Condemnation

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Sorry no idea what you are talking about but the second part made me smile.

Hey I am happy eating and drinking with just about anyone (as long as they don't drink alcohol or eat pork).

Growing up in a predominantly Arab-American neighborhood (circa the 1960s), we "kids" grew up learning a great deal about eachother. But our moms did too.

My mother, being the hostess that she was taught to be, invited another mom over for lunch. She fussed, and tried to make certain everything was perfect. Everything was just right, from the tea cups to the coffee cups to the look of the sandwiches, to the decorum on the brunch table the two were going to eat and talk at.

It was my "catholic" mom's way of reaching out to a "muslim" mom, though the actual faiths were never mentioned.

So, the other mom arrived and brought Ceylon tea (which tickled my mom to giddyness, since she loves tea). And in turn my mom presented head scarves of various colors and hues (which appeared to please the other).

After a fashion they finally sat down to eat. During their meal and conversation, "Josephine" commented a few times on how "good" the sandwiches tasted. Obviously pleased, my mother and she continued their lunch well into the afternoon. They tried the tea and found much in common with eachother. Overall productive and bonding afternoon for the two block mothers.

About the time we kids were walking in from school, the two were finally parting company. I overheard Josephine ask my mother, "what kind of sandwich was that?"

"Ham, lettuce, tomato, cheese and Cool whip dressing."

Josephine never batted an eye, but instead said, "I've never had that before, it was delicious, thank you Maureen." They pressed hands (as was the custom), then she left to take care of kids and get supper ready.

My mom was beaming, and then I stood before her. "You gave her ham sandwiches?"

Mom was momentarily stunned that I would ask her such a question, until I continued, "She's Muslim, and you just gave her pork." You could have heard a pin drop. Mom looked like she was about to become ill.

"Oh my dear God, what have I done"...was all she could say for the next few minutes while she paced the house floors.

Dad came home later, and Mom was still reeling from the revelation, and of course she spilled it all out on him, while he watched her from a bemused perspective.

"Well?" she finally demanded.

"Well what?" He asked. "She thanked you, she didn't walk away in disgust, and her husband isn't banging down the door in anger. Next time you have her over, make sure it isn't pork..."

That didn't exactly go over well with Mom. She decided to go over and make amends...to which my father asked "amend what? The only one upset here is you."

About a week later, Josephine invited Mom over for a lunch, but Mom was dreading going. Dad looked at her and said, "now that would be the ultimate insult if you declined. Go take your medicine, if there is any..."

So, Mom goes over, and there in trepedation, and Josephine grabs her by the arm and practically drags her inside (we kids are watching this). But right before we're shooed out the door, I hear Josephine say, "This is ham, and this is tuna, and this one is roast beef, which would you like to try first?"

Moral of the story. There is no sin (no grievence), commited by the ignorant, hence no stumbling block. But there is healing in abundance by the gracious who take no offense, to the ignorant innocence of others.

At least, that was the way I was raised...

v/r

Joshua

[Prober]

Q. What a delightful story! Thank you.

It reminds me of a simpler time...

(sigh)

[Faithfulservant]

Therefore NOW there is no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

I could of course quote extensively from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, however for brevity I will repeat my initial synopsis:
Critically evaluating a position in determining a wise course of action to guide oneself.

BTW, this was my concession to your earlier position about judging others of necessity. Am I to understand you have reconsidered?

No, what is there to reconsider?
I can see you are trying to divide between judging your own past actions versus judging the past actions of others. You are likewise trying to divide between making your own decision and actions versus being faithful and having faith in others. I see most everyone in the liberal camp making that division.

My point with the dimension of time is that any decision is a judgment from the fruits of the past, whether it is a decision to flip coins to make decisions or to critically evaluate a position to determine a wise course of action. It is the past that is being judged whether it is a decision made solely by self or in cooperation with others. It is the past that is judged whether it is of your own past or if it includes the actions or judgment from others.

You ask if there is recourse for wisdom... I am not sure what you mean by recourse. An alternative course of action? Another way of making decisions? I obtain and make use of wisdom... I am not the wisdom anymore than I am my own strengths or talents, or the wisdom and knowledge obtained from others... so if 'recourse' is for justification then I would recommend differentiating between the person and the wisdom.

Are you suggesting perhaps that wisdom is NOT based on judgment of the past? Maybe like a spontaneous decision or a gut feeling? Whether flipping coins on a gut feeling, receiving guidance from God or others, or making a decision after many hours of deliberation, it is still based on the past. The most flippant, spontaneous, chaotic choice made is still based on a judgment of the past, from what is available in the mind.

Why do I make the distinction with time? A couple of reasons. To help a person further separate the words 'krino' and 'katakrino'. Also, as a reminder that people can change. A person simply can not judge the future and can not condemn the past. People can change but yesterday can not.

Note that the wisdom of eating and drinking with anyone including tax-gatherers and sinners instead of condemning them by NOT eating and drinking is at the heart of the OP.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

If it's a decision that is about what will happen to a person (ie. what they deserve), it may consider the past and may involve condemning someone.

As long as you see that words do not condemn. The Gospel as I read it distinguishes 'krino' and 'katakrino'.

Originally Posted by Saltmeister

Condemnation . . . labelling (or "tagging") a person as "cursed," an "abomination" or deserving pain, suffering and punishment.

So you think Jesus condemned people when he said, "You serpents, you generation of vipers, how can you escape the judgment of hell?"... or said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" I am wary of who writes the religion. The gospel in Greek separates 'krino' and 'katakrino' more distinctively.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Q!

I think yours is a story that exemplifies wisdom, forgiveness, and tolerance. My hat is off to the lovely lady you spoke of. I suspect your mother may have gleaned a valuable life lesson as well.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

But there is healing in abundance by the gracious who take no offense, to the ignorant innocence of others.

I'm thankful your mom's friend demonstrated that Arab Muslims can be Christian in nature... right?

Hopefully this ignorant innocence you describe can be extended to others like the person who made the thread that was condemned, and Silas, and Terrance, etc...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

Originally Posted by cyberpi

No, what is there to reconsider?
I can see you are trying to divide between judging your own past actions versus judging the past actions of others. You are likewise trying to divide between making your own decision and actions versus being faithful and having faith in others. I see most everyone in the liberal camp making that division.

I'm not certain that is quite what I am trying to do.

I see myself as having two choices: I can choose to guide myself by what I believe is a wise course of action, or I can choose to idly let whatever comes my way rule over me. Maybe this last is better said, allow my animal nature to rule over me. I choose the former.

How do I gather wisdom? By example. My own experiences certainly show me where I have conducted my affairs rightly and wrongly. There are experiences I have not had, but others have. I can choose to learn from them as well, or I can be a knucklehead and insist on learning every lesson the hard way.

I see a tremendous difference between learning from the mistakes of others, what I consider "gaging," and placing myself in judgment over others.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

My point with the dimension of time is that any decision is a judgment from the fruits of the past, whether it is a decision to flip coins to make decisions or to critically evaluate a position to determine a wise course of action. It is the past that is being judged whether it is a decision made solely by self or in cooperation with others. It is the past that is judged whether it is of your own past or if it includes the actions or judgment from others.

What else do we have to guide our lives by? I am sure there may be moments when we might receive "divine" guidance out of the blue, the proverbial "gut feeling." Certainly there is conscience, for those of us who have not seared that portion of our souls. What remains is our library of experience. That experience needn't be solely ours. If we are truly wise, we learn from the mistaken experiences of others too.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

You ask if there is recourse for wisdom... I am not sure what you mean by recourse. An alternative course of action? Another way of making decisions? I obtain and make use of wisdom... I am not the wisdom anymore than I am my own strengths or talents, or the wisdom and knowledge obtained from others... so if 'recourse' is for justification then I would recommend differentiating between the person and the wisdom.

I never intended to suggest I am wise...and I most certainly am not the embodiment of wisdom. Nevertheless, I do seek wisdom...as for hidden treasure. It is that dear to me.

Funny thing about wisdom...it can be learned even from a fool. Those believed to be wise do not always conduct themselves in a wise manner, either.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Are you suggesting perhaps that wisdom is NOT based on judgment of the past? Maybe like a spontaneous decision or a gut feeling? Whether flipping coins on a gut feeling, receiving guidance from God or others, or making a decision after many hours of deliberation, it is still based on the past. The most flippant, spontaneous, chaotic choice made is still based on a judgment of the past, from what is available in the mind.

I am suggesting that wisdom is necessary to conduct ourselves appropriately. How that wisdom is gathered seems to be the issue.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Why do I make the distinction with time? A couple of reasons. To help a person further separate the words 'krino' and 'katakrino'. Also, as a reminder that people can change. A person simply can not judge the future and can not condemn the past. People can change but yesterday can not.

Yes, people can change, and that is the whole reason and purpose behind not standing in judgment of another. That person may yet learn and repent, that is in G-d's hands. I am too busy concerning myself with myself and my charges to be concerned with bearing judgment against others I am not charged with. Even so, a wise word turns away wrath. A brother or sister made aware of an unwise course is saved a lot of heartache. These are seeds planted, beyond which I have no control without express invitation.

We have to guide our lives. Either that, or surrender that control to another. I do not trust my soul to any other human, I have been led down primrose paths that lead to dead ends before. I made the conscious choice to make my own decisions to guide my life, for better or worse, I will be accountable for my own actions. Even if I surrender to another, while they will receive reward and repercussion, I will still be accountable for my choice to surrender. I will not be blameless because I surrendered. So I may as well take on full responsibility. Right or wrong, for honor or dishonor, I will stand before my Heavenly Judge in full answer for how I have conducted my life. I will have no one to blame. My choice.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Note that the wisdom of eating and drinking with anyone including tax-gatherers and sinners instead of condemning them by NOT eating and drinking is at the heart of the OP.

I judge no person in meat or drink except myself.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

As long as you see that words do not condemn. The Gospel as I read it distinguishes 'krino' and 'katakrino'.

Perhaps. Yet, what are thoughts if not composed of words? I suppose there may be some, like very young children or mentally challenged persons, who think predominantly in images. But by and large rational adults think in words. Words issued by another human may not have the power to condemn (sidestepping a court judge's ruling), but words do hold a great power over us. If we believe we are ______ (insert "ugly," "stupid," "barbaric," etc.) because of the words echoing in our minds, we become these things. We become what we believe. So, words do have the power to condemn, but they are our own words. Even if initially placed by another, we take them and make them our own. If I believe I am a no-good, worthless scoundrel, I will conduct myself in such a manner. It is my responsibility to cast aside these negative self-affirmations and replace them with positive affirmations. That is wisdom. It is also judging. It is not condemning, unless we choose to condemn ourselves.

Originally Posted by cyberpi

So you think Jesus condemned people when he said, "You serpents, you generation of vipers, how can you escape the judgment of hell?"... or said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" I am wary of who writes the religion. The gospel in Greek separates 'krino' and 'katakrino' more distinctively.

Interesting question, since Jesus is called "the Living Word."

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I'm thankful your mom's friend demonstrated that Arab Muslims can be Christian in nature... right?

Hopefully this ignorant innocence you describe can be extended to others like the person who made the thread that was condemned, and Silas, and Terrance, etc...

Ah, now we reach the crux of the matter.

By your own philosophy, how were these condemned?

You are mistaking some crucial points, namely tolerance and peace.

Are you suggesting that a police officer charged with keeping the peace should stand idly by and allow someone to run roughshod through a neighborhood? Perhaps we should return to the days of the wild west where real men wore a gun on their side to prevent buttheads from taking over the town? Or just have a shoot out at the corral with every turn? Why not descend into lawlessness? Why be responsible for one's actions?

I have repeatedly pointed out that persons, any persons, are allowed their point of view. The only requisite was tolerance of other views. When there is intolerance of other views, it becomes disruptive and no longer conducive to peaceful interaction.

There are plenty of other places on the internet for lawlessness. This place has chosen not to encourage free-for-alls. It seems to me tolerance and peace are extremely small requests, without which this place becomes another generic shouting match, and a microcosm of everything that is wrong with cultural exchange in the real world. Is peace and tolerance too great a price to ask to change? If so, then that person makes it known they do not belong here.

Unless and until they choose to conduct themselves otherwise. Considering multiple warnings were issued and ignored, I think a time out was in order with those you mentioned.

[cyberpi]

A voice is condemned when it is silenced or censored by ears that will not hear it. When stones are really thrown at someone, that is when a voice gets condemned. No comparison between a rebuke and condemning. Polar opposites.

Is the Internet really a dangerous place? Free speech a license to kill? Amazing to me that someone believes that words can hurt them. If Jesus teaches to turn the cheek, then why do people gag the voice or punch the dolt that doesn't please them? To keep the peace? I don't think so.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

A voice is condemned when it is silenced or censored by ears that will not hear it. When stones are really thrown at someone, that is when a voice gets condemned. No comparison between a rebuke and condemning. Polar opposites.

Is the Internet really a dangerous place? Free speech a license to kill? Amazing to me that someone believes that words can hurt them. If Jesus teaches to turn the cheek, then why do people gag the voice or punch the dolt that doesn't please them? To keep the peace? I don't think so.

Guess that's what happens to folks who refuse to accept the "rebukes". After awhile, an establishment is left with little choice but to remove the one causing problems. Even a church will eventually (though with regret), censure and expel the "offender", who refuses to adhere to the rules of the parish, and ignores the rebukes of the counsel of the parish.

Freedom of speech, yes most assuredly, but sometimes it comes at a price.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I'm thankful your mom's friend demonstrated that Arab Muslims can be Christian in nature... right?

Hopefully this ignorant innocence you describe can be extended to others like the person who made the thread that was condemned, and Silas, and Terrance, etc...

If ignorant innocence is the causal factor for the issue, that can and is usually rectified by education and enlightenment (which usually is accepted gratefully and gracefully by the one who didn't know any better).

Once ground rules are known, yet the behavior continues on as before, ignorance and innocence are no longer mitigating factors that can be fallen back on. And then the extended hand of welcome must be reluctantly withdrawn.

Such is the way of life.

[shadowman]

that was a nice story quahom

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

If ignorant innocence is the causal factor for the issue, that can and is usually rectified by education and enlightenment (which usually is accepted gratefully and gracefully by the one who didn't know any better).

Once ground rules are known, yet the behavior continues on as before, ignorance and innocence are no longer mitigating factors that can be fallen back on. And then the extended hand of welcome must be reluctantly withdrawn.

Such is the way of life.

Reminds me of Iraq. Whatever welcome hand reluctantly withdrawn long ago. No judgment. Lots of condemning. Bridges burnt everywhere. Keepers of peace? I don't think so.

The welcome hand must be the government who has mortgaged the grandchildren's lives to pay for this emperor's clothes. Education or enlightenment? The grandchildren of the world will be the judge of that.

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Guess that's what happens to folks who refuse to accept the "rebukes". After awhile, an establishment is left with little choice but to remove the one causing problems. Even a church will eventually (though with regret), censure and expel the "offender", who refuses to adhere to the rules of the parish, and ignores the rebukes of the counsel of the parish.

Freedom of speech, yes most assuredly, but sometimes it comes at a price.

Was Silas rebuked? So you first judged him and then condemned him. I couldn't believe it... I thought he had just left. I don't think he did anything wrong.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

If I may remind:

Originally Posted by cyberpi

NIV:

Judge, judging (krino)
-> sue Matthew 5:40
-> condemn, condemned John 3:17, John 3:18, John 7:51, John 12:48, John 16:11
-> pass judgment John 8:15

Judgment (krisis)
-> condemned Matthew 23:33, John 5:24, John 5:29
-> justice Matthew 12:18, Matthew 12:20, Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42
-> sin Mark 3:29
-> verdict John 3:19
-> decisions John 8:16
gone: Mark 6:11

Judgment (krima)
judgment John 9:39
-> punished Matthew 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47
-> sentence, sentenced Luke 23:40, Luke 24:20
worded out: Matthew 7:2

I should add that in KJV, Youngs, NIV, the greek 'diskastes' is also translated as 'Judge' in Luke 12:14 to eliminate a contrast in words.

So from the Greek word 'krisis', the NIV scribes believe that 'judgment', 'condemned', 'justice', 'sin', 'verdict', and a 'decision' are all really the same thing anyway. Or maybe they think they can divine words into new definitions. Poetic license?

Was Silas rebuked? So you first judged him and then condemned him. I couldn't believe it... I thought he had just left. I don't think he did anything wrong.

I believe you are making mountains out of molehills. In the sense of a deliberate and considered decision a judgment was made after multiple warnings were issued and unheeded, deliberation among the staff about the matter, and my own return of fire on one occasion in an attempt to plainly illustrate, only after all of this was Silas removed. We do not make these decisions lightly, nor do we do so spuriously. We do not get our jollies removing someone. Until you understand this, or walk a mile in any of our shoes, you really have no place judging our decisions.

There need be no more said to this issue.

Reminds me of Iraq. Whatever welcome hand reluctantly withdrawn long ago. No judgment. Lots of condemning. Bridges burnt everywhere. Keepers of peace? I don't think so.

The welcome hand must be the government who has mortgaged the grandchildren's lives to pay for this emperor's clothes. Education or enlightenment? The grandchildren of the world will be the judge of that.

Conflating issues, are we? There is a thread about anarchy right now on the politics board, perhaps that is a better place to vent.

I have answered your question, now answer mine. Tell me, how do your children behave at a dinner party? Are they mannered, or do you allow them to run wild and unruly?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

...Tell me, how do your children behave at a dinner party? Are they mannered, or do you allow them to run wild and unruly?

I'd like to answer that one...my two sons had a choice, either behave in a civil manner before the table and guests, or else we would have a little reminder conversation...and they would suffer the embarrassment of going to their room, while company was present.

Behave in a socially acceptable manner, and they were included right along in the conversations and company of the guests, as equals (albeit younger equals).

This is how children learn to "socialize" in the real world.