To judge or not to judge?

On the contrary gg, this thread is far from over, even without off topic remarks

Sorry, I meant it in this sense: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one; not that the thread jumped the shark or that a debate was lost or over.

gg

Yes but Godwin's law postulates that it's the comparison that ends the discussion.

well in the interest of falsifying godwin's law (hence continuing the discussion even though I'll end with a Nazi comparison...)

i agree with sky that truth is objective (there is a fact of the matter whether thoughts / statements about the world are true, false, or neither true nor false).

and i agree with sky that relativism (true for you false for me) is untenable at the end of the day (unless you make some sophisticated manouvers to haul in some objectivity) for precisely the reason that she states: we have to conclude that what the Nazi's did was good for them. But clearly what the Nazi's did wasn't good. That reduces relativism to an absurdity.

i also agree that relativism is very prevalent these days. some people think that one needs to be a relativist about truth in order to be sensitive to other cultures and other peoples beliefs. i think that it is possible to be sensitive to other cultures and other peoples beliefs without endorsing relativism, however.

One point of disagreement might be the SOURCE of truth, however. But... Maybe we don't disagree here either.

I can capture a possible point of disagreement that was first stated in a paradox in that Socrates hits upon in The Meno. I hope people don't mind my posting this...

'Is something virtuous because it it loved by the Gods... Or is something loved by the Gods because it is virtuous?'

With respect to this situation:

Is something true because it is endorsed by God...
Or does God endorse it because it is true?

I guess that I think that God (if he exists) endorses certain things precisely because they are good things or they are true statements / beliefs.

Rather than his endorsment making them so.

So... God couldn't decree that it was morally acceptable to torture an innocent child solely for fun (for example) because that simply is a morally abhorrent thing to do. It is a morally wrong thing to do regardless of whether the Ancients, the Nazis, or God appreciate it as such or not.

GG, I agree. However this forum is for those who are religious and want support. So people coming here just to put that down is wrong. Sometimes the best we can say is nothing. I only post in a few areas, and I am sure I would disagree with alot if I chose otherwise, but I have to respect others beliefs about themselves, their faith etc..

Yea nice post psisci ...

If I might add my own opinion:

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
When someone holds to this other cultural belief about truth, it eliminates their ability to discern difference between Mother Theresa and Ted Bundy, because, each of their own truths were correct and truth for them! When you take this view of truth, you have lost your ability to discern between Hitler and Billy Graham... because all people's truth is equal.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

All this adds up to Secular Humanism which espouses Situational Ethics and Values Clarification... or rather, no values at all, no moral character or compass; "If it feels good, do it."

Wow. There has been a lot of good insight here today. I think that some have found points of agreement where there didn't appear to be many before.

I have not posted much in this thread, but I have been talking to various members behind the scenes. I hope that nobody minds if I share something that has shown itself to me as a common denominator. It fits perfectly with the topic of the thread itself too, and maybe that is why feelings have been so strong. People have indeed felt judged, and it isn't being judged that hurts so much as the feeling of being wrongly judged. Sometimes we think that we know what someone's intention was, and we assume that they wanted to hurt us. Wow, I felt something with that because I do that IRL all the time - and it never works out very well for me. But we can't know what someone else's intentions are, no matter what it looks like to us. Let's try to all give each other the benefit of the doubt on that score, shall we?

I believe that almost everyone has good intentions. Actions may be misguided, and it might not come out the way you want it to, but we don't set out to see how many people we can hurt today. Have you all seen the last Star Wars movie? Darth Vader did terrible things, and that was what made him who he turned out to be - the fearsome dark lord of the Sith. What made it tragic was that Anikin Skywalker was a good person and was motivated by love, or his understanding of it. The thing that he wanted most was to save the woman he loved from death. In his passion, he killed the innocents and his beloved wife too. But he didn't intend to do that. His friends tried to tell him, but he was under the influence of a powerful and charismatic leader and he wouldn't listen. How many of you would like to be Anikin's final judge? I know that I would not.

When people post here, there is always more to the story than we know. Someone's posting style might rub you the wrong way. Someone might tell you that your posting style is problematic. They might not put it in such nice terms. There are two things that we can learn from this that we can apply to our participation here. The first thing is to try to look beyond your first perception and see what is really motivating the post (an attempt to communicate what feels true to that person, or a need to be understood maybe). The second is to look at the feedback that we get with an open mind. If a lot of people tell you something about your posts, and what they are seeing is not what you intend to communicate, then it is time to try to figure out what looks to them like what they are seeing. Then you can work on saying what you really intend in a way that more people can understand. I am saying this here because it applies to everyone, and is another common denominator.

TC All,
Love,
Rap

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Is something true because it is endorsed by God...
Or does God endorse it because it is true?

I guess that I think that God (if he exists) endorses certain things precisely because they are good things or they are true statements / beliefs.

Rather than his endorsment making them so.

So... God couldn't decree that it was morally acceptable to torture an innocent child solely for fun (for example) because that simply is a morally abhorrent thing to do. It is a morally wrong thing to do regardless of whether the Ancients, the Nazis, or God appreciate it as such or not.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
I like this. It's a point of agreement for me. I agree with Sky's discovery about absolute truth vs. relative truth. I believe that there is absolute truth. In my belief system, even God is subject to absolute truth. God is God because He upholds all that is true, and all of the laws, including the laws of nature and the universe. He is bound by those laws in that if He tried to make exceptions, and bend the rules here and there, He would cease to be God. That would be a terrible thing, but we can trust Him to uphold all that is true, and not to waver. We can trust that His judgements will always be just and true.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
SeptemberMorn said:
If I might add my own opinion:

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
When someone holds to this other cultural belief about truth, it eliminates their ability to discern difference between Mother Theresa and Ted Bundy, because, each of their own truths were correct and truth for them! When you take this view of truth, you have lost your ability to discern between Hitler and Billy Graham... because all people's truth is equal.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

All this adds up to Secular Humanism which espouses Situational Ethics and Values Clarification... or rather, no values at all, no moral character or compass; "If it feels good, do it."

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Different values do not equal no values. Using critical thinking and moral reasoning to assess a situation for meaning does not equal a lack of a moral compass. I'm not sure it's even possible to have "no values". I'm quite certain it's possible to hold values which others do not. But that is no values void, and to assume such or to assume that a secular humanist would choose the "feel good" over the "do good" is a rather narrow and rigid view, imo.

gg

Good question indeed.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
psisci said:
GG, I agree. However this forum is for those who are religious and want support. So people coming here just to put that down is wrong. Sometimes the best we can say is nothing. I only post in a few areas, and I am sure I would disagree with alot if I chose otherwise, but I have to respect others beliefs about themselves, their faith etc..

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Actually, it's about spirituality, which can include religion but doesn't necessarily.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that since folks are coming here for support, one shouldn't post about beliefs that are different from the other out of respect for those beliefs. Do I have that right? And I'm not sure about this part because it's awfully simplistic, but are you saying that folks who do so are just doing it to put the other person down? Is everyone who starts a thread on this forum coming for support related to spirituality? Or might some threads be to discuss those issues in the same way that one might discuss depression versus seek support for dealing with depression?

Methinks there are some things about this site I will never fully understand. (actually, meknows)

gg

GG, it's okay if you don't understand everything. The way this forum was intended to work is for everyone to be supportive of others' beliefs. What that means is that one should not post about their disagreement with someone else's beliefs. It is fine if you disagree, and we understand that many will disagree. You are welcome to post about your own beliefs, and the same courtesy applies.

For example, someone may post "I believe that cats are the best kind of pet." An unsupportive reply would be "Cats are a menace. There are a lot of animals that make better pets than cats...." You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you don't have to tell someone else that you think they are wrong. It isn't necessary even in another thread to post about how awful cats are, but you might start a thread about the kinds of animals that you like. The person who likes cats should respect your thread, and not go in and debate which makes a better pet.

The same goes for religion, spirituality, and belief in this forum. Everyone is welcome to post about what they believe, and we want to make this a safe place for members who have different beliefs. If you can't say something positive, it is better not to say it. At least not here. Not that the intention would be to put anyone down, but it just doesn't feel supportive when someone says "what you believe in is wrong." Even if they try to say it nicely.

GG said:

since folks are coming here for support, one shouldn't post about beliefs that are different from the other out of respect for those beliefs.

Precisely, not in the same thread, anyway. You're more than welcome to express your beliefs or views in a different thread. Re-read Raps last post on this subject. In fact, it's the post right above this one.

Thankyou Rapunzel.

I appreciate your post about looking at how we regard others intentions (because we never know the full story) and also about looking at how we post (because the aim of posting is to communicate rather than to be misunderstood). I really appreciate your arriving at (what I take to be) a balanced view of the situation.

I appreciate what you said about your conception of God too. I guess I agree with you in the sense that IF God exists then that would be a feature of God. That he would know all the truths and identify all the goods (God is all-knowing).

My conception of God is that (IF he exists) then he is the greatest POSSIBLE being. Hence God can't be expected to do things that are contradictory (e.g., make a rock so big that he can't move it) but that this needent be seen as a limitation on God. Rather... It indicates that we need to limit our conception of God (since we can conceive of the impossible).

Shows us something of the limits of thought.

If one maintains that God can do ANYTHING (including the logically impossible) then ones conception of god is contradictory (hence it is not possible for him to exist). We don't want to make God's inexistence a matter of definition, however (this shows us our conception has gone wrong).

If this is right... Then it means we can always ask:

WHY does God regard judging to be acceptable?
or...
WHY does God regard judging to be unacceptable?

And cite reasons for that...

I identify with being a secular humanist at times. I also believe that there are objective facts / truths hence secular humanism doesn't entail relativism. Secular humanists still have to consider whether judging is acceptable or not (and under what circumstances / what kinds of judgements). The answer to the question:

WHY does God regard judging to be un/acceptable?

can be given an answer for the theist

and

WHY is judging un/acceptable?

can be given the same answer for the secular humanist.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Rapunzel said:

For example, someone may post "I believe that cats are the best kind of pet." An unsupportive reply would be "Cats are a menace. There are a lot of animals that make better pets than cats...." You are entitled to your own beliefs, but you don't have to tell someone else that you think they are wrong. It isn't necessary even in another thread to post about how awful cats are, but you might start a thread about the kinds of animals that you like. The person who likes cats should respect your thread, and not go in and debate which makes a better pet.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

See, here's where I get confused. I understand that someone saying "cats are a menance..." per your example is non-supportive. But would saying something like, "I prefer dogs" or "I dislike cats because I'm allergic to them" also be unsupportive? That's the part I don't think I understand.

Thanks,

gg

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
SeptemberMorn said:

Re-read Raps last post on this subject. In fact, it's the post right above this one.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Just as soon as someone invents the Way Back machine, I'll be glad to read Rap's most recent post before I write the one you replied to.



gg

In this forum, where people are talking about something so personal as their beliefs and values and faith, we need to be careful not to sound like we are being invalidating about something that is so close to someone's heart. So, to the person who thinks cats are the best (remember we're really talking about expressing their heartfelt spiritual beliefs), it could be hurtful to say "I dislike cats because I am allergic to them." It isn't necessary to say anything at all against cats, or to be in any way critical of a person's stated belief. In the cat example, the person originally said "I believe that cats are the best." That is a personal belief. You may not share that belief, but you being allergic to cats is not relevant to their belief that cats are the best.

THE MAIN POINT of the original thread is this:

Christians, GOD SAYS judging is not only acceptable, but demanded of you, and I encourage you to not fall to the tactics of non-believers in trying to persuade you that you are less than good for judging.

It's good that the others here, who are not Christians but still clarifying what they believe have seemed to work out their thoughts. However, I don't appreciate that they have taken my thread to do that for them. They can make a new thread in the General Forum or Social Forum perhaps, in their blogs, or even at the other site where members are used to confrontation, to discuss secular humanism and relativism etc. As I requested before, please quit hijacking my thread. Some of the comments have been quite devisive. BTW, the entire Book of Revelation to John is all about God's impending judgments for the non believers, and I suggest anyone so interested in His judgment to read the book (though, you have to read it believing He is the Source of Truth.)

When you as a Christian have turned your base of belief upsidedown with being "politically correct" you limit your ability to discern right from wrong. No wonder Christians are unable to help others like they used to. No wonder you feel inside that you "should" be able to give good words to another, but for some reason remain confused within. The world's insistance for political correctness that might keep nations peaceful for a time, isn't what keeps religion and our belief's stronghold safe within our hearts and minds. There is a limit to being "pc." When the world says accept all things as equal, all peoples and intents as acceptable, a Christian must draw the line: God says so.

Paul wrote to the Galatians, who were dealing with many of the same troublesome non-believers, their intents were infiltrating the new Christian's church:<font color="purple"> O FOOLISH GALATIANS, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (3:1)</font> In this particular case they were trying to bring works of the law back into the picture and not go with faith only. Every man wanted to decide his own way of salvation, his own works of good because someone was telling them it was all good, each man his own way could get salvation through the law. They wanted to exclude no one, but allow each way to be equal and good according to how that person desired to believe.

What they really wanted was to NOT follow what God said, NOT trust in God, NOT believe God and His Promises but do it their own way.

<font color="purple"> Enter in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in there; ...beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. You shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree brings forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit.... wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.... Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, ...have we not done many wonderful works in thy name? ...and then will I profess unto them, I never knew you depart from me you that work iniquity." Matthew 7:13,14, 15, 16, 20, 22c,23

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I encourage you to not fall to the tactics of non-believers in trying to persuade you that you are less than good for judging.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

You really believe we use tactics to make others think badly about themselves?

Please to supportive to non believers too.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
_Sky said:

It's good that the others here, who are not Christians but still clarifying what they believe have seemed to work out their thoughts. However, I don't appreciate that they have taken my thread to do that for them. They can make a new thread in the General Forum or Social Forum perhaps, in their blogs, ...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Or if I understand the purpose of this forum, they can post in this forum as well, because spirituality does not equal Christianity only.

And of course there's the no one "owns" a thread thing, but you already know that, I'm sure. Still, I can see how it would have been less distracting and more organized to use a separate thread for questions and comments about process or belief systems or anything too far beyond the scope of your original post.

Well, and then there's ignoring what one feels is off-topic or just doesn't wish to address...

But anywhoo, I'm glad you wrote what you did above about how you believe God wants or demands you to judge. Knowing this is what you believe helps me to think a bit more charitably about aspects of your behavior that I have difficulty tolerating. And I had a hard time with that, because there are many other qualities and behaviors you have that I not only tolerate just fine but like. So thank you for giving me some insight into the judging thing.

gg

gg I don't judge you or alex or perna or any of the other members who have hijacked this thread, and other threads of mine... I don't judge you because are, by your own admissions, not Christians, and God said to leave you to Him to judge.

It was quite plainly said in the beginning that this thread was for Christians. That you invaded it and attempted to make it say what you wanted and not what you didn't want to hear, and couldn't understand (because it is written for Christians) only displays your true intents to all who read, including admin. Glad you finally figured things out and won't be bothering me any more (do I have your word on that, and would that be a viable word, or just your word for today?) bye bye

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
_Sky said:
you because are, by your own admissions, not Christians,

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I don't recall any such admission, but no matter. Lots of assumptions flying about, what's one more?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
It was quite plainly said in the beginning that this thread was for Christians.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I see. Well is there a water fountain that non-Christians can use that's separate, if not equal? Just as you don't own a thread, you also don't get to set admission criteria. (Boy, that's getting to be a sorry old record. But one can hope, eh?)

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
That you invaded it and attempted to make it say what you wanted and not what you didn't want to hear, and couldn't understand (because it is written for Christians) only displays your true intents to all who read, including admin.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Wow, you're ascribing me some special super-posting powers if you think I can make someone else say something specific and not say something specific. I'm not a ventriloquist ya know. And you're not a puppet, are you? And invade? Please. It's not your fortress regardless of how heavy your armor. I'm not shaking in my shoes, were I wearing any that is. Are shoe less, super-posting-power wielding, hate-to-see intolerance flag-waving folks "allowed" to post in your fortress, I mean thread? Aha! They might already be here and you might not know, as long as they are espousing the Sky party line. Better get us papers.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Glad you finally figured things out and won't be bothering me any more (do I have your word on that, and would that be a viable word, or just your word for today?) bye bye

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Glad you're glad about something, though I have no idea what alleged "word" of mine you're referring to. As to whether I bother you or not, that's up to you, isn't it? Let me know how that's going, eh?

Now, where's that smiley for "over the top"? Nah, that would just be posing.

gg

> I don't judge you or alex or perna or any of the other members who have hijacked this thread, and other threads of mine...

and there is the judgement right there.
you judge us to be 'hijacking' rather than 'positively contributing' to the discussion.

And... To make matters worse (to my mind).

In the past on this board you insisted on posting to my threads. You insisted of accusing me of trying to undermine peoples faith over and over and over again. You persisted with this until my thread was locked.

I'm not attempting to hijack your thread.
I'm not attempting to get your thread locked.

I just don't understand which it is...

If it is that we can't post to each others threads unless we are posting 'amen brother i agree 100%' then BOTH of us should honour that.

Otherwise... I figured it was fine to post what I thought to your thread just as you have figured it was fine for you to post what you thought to my threads.

I was trying to be diplomatic here (I wasn't accusing you of being wrong I wasn't trying to get your thread locked I was trying to contribute positively to the discussion).

But you judge me and my intentions over and over and over:

Hijacking.

That is your judgement. Ok?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
As a reminder, this is specifically not a place to debate issues of religion.

Welcome and enjoy!
DocJohn


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">