Have you ever actually read the whole passage? If you had it would make the meaning more evident. This is a common misinterpretation by secular people who don't understand the bible and aren't qualified to interpret it.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

It is a warning against hypocritical or self-righteous judgement, not an admonition never to judge anything. Christians are called to judge all things as to whether they measure up to the truth, or not. Only God is the judge of a person, but we are allowed to judge a persons behavior. I didn't judge the person of UP, I judged her behavior as being reprobate.

John 7:24

Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.

Clear enough?

If we were not called to judge, we would be unable to follow instructions such as:

Matthew 7:15-16

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

Without judgement, it would be impossible to discern such a person. So, I am sorry to say but you are incorrect and I hope to see your apology on my profile post haste.



In reply to this comment by Duckman33:
>> ^shinyblurry:

It is a commandment against hypocripsy, not against judging..Christians are called to use judgement regarding everything that is in the world, and how it weighs against Gods truth.
>> ^Duckman33:
Judge not, lest ye be judged....
In reply to this comment by shinyblurry:
@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/UsesProzac" title="member since August 2nd, 2007" class="profilelink">UsesProzac Do you have even a modicum of dignity or self respect? You have promoted yourself as a harlot and you draw mens attention with lasciviousness. You are prostituting yourself and it is revolting.




That's a load of shit and you know it. Nice try though. The ONLY being qualified to judge anyone or anything is God himself, if he really exists that is. Not you, not Sarah Palin, not Michelle Bachman, not Rick perry, but God.

Complete misrepresentation and outright fabrication. You can't be a Christian and live like a heathen.

21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."

You have a schitzophrenic faith, my friend. I would call you my brother but it doesn't appear that you know our Lord. It appears that in your picture you are ashamed of your Lord. So allow me to enlighten you for your edification:

The six day creation is literal, it is not allegory. You can tell this simply by the grammar and syntax used. The word for day used is "yom", which appears over 400 times in the bible and only ever refers to a day as a 24 hour period. You may recognize this from "Yom Kippur". Do jews celebrate the day of atonement for millions of years?

The literal account of the 6 day creation also is integral to the ten commandments. We have the Sabbath day as a day of rest because God rested on the 7th day. Do we rest for millions of years on the Sabbath? So already you've called God a liar, you've made the commandments to no effect, which undermines the messiah prophecies..and the entire thing is turned on its head.

We have confirmation from Jesus Christ Himself, that the account is literal. He refers to a literal creation, adam as the first man, the flood and many other OT accounts as fact. You reject that and you reject the testimony of our Lord. If you don't believe in a literal 6 day creation then you should throw your bible in the garbage because that is what the theory of evolution has filled your head with.

You have the gall to impringe on my witness and imply im crazy..hey, at least im internally consistant. You've had to twist your mind into a pretzal to believe what you do. You've fallen into apostacy because of your lack of faith. Evolution is a stumbling block for you, and will remain so until you trust in the Word of God. Here's my Word for you:

21 Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?"
23 And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness."






>> ^burdturgler:
It's only writing God out of your picture, not mine. The bible is a lot of things, but one thing it was not meant to be was a scientific accounting of anything. I am still perfectly able to love and worship God and yet still understand and accept evolution, so .. you're wrong.
I made my post under the assumption that you were capable of rational thought, but you've proven that that's not the case. I never said anything happened without God, I said understanding what DID happen gives me greater appreciation for God.
Well .. that's two posts now, see you in 2013.

>> ^shinyblurry:

The devil could convince someone to kill their own mother and wear their head like a hat. His ways are supernatural, and he has every advantage. He is the ruler of this world and has a supernatural dominion. It's easy for him though, because there simply isn't any limit to human depravity. The bible says no one knows how wicked the human heart really is, but the devil probably has an idea.
People think that the devils main appearance is that of a red faced grotesque..but that isn't the truth. He can appear however he wants. He can even make himself appear as an angel of light. He could have been whispering all of this into her ear appearing as a messanger of God, and she would have believed every word. "The great tribulation is coming..it's time to go..you need to get your daughters to heaven now so they dont suffer any pain"
I've seen it in action..I have dealt with people possessed by evil spirits who basically told me that..they hate humans to the utmost, and that they spend every hour of every day creating elaborate fantasies (they even compare their "business" to disneyland) which are designed to mislead humans away from God so they can ruin Creation as much as possible before they are cast out forever. As a final middle finger to God, basically.
Everyone is a target, but if you don't believe in God, he will probably leave you alone. You're right where he wants you to be.






I totally disagree with you. If someone can be convinced to mutilate their own child (by an angel or a demon, if there were such things) they are highly disturbed. It's not a devil that convinces people, it's their belief that a devil has that power. And it's all in their head. (See also: Psychosis)

The devil could convince someone to kill their own mother and wear their head like a hat. His ways are supernatural, and he has every advantage. He is the ruler of this world and has a supernatural dominion. It's easy for him though, because there simply isn't any limit to human depravity. The bible says no one knows how wicked the human heart really is, but the devil probably has an idea.

People think that the devils main appearance is that of a red faced grotesque..but that isn't the truth. He can appear however he wants. He can even make himself appear as an angel of light. He could have been whispering all of this into her ear appearing as a messanger of God, and she would have believed every word. "The great tribulation is coming..it's time to go..you need to get your daughters to heaven now so they dont suffer any pain"

I've seen it in action..I have dealt with people possessed by evil spirits who basically told me that..they hate humans to the utmost, and that they spend every hour of every day creating elaborate fantasies (they even compare their "business" to disneyland) which are designed to mislead humans away from God so they can ruin Creation as much as possible before they are cast out forever. As a final middle finger to God, basically.

Everyone is a target, but if you don't believe in God, he will probably leave you alone. You're right where he wants you to be.





>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
>> ^shinyblurry:
<
Explain which? Why this lady went nuts? Probably demonic influence.

What "demonic influence" would make killing your children the better thing to do? I don't understand what the devil (or anyone else) could say that would make cutting up your own children the right thing to do. (Also see: Abraham)

1. You're still not getting it. Before Adam and Eve sinned, they were spiritually perfected. When they sinned their spirit became corrupt and could no longer be in the presence of God. This is why Creation fell. Human nature has been corrupted since then. This is why we live in a fallen world. Instead of starting over, God bore all of this out with us. He had a plan to restore Creation, which He did by sending His Son to die for our sins. Jesus is the name under which man is reconciled back to God and spiritually perfected, so we can again live with God. It's not about punishment, it's about restoration.

You say it's immoral for God to punish people..I'll explain why it's not but first, lets examine your hypocripsy here. You're an atheist so you believe death is the end. Yet, I bet you adovocate the death penalty or life in prison for serious crimes. You're perfectly fine with humans meting out ultimate justice on other humans, which is the same as God punishing someone forever, because if this life is all we have then a death sentence is forever. Life in prison is just as good. Yet, you somehow have a problem with God punishing people, who as our Creator and the moral authority not only has the perrogative, but indeed would be immoral if He didn't do so.

Think about it this way. You don't like God and you don't respect His authority. You certainly don't want to live forever with Him. So, though He loves you and wants to share eternity with you, He will allow you to make your choice as to whether to love Him or not. He's let you know the consequences over and over again, mostly recently through this dialogue. You are choosing directly to be seperated from God, indeed you have made it a mission to spread your ignorance about Him. So why then should you be surprised when you earn the reward you had hoped for? It's entirely moral, and entirely your choice.

2. It doesn't suggest anything of the sort. Only a Christian could receive the Holy Spirit, they are saved. A person who professes a belief in Christ yet does not accept His Spirit has committed blasphemy against the Spirit. They are not saved. A person who does not believe in Christ will never receive the Spirit, nor can they even perceive it, so they cannot commit blasphemy against Him. This is the meaning of the passage:

"Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS."

3. What was your question?

Btw, I don't delve into apologetics. Not knowing anything about apologetics, I can see why you've made this mistake. This is entirely from my own understanding.

(snip of BRP profane rant)

Well - if that plunge into logic doesn't lay out the sides then nothing really will.

Look - this isn't difficult. Judaism banned homosexuality under judeic law. Now - those who are not religious would argue that such a standard was established by evil men. Those who believe that God exists & has a plan for his children would accept that these rules ("Commandments" if you will) were established to help the mortal family to know the ins and outs of what God expects his children to do or not do for their own happiness.

So homosexuality was wrong both under Judaic law, and Judaic moral belief. This is not in question except by people who are trying to reverse-engineer history in order to justify their own world views. Christ did not come along and say, "That was wrong". Quite to the contrary. Christ doubled down. Judaic law commmanded people to not commit sexual sin. Christ didn't say, "It's OK now as long as you love each other..." Nuh-uh. Christ said, "He who LOOKETH upon another woman and hath committed adultery in his heart." The lesson is clear. Judeaic law was trying to command & control people with "don't do this" rules. Christ was trying to teach people to not even THINK about doing the wrong thing.

What does that say about homosexuality? People who think Christ or God would be "OK" with it are lying to themselves. Sexual sin is sin and needs to be forsaken. Period. That never changed. Christ told the adulteress, "Go thy way and SIN NO MORE". He did not say, "Go thy way and I don't care what you do as long as you love them."

So yes - like ANY moral sin - you can love the sinner and hate the sin and labor to correct it. It doesn't make you a bigot. It doesn't mean you're a hater. It means you see people who need help, and you try to help them.

As far as this chick goes - phht. If she's even LDS (which isn't a given), her argument is full of holes and we've got an actual LDS guy who says she's full of bologna with her claims of "being cast out". Is such a thing possible? You'd have to ask the guys in SLC about that and not this chick. As far as the Mormon church's opposition to Prop 8? I saw that more as a means to prevent a lousy law from happening. The gay community needs to come up with a plan that addresses their wants (equal rights) without stepping on the definition of marriage and protections for those who hold to a traditional view. When that happens they'll find they have a better shot compared to these half-@$$ed bum-rush votes on lousy, flawed legislation.

did beauty and the beast teach them NOTHING???


anyway, i'm avoiding doing homework tonight and have been reading tons of church websites instead. what is striking me about them is that almost all of their websites seem to talk about "putting christ first in all that you do" and that is apparently (?) defined as spreading the message that jesus is our lord and savior to everyone, everywhere, ever. but those words aren't given any meaning whatsoever. nothing about good works, or kindness, or generosity, or loving your neighbor no matter how poor, or powerless, or sick, or different they may be. they seem to all only speak about punishment and evangelism. to be "like christ" is not defined as healing the sick, or feeding the hungry, or including the cast-out but as "telling everyone about salvation through christ" or some crap. and i'm kind of disappointed.

i think there's power and beauty in teaching people parables about kindness, and generosity, and unconditional love. but maybe there's too much power in teaching that kind of message. and it certainly does not fit in with the values of a capitalist nation. has capitalism coopted christianity? or has it always been this way? i seem to remember thinking being "Christ-like" meant adhering to the values jesus (not really of course) held. like it was a grand metaphor for being kind and sharing and building a sense of community around you. no matter who your neighbors were. i'm disappointed to find out it's really just an institution obsessed with punishment, getting shit, and global domination.

not that i didn't already think of course, i just didn't realize that on a smaller scale so many churches don't think good works is important enough to list in their stated mission, vision and values. like it's an after thought, instead of the actual point. "tell everyone you see that jesus is their savior or you will burn in hell you ungrateful sinful abominations, oh.. and.. yeah... something about loaves and fishes somewhere in there, maybe"

tl; dr

>> ^Fletch:

"Sooo... uh, yeah, not really sure what 'fallacy' you had in mind in your angry little rant..."
It's the fallacy called "weak analogy". From twenty-one years ago... week one of Philosophy 101, I believe.
You can make analogy for ANY two things. A "weak analogy" isn't saying the comparisons you are making aren't true. It's saying that the comparisons you are making don't support your original claim, or, that the two things being compared aren't alike in ways relevant to your point.
So, what is shponglefan's claim? Well, if you can wade through his (or her, w/e) spittle, he was defending his position that she should be killed, unless, of course, by "taken out of the gene pool" he simply meant fitted and forced to wear a chastity device of some kind. I'm gonna assume it was the former. His analogy of baby and cat was in defence of that claim. Mentality basically stated he was a psycho for wishing for her death, and shponglefan defended his position by making the analogy. His claim is that babies and cats have either moral or legal equivalency when it comes to meting out punishment (if I see it correctly).
Of course it was a dispicable act. No stable person wantonly hurts animals. But animals, and, specifically in this case, the cat, aren't the same as babies in the eyes of the law. The legal (and moral) realities of society just don't permit executions for animal abuse, as much as you wish it. If that had been a baby, she'd never see daylight again, and the police wouldn't be protecting her, they'd have thrown her in jail where she would be in mortal danger if the story ever permeated the inmate population. If the hypothetical baby had died, she may be facing the death penalty. The fact is that animal abuse is not the same as child abuse. Not by a long shot. Shponglefan pulled the analogy out of his ass to cover his irrational call for her death. It was an emotional appeal that had no bearing to either the facts, or his own premise. It was a WEAK ANALOGY.
Your comparisons of babies and cats, while all true, don't support your claim that shponglefan was making a good point. If you are defending shponglefan's "point" because babies and kittens make similar noises when they are young, and/or because babies and cats are the same size when born, then your first paragraph is also a WEAK ANALOGY. If you weren't offering the analogy as support for your claim, then it's a red herring. Either way, you got it wrong.
And no, I wouldn't hire her.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Comparing a cat to a child is more apt than you might think. Our fascination with cats (dogs too) springs from parental instincts. Pets are roughly the size of human babies. They make noises similar to a young child. They are dependent on our feeding and care and in return they give us love and affection. Our interaction with pets is very much like our interaction with children.
The outrage in this thread seems very instinctual and evolutionary to me. Anyone who would purposely jeopardize a young fragile life in this manner should be cast out for the well being of the tribe. Child murderer = baaaaad. The violent rhetoric in this thread serves as negative reinforcement to this kind of sociopathic behavior.
Would you hire this woman to baby sit your kid? (If you said no, your evolutionary instinct is in good shape.)
Sooo... uh, yeah, not really sure what 'fallacy' you had in mind in your angry little rant, but you got it wrong. shponglefan has made a good point here.

>> ^Fletch:
Your weak analogy of cat and baby is a logical fallacy in itself.>>

"Sooo... uh, yeah, not really sure what 'fallacy' you had in mind in your angry little rant..."

It's the fallacy called "weak analogy". From twenty-one years ago... week one of Philosophy 101, I believe.

You can make analogy for ANY two things. A "weak analogy" isn't saying the comparisons you are making aren't true. It's saying that the comparisons you are making don't support your original claim, or, that the two things being compared aren't alike in ways relevant to your point.

So, what is shponglefan's claim? Well, if you can wade through his (or her, w/e) spittle, he was defending his position that she should be killed, unless, of course, by "taken out of the gene pool" he simply meant fitted and forced to wear a chastity device of some kind. I'm gonna assume it was the former. His analogy of baby and cat was in defence of that claim. Mentality basically stated he was a psycho for wishing for her death, and shponglefan defended his position by making the analogy. His claim is that babies and cats have either moral or legal equivalency when it comes to meting out punishment (if I see it correctly).

Of course it was a dispicable act. No stable person wantonly hurts animals. But animals, and, specifically in this case, the cat, aren't the same as babies in the eyes of the law. The legal (and moral) realities of society just don't permit executions for animal abuse, as much as you wish it. If that had been a baby, she'd never see daylight again, and the police wouldn't be protecting her, they'd have thrown her in jail where she would be in mortal danger if the story ever permeated the inmate population. If the hypothetical baby had died, she may be facing the death penalty. The fact is that animal abuse is not the same as child abuse. Not by a long shot. Shponglefan pulled the analogy out of his ass to cover his irrational call for her death. It was an emotional appeal that had no bearing to either the facts, or his own premise. It was a WEAK ANALOGY.

Your comparisons of babies and cats, while all true, don't support your claim that shponglefan was making a good point. If you are defending shponglefan's "point" because babies and kittens make similar noises when they are young, and/or because babies and cats are the same size when born, then your first paragraph is also a WEAK ANALOGY. If you weren't offering the analogy as support for your claim, then it's a red herring. Either way, you got it wrong.

And no, I wouldn't hire her.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Comparing a cat to a child is more apt than you might think. Our fascination with cats (dogs too) springs from parental instincts. Pets are roughly the size of human babies. They make noises similar to a young child. They are dependent on our feeding and care and in return they give us love and affection. Our interaction with pets is very much like our interaction with children.
The outrage in this thread seems very instinctual and evolutionary to me. Anyone who would purposely jeopardize a young fragile life in this manner should be cast out for the well being of the tribe. Child murderer = baaaaad. The violent rhetoric in this thread serves as negative reinforcement to this kind of sociopathic behavior.
Would you hire this woman to baby sit your kid? (If you said no, your evolutionary instinct is in good shape.)
Sooo... uh, yeah, not really sure what 'fallacy' you had in mind in your angry little rant, but you got it wrong. shponglefan has made a good point here.

>> ^Fletch:
Your weak analogy of cat and baby is a logical fallacy in itself.>>

[redacted]

Comparing a cat to a child is more apt than you might think. Our fascination with cats (dogs too) springs from parental instincts. Pets are roughly the size of human babies. They make noises similar to a young child. They are dependent on our feeding and care and in return they give us love and affection. Our interaction with pets is very much like our interaction with children.

The outrage in this thread seems very instinctual and evolutionary to me. Anyone who would purposely jeopardize a young fragile life in this manner should be cast out for the well being of the tribe. Child murderer = baaaaad. The violent rhetoric in this thread serves as negative reinforcement to this kind of sociopathic behavior.

Would you hire this woman to baby sit your kid? (If you said no, your evolutionary instinct is in good shape.)

Sooo... uh, yeah, not really sure what 'fallacy' you had in mind in your angry little rant, but you got it wrong. shponglefan has made a good point here.


>> ^Fletch:
Your weak analogy of cat and baby is a logical fallacy in itself.>>

>> ^burdturgler:
The Gospel according to St. Matthew 7:1-3
(Lk. 6.3738, 4142)
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Mk. 4.24)
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
>> ^Nlt42886:
...snip...


Are you using that against me or against the guy in the video? Because only one of us was judging, I was going by what scripture says which isn't judging. If scriputre says something is true and I state what scripture says I am not being the judge I am letting GOD be the judge. But as far as making judgements go, we are called to make judgments on certain things based on our best knowledge and careful consideration of the situation. Even then we do not say this is DEFINITELY the case. We say to the best of my discernment this is the case. Which still leaves the possibility we are wrong. And we only have to do that on things scripture isn't crystal clear about.


John 7:24
"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."

1 Corinthians 6:2
Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?

But as far as judging goes you can't take on part of scripture and use only that...take more....use ALL of what the bible says about it....Here is a whole page on it
http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/Judging.html

The Gospel according to St. Matthew 7:1-3
(Lk. 6.3738, 4142)
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Mk. 4.24)
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

>> ^Nlt42886:

...snip...

>> ^Truckchase:
>> ^Nlt42886:
Second, everyone who claims to be a Christian isn't a Christian.

I guess you're on the boat with selective exclusion. I suppose those people won't have a place in your "heaven" either.
You are a member of a cult and should be treated as such. You have been brainwashed.


You do a lot of "guessing" and "supposing" but everything you just said is all your opinion. You say Christians are exclusive but everyone is exclusive. Everyone has a view that excludes all other views. Your view excludes my view. Even if you say you accept all views that itself is a view that excludes all views. I don't speak my opinion, I let scripture speak for itself. If you are going to say something you have to have some basis for why you are saying it. But if I were to ask you "says who" would you be able to say what you said is based on anything more than your opinion. If I claim to be a Christian and we are talking about Christian things, the bible is the only authority I have, not my opinions. Not what I think not what you or anyone else thinks but what scripture says. Otherwise we could go in circles all day debating our opinions. Scripture backs me up on what I said about everyone who claims to be a Christian isn't a Christian. I am debating on whether or not certain people are Christians not whether or not Christianity is true. If you are going to hold a debate on what a Christian is, you must not go on opinions, you must first assume the bible is true since the argument isn't on what religion is true but it is on what does a true Christian look like on the basis of what the book they hold as the ultimate authority says a true Christian is. See the video posted was about Christians not about why their religion is wrong or which one is right. It starts with the assumption that a Christian DOES exist. He simply states in his video what HE sees a Christian as but that does not mean that is what a Christian is. If you are going to define a Christian you do not go by the way some people who claim to be Christians act. You must go by the biblical definition of a Christian and see if they line up with what the bible says. The bible tells people who profess to be Christians to test themselves to see if they really are all the time. How would you be able to do that if there were not some distinguishing marks of a true Christian? Here is what scripture says regarding false professors.



Matthew 7:21-23

21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’