Religion without God

What makes you think its people actions we are told not to judge?

If such verses are from the New Testament and in proper context (directed at Christians in general and not individuals) then I will consider the case you make.

That consideration thus voids #3 on your list.

The New Testament doesn't exist without the old, you fucking drip.

Because that’s what the bloody Bible says! I and others have even quoted multiple passages to this effect.

Ask any, ANY credible Christian scholar and they’ll tell you the same.

Elwood already provided a detailed refutation of that argument by you and garamet.

The Bible no where says we are not to judge PEOPLES ACTIONS.

.

Link to it.

It's Post #25 in this thread.

https://www.wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3045089/

How's your eyesight, @Dayton3? Must be hard to see around that beam...

From what I've gathered about the "mote in someones eye while there is a beam in yours" is a condemnation of HYPOCRITICAL judgement. That is judging someone else for something you are guilty of yourself.

Can anyone point to where I've done this?

More

The Mote and the Beam is a parable of Jesus given in the Sermon on the Mount[1] in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7, verses 1 to 5. The discourse is fairly brief, and begins by warning his followers of the dangers of judging others, stating that they too would be judged by the same standard. The Sermon on the Plain has a similar passage in Luke 6:37–42.[2]


The New Testament text is as follows:

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.
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.

— Matthew 7:1-5 KJV
The first two verses use plural "ye" and "you", and the next three verses use the singular "thou", "thy" and "thine" to the individual. (Luke 6:41 was translated "thou" after using "ye" in Luke 6:37.)

The moral lesson is to avoid hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and censoriousness. The analogy used is of a small object in another's eye as compared with a large beam of wood in one's own. The original Greek word translated as "mote" (κάρφος karphos) meant "any small dry body".[3] The terms mote and beam are from the King James Version; other translations use different words, e.g. the New International Version uses "speck (of sawdust)" and "plank". In Twenty-first century English a "mote" is more normally a particle of dust – particularly one that is floating in the air – rather than a tiny splinter of wood. The analogy is suggestive of a carpenter's workshop, with which Jesus would have been familiar.

In the analogy, the one seeking to remove the impediment in the eye of his brother has the larger impediment in his own eye, suggesting metaphorically that the one who attempts to regulate his brother often displays the greater blindness and hypocrisy.

A proverb of this sort was familiar to the Jews and appears in numerous other cultures too,[4] such as the Latin proverb of later Roman days referenced by Athenagoras of Athens, meretrix pudicam.[5]


I've condemned homosexual conduct and for that matter all sexual relations not between a man and a woman who are married at that time.

I've not committed any of those actions. Thus when I condemn it in others, I am not guilty of any hypocrisy.

First, let me say that I'm not trying to speak for @NAHTMMM . I speak only for myself.

You have to be careful because you've engaged in Biblical deconstructionism. Each sentence or verse does not stand alone as if it were a law unto itself. You must establish context, both historical and spiritual, before determining what a verse means. Without context, the Word can be twisted by man to mean anything that man wants to believe. That's the first lesson of biblical exegesis.

For example, Psalm 51 is one of my favorite Psalms. But, the text has to be viewed in context. It's David's lament, cry, and prayer after being confronted by Nathan as recorded in 2 Samuel 12. In that context, lets take a look at verse five.

"Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." - Psalm 51:5 (NKJV)

Without any sort of context, it would be easy to suggest that David was conceived in sin by his Mother. Did she have an adulterous relationship away from Jesse, David's father? To be "brought forth in iniquity" could be a violation of any number of laws, and thus a sin. But, that's not the case. If you look at the entire context of David's story in 1st and 2nd Samuel, 1st and 2nd Kings, and 1st and 2nd Chronicles, I think one would be led to understand that David is merely repeating the truth of the doctrine of original sin. Our fundamental human nature changed as a result of disobedience. This doctrine would be addressed many, many times during the rest of the book, with Paul's lament in Romans 5 being the first to pop into my head.

A similar misconception can be found in Paul's opus on the preeminence of Christ in Colossians 1. The entire sect of Jehovah's Witness use this passage to justify one of the bedrocks of their faith. That being that God created Jesus and Jesus created everything else. I completely and totally disagree with their interpretation of this wonderful passage. Here are my sermon notes on this passage from when I preached through the book of Colossians two years ago:

You are guilty of setting yourself up as a judge of anyone - on WF, in the world - who doesn't hew to your particular code. Put your own house in order, then feel free to dictate to your congregation. WF is not your congregation; you have no authority here. And your personal attacks against anyone you disagree with (especially when you can't defend your position), coupled with your constant whining about others picking on you, are the essence of hypocrisy.

That is not the definition of hypocrisy. If you don't know the definition, look it up.

Among its several meanings, hypocrisy is judging others by standards you do not follow yourself.

And as I've said, I've never committed a homosexual act or any type of sexual act outside of marriage.

Why then am I not allowed to judge those who do?

Are they members of your family or your congregation? No. If you feel obligated to judge your fellow Christians, start with the likes of Roy Moore - people who prey on children.

What consenting adults do is between them and their conscience, not yours. Stop peeping through the blinds and do something that matters. Weed out the bad apples in Christian communities and otherwise MYOB.

Of course, you don't actually do anything. You just pontificate on WF.

Yours and El Chups reactions to me indicates that you equate "pontifications on WF" with actions.

I don't go around "peeping through the blinds" but when someone proclaims stuff like the "consenting adults" crap then I have a moral obligation to condemn any kind of thinking that gives comfort and support to sin.

No man (woman) is an island. garamet. Everyone's actions impact everyone else one way or the other.

How is sex that isn't rape or molestation a moral/immoral act?

Does gay sex break your arm?
No, it doesn't.

Does it pick your pocket?
No, it doesn't.

Does it poison your food?
Nope, not that either.

Are they forcing you to watch?
I think I would've heard about that on the news.
"Arkansas man forced to watch sodomy, cries, vomits, film at 11".
Haven't seen that news clip, cuz it's not a thing in the universe.
Doesn't happen.

So how is it any of your business?
And if it's not your business, how do you get to judge?

Do you get to judge other things that aren't your business?
Pooping habits?
Sleeping positions?
Thread count on the sheets?
Pillow stuffing?
Prescriptions?

Why just the gay sex?
Why is that set apart?

Of course. The entire basis of this and several other forums is "judging" how good a particular Star Trek series or movie is.

Yet we're only viewers. Whether Star Trek is good or crap has no real impact on us whatsoever.

Yet we judge it.

That wasn't my question.

I asked if you judge other things that aren't your business.

Star Trek is your business, because its put up for public consumption.

Try again.

So you'll be logging off and devoting your life to driving the moneylenders pedophiles and rapists out of the Temple? Good for you!

While you're at it, explain why you cleave to Leviticus after repeatedly dismissing the OT as "irrelevant."

When did I say anything about Leviticus? Pretty certain I did not.

Didn't think so.

Oh yes it does.

So where's your basis for condemning homosexuals?

My life has never been negatively impacted by what type of sexual partner the person next door - let alone those in different regions or nations - chooses to fuck. Well, on the odd occasion when there were very thin walls it might have caused trouble sleeping, but that happens with people in heterosexual married relationships to, despite what you might think.

I'd be interested as to how you feel your life can be affected one way or the other by whether two guys choose to get down with it across the street from you. Without bringing the disproportionate "judgement" of irrational, reactionary and likely mythical deities into the equation.

Romans 1:26–27
1 Corinthians 6:9–10
1 Timothy 1:9–10

Well, being given permission by some dubious clerics to judge things that are none of his business gives him a feeling of power and control, and that gives the brain a little drug hit akin to the high of cocaine, and a hardcore junkie will kill a muthafucka if you try to take their fix away.

Dayton could of course disprove this hypothesis by answering my fucking questions in post #167 without weaseling or squirming.

But, we know that ain't gonna happen, so fuck him, and the horse he rode in on.

Man, fuck the Corinthians. Paul wrote four letters to those assholes and they never sent one reply.

In my judgement bestiality is also immoral.

You'll note all D's quotations are from Paul, the biggest fucking closet case in the Disciples, so far back in the wardrobe he probably knew Aslan as well.