That's the one
I wish I could explain as good as Ray did in that passage
Rhys
Me too. I just wonder if we have this judging thing figured out. I mean, Jesus called his own disciples "hypocrites," after he tells them to not judge.
And then he goes: " do not give that which is holy to the dogs or throw your pearls before swine."
Don't judge your brother. Then he calls the pharisees snakes, fools, and hypocrites.
Obviously calling someone what they are or saying what they are doing isn't judging them or condemning them, because if that were the case, then Romans Chapter 1 and some of the words in the gospels need to be deleted.
I believe is a difference between judging, condemning and confrontation. Most people don't like confrontation. I don't mind it so much. But I don't want to cut off someone's ear, either, or descend into arguments that aren't profitable.
At one point, Paul was livid with the Corinthians because they were "proud," because they were allowing some man who was in bed with his father's wife to remain in their church. He said, why are you proud? Get the mofro out! [ okay he didn't say mofro, I think he called him an infidel] Turn him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. I mean, back in Romans 2, he just got finished telling them not to judge!
Obviously we're talking about two different things here and not understanding what judgment and condemnation is. I believe that Jesus and Paul are talking about judging and condemning under the physical laws of the land, the same laws that were later jumbled up by the pharisees. But it's obviously hardly judging or condemning to call someone what they are or to be saying, hey - you're doing such and such, that's wrong! That's not judging because if it were, then Paul and Jesus couldn't tell the Romans and Corinthians and the disciples what they were doing was wrong. Nobody could tell anybody they're doing wrong!
And then, there was another time where he told Timothy to admonish them once or twice and after that to reject -- those want to argue about the law [of Moses] and geanologies and this and that and the other. He said, admonish them once or twice, and after that reject. So clearly, rejection is not judging or condemning someone. Nor is handing someone over to Satan for the destruction of their flesh, condemning or judging.
So, I'm trying to understand what this "not judge or condemn" thing is really meaning.
I mean, for instance, Alex (not to start a war or whatever) told me that I was sowing discord with my post and wanting to get political. Clearly that was not him judging me. That was just how he saw what I was doing because of the things I was saying to Rick - who was actually the one who started it
he got political. Which is not to judge Rick at all, but that's what he was doing -- getting political and judging the woman under the laws of our land.
I mean, I'm glad we don't live in Iran or some country where the penalty for stealing is literally cutting off someone's hand! Both Alex and Rick agreed, that the woman deserved to be judged and punished according to our human laws.
And neither one of them have come back and said, wow, I see that I was wrong! But that's okay. I understand why. It was not easy to admit that the post was sowing discord. It was not easy to take down the link because I truly thought as I said in my original post that "This is a beautiful story." I mean, wow. It was not easy to admit that I fell to the flesh, but what choice did I have? It wasn't easy to put up the story later on, and then get ridiculed for that, too.
Had I known that it was going to devolve into Tiny Tim posts, I promise you all I would have never posted this topic or put up a link. I think I'll delete my story too.
Anyway, Alex, I'm sorry, I see you posted something, but I have not read it. And so I can't agree or disagree. I'll just be over here getting this big log out of my eye if anyone wants me.