So that you might hopefully understand your hypocrisy for judging against me for doing what you just did.

The Beatitudes
(7) Funny how we can take this and make it mean that we SHOULD judge...should condemn.
(8) Are we also going to say we should not give or not forgive?
(9) Any excuse to feel good about damning others, I suppose....scary!

Luke(7) 37 "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you."

That is so perverse, but creative, fiction and personal slander seem your strong suit, while consistent bible understanding your weakness.

How

Consider the gospel message.

Salvation has two messages, one on each side of the coin. Salvation means living forever with God, IF YOU TRUST IN AND ACCEPT HIS FREE GIFT.

And secondly, salvation means that if you reject God’s free gift, you are not saved from God’s judgment and eternal condemnation.

Both of those messages are equally true and valid and important. But, because the application of those truths are overwhelmingly lopsided, because most people are going to hell with jet rockets, the application of this truth in the real world is the realization that the masses are headed to eternal damnation. The world needs to be warned about the wrath to come, they don’t need to know about the nice and comforting messages, they need to first realize how deathly in trouble they are.

Your use of Romans 2:4 is quite fitting, it is talking about being consistent and not being a hypocrite.

Ro 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.
3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

(You see, this hypocritical judger likes God’s forbearance and goodness when it comes to himself, but he despises it when it could be applied to others who need it as much as he does. So don’t be a hypocrite!)

5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
6 who "will render to each one according to his deeds":
7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;
8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness——indignation and wrath,
9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;

(You see God is consistent, salvation is about both sides of the moral equation, salvation means eternal life with God and it means eternal damnation apart from God, depending upon where you place your trust. Both aspects of the gospel unto salvation are equally important, but if most people are on the offending side, then most people need to hear that truth in order to set them free.)

(2) So as to me setting you straight about the law and it’s use by the Christian against the unsaved world, thanks for your silent approval.

(3) As to my setting things straight concerning the role of the government and it’s use of the law as not being the same use as the Christian, although they both can be used redemptively to demonstrate the need for Christ in their life, the governments use of the law in no way mitigates the saints use against the world. Your silence against opposing that correction is optimistically noted.

(4) As to your silence about not confounding hypocritical judging with atypical judging, your silence against opposing that correction is optimistically noted.

(5) As to your contradicting what Jesus taught in John, 7.24 and my straightening that out, your silence against opposing that correction is optimistically noted.

(6) As to your utterly contrary claim that only Jesus can judge rightly, and my demonstration against that, your silence against opposing that correction is optimistically noted.

As to the following where coffeeman said

Are we to judge a man if he keeps the law or not? Paul says Christ is the end of th e law...shouldn't we preach that everyone can be saved if they believe instead of preaching that every one is damned!.

also in point 10 you erroneously claimed that everyone is under grace, and I corrected you on those two points, by saying

Ro 3:19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Ga 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

your silence against opposing those corrections is optimistically noted.

(7) I corrected you about your perversion about our take on Luke 7 “judge not” is noted, and your silence against opposing that correction is optimistically noted.

(8) Your rich ridicule and modest slander that we might want to teach against forgiveness was corrected, and your silence against opposing that correction is optimistically noted.

(9) Your slanderous ridicule about our glee of the damned really needs no correction, however your quickness and revel in presenting these problems has been addressed and your silence against opposing that correction is optimistically noted.

(10) Your contrary bible teaching that everyone is under grace was corrected and your silence against opposing that correction is optimistically noted.

(11) Your claim that we are not the ones to decide who is damned and who is not, was exposed for it’s contrariness to essential and redemptive aspects of the gospel message, to which your silence against opposing that correction is optimistically noted.

(12) Your choice to focus on telling others about GRACE and LIFE and THE GOODNESS OF GOD that leads to repentance, was in several ways dispelled as an unbalanced focus. The goodness of God was to help the hypocrite understand why it is a bad thing to be hypocritical, it is not the primary evangelical message. If you want to get someone saved, FIRST you have to get them to admit they need to be saved from eternal damnation, if they never know they are in trouble, they will never meaningfully accept the life line to salvation.

You also said

The gospel is clear and strong about those who reject Christ and die in that rejection. It is also clear and strong in it's message that you and I don't know who those people are and we shouldn't be so eager to label who are damned.

So I guess when the bible teaches us about men’s hearts and that you will know them by their love, and you will know them by their works, and you will know them by their fruit, to you, these must be empty teachings, however to me, they are meaningful. I can tell if someone is saved or not. At least, I must judge these things if I am ever to try to save a person. Here, come over here and I’ll tell you a little secret. You can’t lead someone to salvation if they are already saved, so save your efforts towards saving souls by focusing on the ones who you think are most likely not saved, and God and the heavenly hosts will be glad you did.

(Opps, I offered the following to lightson, not you, but I hoped you would be interested and read that post too. Please review post 493 http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=302930#post302930) I also offered John the Baptist as a good example of a good Christian openly rebuking the wicked in correction of your claim that Christians should judge Christians and not the unsaved world, and your silence against opposing that correction is optimistically noted.

Note, my optimistic notes of you standing corrected, might be a bit unrealistic, of course your own personal correction is up to you.

As to

You seem to feel that condemnation leads to repentance and I know the goodness of God leads to repentance. So what's it gonna be...feelings or the Word?

Condemnation is just the first step in the road to Romans (how to get saved), it’s not the entire message. Don’t confuse the two.

The whole issue is about the right use of the gospel message. If you are going to save anyone from eternal damnation, and their assumption is that they do NOT need to be saved from anything, then the first and most important message they need to hear is that of their eminent demise, don’t tell them Jesus loves them, everyone knows that, but they don’t know the terrible reality of their eternal state.

You are like a doctor trying to get the masses to take the absolute antidote which would absolutely save their lives. Only you don’t care that they don’t think they need your help, all you want to do is give them the nice sounding side of the message, here take this medicine so that you will live, and the masses ignore you because they think they know they are doing just fine without your so called help and positive message towards life.

GET A CLUE, if you are going to help anyone get saved, they first have to have a good understanding that they NEED to get saved, they are not loved and in a good way, they are ALREADY CONDEMNED and are in the worst way possible!

Stop trying to be nicer than God, give them what they need, even if it makes you feel as though you are being pushed outside of your comfort zone.

Be blessed by conforming to and not going against God's Word and Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

[1Way]

Lightson – my previous post to coffeeman reminded me of how I look forward to your response to my last post to you. http://www.theologyonline.com/vbull...2930#post302930

Please respond.
thnx