Ship of Fools: Judgemental? EVERYONE is - stop pretending otherwise.

Thread: Judgemental? EVERYONE is - stop pretending otherwise. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024563

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

On a different thread Qoheleth quoted from his sermon:

quote:
It's hardly surprising that The Church of England becomes seen by people like our Christmas visitors as utterly irrelevant to their daily lives, a place of judgementalism and exclusion, the last refuge of out-dated prejudice in a modern society.

But he's talking rubbish. Of course the church is judgemental: the failure of the diocese of Chichester to be judgemental enough over allegations against its staff is not bringing liberals to its defence. Meanwhile the response of church leaders to 'bankers' has shown no unwillingness to judgemental. And noone's going to miss out on the opportunity to opine about those terrible Israelis' treatment of the Palestinians.

At the heart of the Christian gospel is a call to repentance - not a call to: 'Go into all the world and tell them that they can carry on living just as they like as long as they turn up on a Sunday to get lied to by the preacher', as Giles Fraser would appear to believe. And that repentance means challenging all sorts of sins in our lives, which means that the church has got to be clear about what it regards as a sin. Now it IS valid to argue about what is or is not a sin - I really don't want to pursue the dead horses or any other specific examples. But to delegitimate preaching about certain things as being sins - whilst happily declaring from the roof tops that others are, using the cover of 'being prophetic' - is sheer deception.

The difficult message that the church has got to get across is that it is a fellowship of forgiven and often relapsing sinner; it's neither a place where only the perfect are permitted - which is where the legitimate complaint about judgementalism comes from - nor somewhere where there is no expectation that you are seeking to do better, which would appear to be where the 'judgementalism' complaints logically lead.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Isn't the important word in Qoheleth's quote 'exclusion'?

Yes, we are all making judgements all the time. It is good that we believe in things and sometimes stand up for them. The issue, and the reason that some and only some of our constant judgements earn the word judgementalism, is that they exclude others.

I might be in favour of a life freed from consumerist greed and excess. That is a judgement. I disapprove of myself and of your actions too when we get drawn into wanting the latest gadget, as all too often happens. We are, as you say, forgiven and relapsing sinners at best.

But that isn't judgementalism. It becomes judgementalism when I say I will have nothing to do with you because you upgraded your tablet before it was broken. Judgementalism is marked by judgement against the person as well as questioning of their action, and it generally has a permanent quality. 'You are a bad person.' 'As a judged person you will not now be allowed to become a bishop or attend my birthday party.'

You can, I think, be a minister at a church in a financial centre, believe that modern financial practices are immoral and preach against them - judgements - but also recognise that we are all in this boat together, so you avoid personalising the issue and do not cast out the banker or broker - thus avoiding judgementalism.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
At the heart of the Christian gospel is a call to repentance - not a call to: 'Go into all the world and tell them that they can carry on living just as they like as long as they turn up on a Sunday to get lied to by the preacher', as Giles Fraser would appear to believe.

You'll get no argument from me. I was looking at the readings for Ash Wednesday this morning. In Isaiah 58.3 I find:

quote:
Look, you serve your own interest on your fast-day,
and oppress all your workers.

I'm tempted to ask, how much of the clothing people will be wearing to church on that day was made in sweatshops? How many of the vestments I'll be wearing were made in sweatshops? How much of the chocolate we'll be so generously be giving up for Lent was bought at prices that keep farmers and producers in poverty?

Why, Ender's? What will you be being judgemental about on Ash Wednesday?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Isn't the heart of the gospel, "Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand"? In other words, the gospel is good news, as well as bad. If we just proclaim the bad stuff, it seems to me that we are making things worse - preventing people from entering the Kingdom, without going in ourselves (as someone once said).

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

At the heart of the Christian gospel is a call to repentance - not a call to: 'Go into all the world and tell them that they can carry on living just as they like as long as they turn up on a Sunday to get lied to by the preacher', as Giles Fraser would appear to believe. And that repentance means challenging all sorts of sins in our lives, which means that the church has got to be clear about what it regards as a sin.

Repentance. Change of mind. Metanoia.

That repentance or change of mind depends on what you believe the gospel to consist of. What are you changing your mind about? In what way are you returning to God?

Giles Fraser believes it to be against oppression. Oppression is a sin.

Very biblical basis.

Very Gospel.

So Fraser is calling us to repentance.

As for judgementalism being a facet everyone engages in?

Absolutely.

The basis for judgement is just different.

[ 21. January 2013, 11:46: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I understood Giles Fraser to be saying that, rather like the Roman Catholic couples who keep going to church and yet choose to ignore the teaching about not using contraceptives, people have to get on with their lives the way they believe to be right; they can't wait for ever for the church to change the rules.

The church will always have some high standards that not everyone can assent to (and so will society) - it is up to the individual conscience to decide what to do when coming up against these differences. There are plenty of examples about Pharisees, the Law, tax collectors and motes and beams in the Bible to give us lessons to chew over.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Sin is oppression in and of itself.

Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :

Of course, 'liberalism' must stand against wickedness when it finds it and judges it to be morally wrong and against human or environmental flourishsing.

But like the Magnificat it seeks to go for the big picture, the rich and mighty on their thrones, and as Paul has it, the principalities and powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Instances differ, but some are needlessly judgmental because they are on a power trip.

Just because we are all judgmental from time to time does not mean we should be.

We are told not to separate the sheep from the goats, or pull up the tares in case we pull up the wheat because our judgment just isn't that good.

You might be a prophet, but you might just be one who wants to cast the first stone.

[ 21. January 2013, 20:58: Message edited by: Latchkey Kid ]

Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Yes, we are all making judgements all the time. It is good that we believe in things and sometimes stand up for them. The issue, and the reason that some and only some of our constant judgements earn the word judgementalism, is that they exclude others.

I don't understand when Christianity became an inclusive religion? It has been excluding others from the get-go hasn't it? If Christianity was an inclusive religion, why would salvation be required?

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Depends on your view of salvation.

Equanimity could be one way of viewing it. We all need that.

Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Yes, we are all making judgements all the time. It is good that we believe in things and sometimes stand up for them. The issue, and the reason that some and only some of our constant judgements earn the word judgementalism, is that they exclude others.
I don't understand when Christianity became an inclusive religion? It has been excluding others from the get-go hasn't it? If Christianity was an inclusive religion, why would salvation be required?

So, what - 'salvation' is not 'inclusive' ?

Did it start in 17th century ?

Or with Jesus 'The kingdom of God is within you.'
and Paul 'that of God in everyone.'

Or today ?

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/faith_and_politics/the_rev_luis_leon_benediction.html

Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :

Does this not cry out for us to excercise our judgement ?

http://www.alternet.org/texas-public-school-teaching-kids-jews-practice-flawed-religion-and-blacks-are-descended-ham

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

On which of the following are you exercising your judgment:

the curriculum?
the policy?
the teachers?
the children who have had this inculcated into them?
other things?

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
So, what - 'salvation' is not 'inclusive' ?

Did it start in 17th century ?

Or with Jesus 'The kingdom of God is within you.'
and Paul 'that of God in everyone.'

The problem for the church is that Jesus' message is clear: 'But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.' We really, really don't want to hear that; it's far nicer to be universalists. There IS a challenge of how we get that message across - that people do need to respond to God's grace - without being too negative about where they are now. It is, of course, a problem of balance, but we can't just give up and pretend that Jesus doesn't require a response. Easy? Of course not. But dismissing all challenge to popular sins as 'judgemental' is unacceptable, especially when the right to continue to be judgemental towards the unfashionable is reserved.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think the Christian position on judgmentalism is to be found here.

quote:
Matthew 7.

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

It sounds rather more "karma" than "grace". But when I dig deeper, I see something. To be a judgmental person requires the assumption of the right, or the freedom, to judge the actions or beliefs of another in accordance with one's own understanding of what is right or just.

What seems to happen is that we cultivate an attitude of mind in favour of judging the actions of others to the detriment of a necessary self-criticism. And overlook, or discount, any built in biases of our own.

The Sermon on the Mount points this out; possibly with a bit of hyperbole thrown in to bring us up short. The cultivation of judgmental attitudes is one of the ways in which we damage ourselves, blind ourselves to our own shortcomings.

The tendency to judgmentalism may very well be a universal, but if we are wise we seek ways of resisting it.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Avoiding being judgemental is not about saying that everything is okay. Being judgemental is being more interested in dealing with other people's sins than dealing with your own - usually because this gives you a nice fuzzy feeling. And yes, everyone does this, sometimes, and to some extent. Not everyone does it to the same degree, and just because everyone does it doesn't make it ok.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Avoiding being judgemental is not about saying that everything is okay. Being judgemental is being more interested in dealing with other people's sins than dealing with your own - usually because this gives you a nice fuzzy feeling. And yes, everyone does this, sometimes, and to some extent. Not everyone does it to the same degree, and just because everyone does it doesn't make it ok.

Yes. Beautifully put.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Many years ago, when I was training to be a priest, I did a placement in a parish. The report that was made on me said that I needed to learn that the gospel was good news. That shocked me - hurt me, even - but it was one of the best things I've ever learnt.

I mention that here, not only because the observation seems to me to be relevant, but because that report could be seen as judgemental. Actually, I don't think it was; it stung but was liberating. Constantly telling people that they are wrong is not liberating; just look at any child who is criticised repeatedly to see the bad effects of judgementalism.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
There IS a challenge of how we get that message across - that people do need to respond to God's grace - without being too negative about where they are now. It is, of course, a problem of balance, but we can't just give up and pretend that Jesus doesn't require a response. Easy? Of course not. But dismissing all challenge to popular sins as 'judgemental' is unacceptable, especially when the right to continue to be judgemental towards the unfashionable is reserved.

I think the problem is that you're looking at this backwards. You think that if we continually rail against sin such that we can convince (or force, if we manage to persuade enough politicians) everyone to stop sinning then everyone will automatically turn to Christ.

But that doesn't work. Nobody, but nobody, turns to Christ just because they stopped doing something else. So in salvation terms you haven't done anything for anybody.

What I advocate is showing people the love of Christ first. No judgmentalism, no condemnation, no lifestyle challenges. Just the love of Christ. Invite them in, welcome them, include them, serve them. When Christ is living within their hearts that will provide the impetus for them to change their lives to better suit His Will.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What I advocate is showing people the love of Christ first. No judgmentalism, no condemnation, no lifestyle challenges. Just the love of Christ. Invite them in, welcome them, include them, serve them. When Christ is living within their hearts that will provide the impetus for them to change their lives to better suit His Will.

preach it, Marv

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Marvin - isn't that what Jesus did with Zacchaeus (Luke 19)? Befriended him without criticism; Zachaeus' response was his own choice. (In other words - go Marvin!)

Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :

Marvin.
Grace, in a nutshell.
Thank you.

[Overused]

(Don't often use that smilie!)

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Dat dere is one of yer spectacular spiritual pearls Marvin.

Quotes filed.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
Avoiding being judgemental is not about saying that everything is okay. Being judgemental is being more interested in dealing with other people's sins than dealing with your own - usually because this gives you a nice fuzzy feeling. And yes, everyone does this, sometimes, and to some extent. Not everyone does it to the same degree, and just because everyone does it doesn't make it ok.

Yes - I think people do this a lot, I know I do. It diverts our attention from ourselves and our own weaknesses and faults. Thus the rise of the popularity soap operas and reality TV, feeding this need to project.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

If all Christians did what Marvin suggests, then we might get somewhere.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Has Marvin ended this thread by giving such a splendid answer to the OP?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Has Marvin ended this thread by giving such a splendid answer to the OP?

I reckon so.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

Posted by hatless (2nd post in this thread):

quote:
Isn't the important word in Qoheleth's quote 'exclusion'?

Yes, we are all making judgements all the time. It is good that we believe in things and sometimes stand up for them. The issue, and the reason that some and only some of our constant judgements earn the word judgementalism, is that they exclude others.

Agree completely.

Quoheleth spoke of "judgmentalism and exclusion."

And what happens? Miracle of miracles -- Ender's Shadow starts a thread which is an almost textbook example of ... judgmentalism and exclusion.

I'm referring here to tone as much as content. Because it's tone like that conveyed by the OP that often drives people away.

"Judgment," as others have said, is something we all do. "Judgmentalism," however, suggests making a fetish of the right to judge. It's often angry, impatient, scornful. Judgmentalism -- though careful to quote selectively from sacred texts of one sort or another -- is rarely experienced as compassionate. It conveys the message: "You are damned until you think like me." In the case of the OP, this is carried so far as to imply that things one disagrees with -- even if spoken by fellow Christians -- are actually "LIES."

Better to leave the judging to God. We mere human beings are called to be examples of faith, hope, and love, not to set ourselves up as self-righteous mouthpieces for our own particular judgments, which is what the OP does.

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

The problem is the privileging, sometimes divinization of some judgmentalisms over others.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I could judge something to be a sin, and yet not feel compelled to flap my gums about it. But I'm far better off judging my own sins and taking them to the cross, than deciding whether what somebody else is doing is sinful.

[ 23. January 2013, 17:52: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:

quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Yes, we are all making judgements all the time. It is good that we believe in things and sometimes stand up for them. The issue, and the reason that some and only some of our constant judgements earn the word judgementalism, is that they exclude others.
I don't understand when Christianity became an inclusive religion? It has been excluding others from the get-go hasn't it? If Christianity was an inclusive religion, why would salvation be required?
So, what - 'salvation' is not 'inclusive' ?

Surely there would be no point to it if it was inclusive? If everyone is automatically saved from whatever it is they are being saved from, then what was the point of Jesus dying and rising? What was the point of John the Baptist living in the desert or of the Old Testament prophecy? I'm just wondering about this because it seems odd to me to have a whole book seemingly dedicated to salvation if everyone is saved anyway.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What I advocate is showing people the love of Christ first. No judgmentalism, no condemnation, no lifestyle challenges. Just the love of Christ. Invite them in, welcome them, include them, serve them.

That's the way about it, Marvin. Thank you. However to show people love, you can't show you're shocked by them. I think the best attitude is to think that often people are plain silly when it comes to sex, as I am too in my fantasies.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
Surely there would be no point to it if it was inclusive? If everyone is automatically saved from whatever it is they are being saved from, then what was the point of Jesus dying and rising?

Inclusive <> automatic. It was Jesus dying and rising that MAKES salvation available and inclusive.

Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think the Christian position on judgmentalism is to be found here.

quote:
Matthew 7.

1. Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
It sounds rather more "karma" than "grace". But when I dig deeper, I see something. To be a judgmental person requires the assumption of the right, or the freedom, to judge the actions or beliefs of another in accordance with one's own understanding of what is right or just.

What seems to happen is that we cultivate an attitude of mind in favour of judging the actions of others to the detriment of a necessary self-criticism. And overlook, or discount, any built in biases of our own.

I had to dig out and dust off my Bible (the NIV inclusive version no less!) in order to appreciate your point.

I think the sentence following the one you quoted explains what you were trying to say?

quote:
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

So from the two sentences together I understand Matthew to be saying that what God doesn't like is a judgmental attitude (as I think you were suggesting) rather than judging.

To illustrate my understanding I will give as an example what is a probably a trivial event that I witnessed as I was driving home from work this evening.

While traffic was crawling along a dual carriageway central to the town I work in, I motioned for a car to pull in front of me as otherwise they may have been waiting at a junction for ages. A few yards further down the road, the backseat passenger door of the car opened and someone threw about four pieces of litter on to the road. That isn't something I would do myself and I remember feeling disappointed that this person did it. I felt annoyed at them too because they made the road look messy and might also have created a hazard (I don't know what exactly was in the litter). However, I also felt annoyed because I had been considerate towards them by letting them pull out in front of me but they had not shown consideration to others as they had littered the road and possibly dropped a hazard in front of other drivers.

I would say the first two feelings are perfectly legitimate reactions in the context of what you and I have quoted from Matthew. However, both are judgments. But the third feeling - of annoyance because I had been considerate in letting the car in but he had not been considerate by dropping litter - had slipped into judgmentalism. I can be just as inconsiderate at times but in other ways and yet there I was wishing I hadn't let him in because he did what he did. I think it is that particular reaction which is judgmental and which Matthew was calling to account.

Posted by Sleepwalker (# 15343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
Surely there would be no point to it if it was inclusive? If everyone is automatically saved from whatever it is they are being saved from, then what was the point of Jesus dying and rising?
Inclusive <> automatic. It was Jesus dying and rising that MAKES salvation available and inclusive.

I can appreciate that it makes it available, in that the reason given for Jesus dying was to make it available. But I don't understand how availability brings inclusivity? Does the Bible elsewhere not suggest it is difficult for some people to get into heaven? I have memories of a rich man and a camel going through the eye of a needle, for example. Such bits of the NT would suggest that there are conditions of some form or another, or at least restrictions. Aren't people supposed to repent first, for instance? I'm not being facitious here. I genuinely find it difficult to envision how the two - availability and inclusivity - go together as you say they do.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I could judge something to be a sin, and yet not feel compelled to flap my gums about it. But I'm far better off judging my own sins and taking them to the cross, than deciding whether what somebody else is doing is sinful.

But aren't a lot of the stories in the Bible there so that having seen the sins in others we can better identify them in ourselves?

I have been having an argument with someone who says the story about the woman caught in adultery is about mis-application of the law and that Jesus ensured the Levitical law was correctly applied, whereas I was arguing that it is really a lesson to us to be merciful and not judgmental.

I think we can extend the story of the man born blind to looking for opportunities to show grace rather than being judgmental (or flapping ones gums about it)

You have to at least identify the lost sheep to bring it back (Matt 18), know what you are forgiving 77 times, or detect a transgression to restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness (Gal 6:1). These passages are telling us to be active in reconciliation rather than just being self-reflective.

OTOH I do agree that we (and our churches) must not be like the wicked servant in Matt 18 who did not forgive even though he had been forgiven.

There is a difference in making a judgment (discernment) and being judgmental.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
Surely there would be no point to it if it was inclusive? If everyone is automatically saved from whatever it is they are being saved from, then what was the point of Jesus dying and rising?
Inclusive <> automatic. It was Jesus dying and rising that MAKES salvation available and inclusive.
I can appreciate that it makes it available, in that the reason given for Jesus dying was to make it available. But I don't understand how availability brings inclusivity? Does the Bible elsewhere not suggest it is difficult for some people to get into heaven? I have memories of a rich man and a camel going through the eye of a needle, for example. Such bits of the NT would suggest that there are conditions of some form or another, or at least restrictions. Aren't people supposed to repent first, for instance? I'm not being facitious here. I genuinely find it difficult to envision how the two - availability and inclusivity - go together as you say they do.

Difficult doesn't mean impossible. I think salvation is extremely painful for some but I still think it happens.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
Surely there would be no point to it if it was inclusive? If everyone is automatically saved from whatever it is they are being saved from, then what was the point of Jesus dying and rising?
Inclusive <> automatic. It was Jesus dying and rising that MAKES salvation available and inclusive.
I can appreciate that it makes it available, in that the reason given for Jesus dying was to make it available. But I don't understand how availability brings inclusivity?

You've moved the goalposts. Your query was about why Jesus' death was necessary if salvation is inclusive. That was answered.

Availability does not necessarily bring inclusivity; there are a lot of models of Christian salvation that are not universalist. But I wasn't arguing that point and don't really care to.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I could judge something to be a sin, and yet not feel compelled to flap my gums about it. But I'm far better off judging my own sins and taking them to the cross, than deciding whether what somebody else is doing is sinful.

Actually, I find this ironic considering the skill you exhibit in showing up hypocrisy and bullshit on the ship.

I have benefited from this (and I mean that sincerely as it has helped me grow), though I was nervous of you when I first joined the ship.

I consider it to be one your gifts and I think you should continue.

So, although this isn't All Saints, Thanks a lot MT and keep up the good work.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I could judge something to be a sin, and yet not feel compelled to flap my gums about it. But I'm far better off judging my own sins and taking them to the cross, than deciding whether what somebody else is doing is sinful.
Actually, I find this ironic considering the skill you exhibit in showing up hypocrisy and bullshit on the ship.

Yeah, but I feel guilty about it!

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Has Marvin ended this thread by giving such a splendid answer to the OP?

No.

Because that generous and overflowing love of Christ that Marvin articulated so well is not something most of us normal Christians have and can do. Very difficult.

@Sleepwalker. If you take salvation to mean abundant life (on earth) then the inclusion/exclusion factor becomes about living well here and now. We can choose salvation by living according to God's will for us and for the world. It's not about pointing to his in and who is out. It's about choosing things that bring life and wholeness (salvation) rather than sin and death (damnation).

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I could judge something to be a sin, and yet not feel compelled to flap my gums about it. But I'm far better off judging my own sins and taking them to the cross, than deciding whether what somebody else is doing is sinful.
Actually, I find this ironic considering the skill you exhibit in showing up hypocrisy and bullshit on the ship.
Yeah, but I feel guilty about it!

You shouldn't, unless you feel it feeding the dark side of your nature. At its best it is the imitation of Christ.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Quote from the Saint of the Day in the Catholic lectionary, Francis de Sales:

quote:
I would rather account to God for too great gentleness than for too great severity. Is not God all love? God the Father is the Father of mercy; God the Son is a Lamb; God the Holy Spirit is a Dove - that is, gentleness itself. And are you wiser than God?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Many years ago I heard David Pawson (hardly a wooly liberal) preach on Isaiah 61.3: "to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God". He said that that was a good ratio for any preacher: you should talk about the love of God 365 times, for every one mention of judgement.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Seems to me that there are two ways of talking about the wrongs that other people do.

There's the way we use when we recognise that we have done those things, or we would be quite likely to do those things in certain circumstances.

And there's the way we use when we attribute the action to their innate wickedness and stupidity and sheer bloody-minded obstinacy because they've been told so often that it's wrong.

The latter is what I take to be "judgmentalism".

And maybe we do all do it sometimes.

Funny thing, but I find that when I look at things the first way - when the driver who cuts in front of me dangerously on the road is a guy who's had a bad day rather than a moron who needs to learn how to drive - then the anger inside me subsides. It's still a not-OK action, but I no longer carry the burden of emotional tension and bad vibes.

Maybe to understand really is to forgive all.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
You shouldn't, unless you feel it feeding the dark side of your nature. At its best it is the imitation of Christ.

God forbid I should think that. I do think what I try to do here, however, is not condemn people to Hell for their sins, but shred bad argument. Since this -- especially Purg -- is a site dedicated to rational discussion, if someone's argument is crap, then it needs to be pointed out before good discussion can resume.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

Funny thing, but I find that when I look at things the first way - when the driver who cuts in front of me dangerously on the road is a guy who's had a bad day rather than a moron who needs to learn how to drive - then the anger inside me subsides. It's still a not-OK action, but I no longer carry the burden of emotional tension and bad vibes.

Maybe to understand really is to forgive all.

I think that there's a danger in looking for excuses for bad behaviour, whether in ourselves or in anyone else. If we can find an excuse, it may make it easier to forgive in the sense of letting go, but this leaves us with the burden of those we can't find excuses for, and with the mental gymnastics of imagining excuses.

As you have said, any word or action which harms us is a not-OK action. Accepting it for what it is may be the first step toward true forgiveness, if as you have said we see another imperfect human being like us rather than a demon at the other side of it.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0