Jesus wants you to judge

I’ve always been a pretty big fan of the Ten Commandments. My favorites is the one that says “Thou shalt not judge.”

Oh, that one isn’t in there, you say?

Sorry, it’s easy to forget nowadays, especially in this country where many Christians carry on as though the entire Bible could be summed up by the phrase, “it’s all good, bro.”

In actual fact, there are a lot of urgent truths and important moral lessons in the Bible. Interestingly, almost all of them have fallen out of favor in modern American society. Here are just a few verses that aren’t particularly trendy or popular nowadays:

(WARNING: Politically incorrect truths ahead)

“Whoever harms one of these little ones that believes in me, it would be better for him if a millstone where tied around his neck and he were drowned in the depths of the ocean.”

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.”

“But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, unless the marriage is unlawful, causes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

“Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

“For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.”

Strange as it may seem, enlightened, progressive Christians rarely attempt to wrestle Ephesians 5 or 2 Thessalonians 3 into a conversation. Yet, while the bulk of the Bible has ended up on our civilization’s cutting room floor, the warnings about “judging” are quoted and repeated incessantly, by Christians and non-Christians alike.

Apparently, the rest of the Book is outdated, outmoded, antiquated and fabricated, but the verses about judging — that stuff is gold, man.

Here’s a fun experiment: post something on your Facebook condemning any sin — not sinner, but sin. Maybe write a few paragraphs about why we shouldn’t kill babies, or why marriage is sacred. Write something defending truth. Write something combating popular cultural lies about morality. Write something where you call out an act — not a person — an act, and then sit back and wait for the responses. Statistically speaking, it will take only 4.7 seconds before a self identified Christian rushes in to insist that you must never speak out against any evil, ever, for any reason, lest you be guilty of “judging.”

And then the “no judging” chorus will begin:

“We’re not allowed to judge.”

“Christians shouldn’t judge.”

“Jesus said to never judge.”

“You’re not a real Christian because you are judging.”

“You’re judging so I’m going to judge you and tell you that you’re a piece of garbage because you judge so much!”

“Judger! You’re a big fat judge-face, all you do is judge all day like a judging judge McJudgePants!”

And so on.

Now, here’s the thing: they’re right — well, almost. Unfortunately, they left out an important word. It’s not that we shouldn’t judge at all — it’s that we shouldn’t judge WRONGLY. The idea that we shouldn’t judge at all is 1) absurd, 2) impossible, 3) very much at odds with every moral edict in all of Scripture. It’s also hypocritical, because telling someone not to judge is, in and of itself, a judgement. Any time you start a sentence with “you shouldn’t,” whatever comes next will constitute a judgement of some kind. Saying, “you shouldn’t judge,” is like saying, “there are no absolutes.”

Translation: you shouldn’t judge… except when judging people for judging. There are no absolutes… except the absolute that there aren’t any absolutes.

Yet, have you ever noticed that these “Don’t Judge” folks are nowhere to be found when the conversation turns to the Westboro Baptists, or domestic abusers, or the Nazis, or Republicans? I guarantee I could write a post condemning gay marriage opponents as bigots and homophobes and not a one of these pragmatists would swoop in to tell me not to “judge.”

Behind the Bible, my second favorite book is the dictionary. Let’s consult it, shall we?

Judge: To form an opinion of; decide upon; settle; to infer, think, hold as an opinion.

When you tell someone not to judge, you’re telling them to stop deciding things, to stop forming opinions, to stop thinking, and to stop inferring. Brilliant bit of philosophy, Plato. “Stop thinking and deciding!” Do you really think Jesus meant THAT when he told us not to judge? Well, I guess you can’t think about it one way or another if you’re adhering to this whole “never judge” schtick.

I know we live in a sound bite culture. Everything has to be condensed down to 14 syllables or less, and every concept must be communicated in under 12 seconds. Entire elections are decided this way. And while this strategy doesn’t work well in the democratic system, it’s an absolute catastrophic heretical disaster if you try to utilize it in the realm of theology. Yes, Jesus said “Judge not,” but you have to read the rest of that passage, and then the rest of the Book to put those two words into context. Once you’ve done that, you’ll understand that what He meant is precisely the opposite of how it is translated by modern cowards who are looking for any excuse to shrink away from the task of standing up against our culture and its many lies.

We must judge. We must exercise judgement. We must be discerning and decisive. We must expose evil and identify sin. Only we must do it righteously and truly. Judge, but judge rightly. That’s the point. We are to judge the sin, not the sinner. People seem to love the latter part of that phrase, and then selectively forget the first portion.

We can not condemn a man to hell. We can not see inside his soul. This is an important point, but it doesn’t mean we can’t speak harshly about the atrocities of a particular individual. If a guy commits adultery, I’ll call him an adulterer. That’s not an insult or an evaluation of his soul; it’s a true and accurate judgement based on the fruits he has produced. If a guy steals, he is a thief. If he murders, he is a murderer. If he commits tyrannies, he is a tyrant.

Jesus stopped a bloodthirsty mob from stoning a woman to death for adultery. Famously, he said “let he without sin cast the first stone.” This profound Biblical event has since been contorted to mean that nobody can condemn any (popular) sin, or speak out against any (popular) evil, because nobody is perfect.

Nonsense.

Jesus wasn’t telling the crowd to chill out and be cool with infidelity; he was telling them that they don’t have the authority to pass final judgement on another human being for their moral shortcomings. In the immediate sense, he was also stopping them from brutally killing a woman. This can not be construed into him strolling in with a shrug and saying, “Hey, live and let live, dudes.” In fact, after he forgave the woman’s sin, he commanded her to “sin no more.”

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. That doesn’t mean that we must be without sin before we can call a sin a sin. Just because we make a judgment does not mean we are throwing rocks at a helpless woman. Sometimes, it means we are shedding light into a terrifying darkness.

Remember, this is the same Jesus who told us to separate the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the wolves; the Jesus who called his opponents “snakes” and “vipers”; the Jesus who made a whip and violently drove the money changers out of the temple; the Jesus who said he came to bring a sword and drive a wedge between families.

He was loving and peaceful, but He was also manly, strong, courageous, outspoken, decisive, and commanding. He wasn’t a hippy. He was, and is, a King and a Warrior. Our culture has an agenda, and the agenda has nothing to do with following Christ or His precepts. Flimsy modern weaklings have taken the “don’t judge” concept out of context — twisted it, perverted it, and used it as an excuse to sit silently while all manner of unspeakable evils happen in their midst.

They’ve tried to turn Christianity into a religion of apathy and permissiveness. I certainly make judgments about their slander of my faith. I judge it to be sacrilegious, evil, and despicable.

And I judge it rightly.

So, don’t judge? Wrong. Judge. We must judge. The Bible exists, in large part, to shape our judgement and to tell us how to judge. We must teach our kids to have good and moral judgement. We must equip them with the spiritual tools to exercise it publicly, without fear. We must show them how to be discerning, critical thinkers.

You can not raise your children without judgement; you can’t function as a civilized human being without judgement; and you certainly can’t be an obedient Christian without judgment.

I am a sinful person. If you would ever consider accepting and celebrating my sins for the sake of being “non-judgmental,” please do me a favor and stop doing me that favor. I don’t want to be made comfortable and confident in my wrongdoing.

I’d rather have you hurt my feelings as you help me get to Heaven, than protect my feelings as you usher me right along to Hell.

************

Find me on Facebook.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1,056 Responses to Jesus wants you to judge

  1. babypodof4 says:

    I think part of the problem is when judging turns to hatred. I know so many people where they judge someone on welfare, or someone who is homeosexual – and with that judgement comes hatred.

    I am not attracted to people of the same sex. I imagine it would be very difficult if I were and that would be something I would have to come to terms with one way or another if I were. I can not hate those who are attracted to those of the same sex. Do I think it probably isn’t “right” – yes – but at the same time I have had pets who were attracted to those of the same gender so it is found in nature. The choice they made is between them and God – and it is really hurting no one besides themselves.

    Could I have an abortion – no. I couldn’t imagine any situation where I could abort my baby. Rape, incest, ill baby, my life in jeopardy – I couldn’t do it. That is just who I am. To me life begins when the heart starts beating. I wish no one else would have an abortion either. I wish it were illegal – but I will not hate someone who has an abortion. I don’t get how someone could use abortion as a form of birth control (and yes, some people do have abortions over and over again as a form of birth control) – but I am not them and I am not walking in their shoes. This does cross the line because it does stop a beating heart – and to me that is more than just harming yourself – but I can’t hate them.

    I try very hard not to dislike or hate people for some of these reasons – yet so many Christians do. That is what upsets me about judgement. I have been told over and over again that I am not Christian because I fall more on the liberal side of the political spectrum. Since I voted one way and not the other then I am not Christian. I work in WIC with un-wed mothers and jobless people thus I am helping them to sin – when really I just don’t want their kids to go to bed hungry because it is not the child’s fault.

    Your article is well written – and I wish things would change (such as abortion) – but too many people’s judgement leads to hatred.

    • TBe says:

      People might be upset over sin and evil, but while it may be perceived to be “hate”, iwe can’t know for sure if they have a motive of hatred in their heart (God knows for sure and will judge as He sees fit), they may be just sad and upset that so many are turning away from the moral truths of God and that results in eventual hurt of the whole country.

      I hope the following prayer encourages you

      Dear Lord Jesus, thank You for coming to earth to show us the way, to bring us true satisfaction that money can’t buy, rest for our weary souls – inner joy and eternal peace with God. Thank you there us nothing we can do to earn Your favor, for we have fallen short, unworthy to be admitted into Your perfect heaven. Thank You that all we need to do is believe in, and receive, You to be our Savior and Lord, and You will make us anew from within, cleanse us, forgive us and give us eternal/ everlasting life! I believe in You, Jesus, and ask you to live within me, and thank you for dying on the cross in my place, to be my Lamb-of-God taking away my sins, and giving me the free gift of eternal life!

      Does the above prayer express the desire of your heart? Out of love, and no pressure, have you ever personally prayed a prayer similar to this before? If not, won’t you please consider doing so today?

      God’s Holy Word states “now is the day of salvation”. The Apostle Peter pleaded-
      And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” (Acts 2:40 NKJV).

      The above prayer is based upon a number of Bible verses and I encourage you to look up these verses for yourself: John 1:12, 1:29, 10:9-11, 3:16, Matt.11:28-30, Titus 3:1-9, Romans 3:23, 6:23, 5:1-11, 2 Peter 3:9

    • Susan Wolf says:

      Yes same gender attraction is found “in nature” but as animals don’t even have a moral code (even most non Christians have some inherent sense of right and wrong-animals need to be taught)
      and we were placed above animals I don’t believe your comparison is a valid one. I don’t know who is trying to tell you you aren’t Christian because of these things but you need to tell them to go away-

    • Kmart says:

      One does not hate because of opinion or thinking critically. Just as we judge a child molester as evil, we judge the actions of people. Using critical thinking, we can also judge a person’s heart. If someone says, “I’m sorry,” and then blames others for their bad actions, I can safely make the judgement that they are not sorry.
      Saying “don’t judge” or “stop hate” is basically progressive society’s way of saying stop thinking or you can form an opinion but if your opinion is different than mine, then I will judge you back. It’s hypocritical. The standard of what we judge rightly is our worldview. Worldviews clash. Just be careful using the phrase stop hate or don’t judge as an excuse to create moral ambiguity.
      I was told in church that Christians aren’t allowed to hate. That it is a sin to be angry. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Ephesians 4:26 says, “in your anger, do not sin.” The same Jesus who fed the 5,000 and proved God’s love and redemption of man, also “hates” divorce, “hates” the desecration of His temple, “hates” sin. Would Jesus be a picketer for Westboro? Hardly because love wins out over all and through all judgement, it should be done with love. Love for God, others, good, and the redemption of all.

  2. Lisa says:

    Interesting article, but I DISAGREE! Your last paragraph is a shocker! NOBODY can help you get to heaven, the statement that as Christians we can come together and help each other get to heaven is a contradiction to Christian foundational belief. Jesus is the ONLY way to heaven and the ONLY way to Salvation. If, as you say, as Christians we do have the duty to judge… it is among the VERY LAST things on a very long list of more important things Christians should do: love, forgive, intercede, pray, disciple, encourage, serve… etc. Our model of Christianity is Jesus himself and the only situation where he was “judgmental” was with the religious leaders. Remember the two men praying at the temple… one on his knees confessing his sins with humility… the other standing on his self righteousness… who’s prayers were answered??? The problem with Christians today isn’t our problem with confronting sin in others… it’s finding too many excuses to justify OUR OWN sin.

    • James says:

      When matt said that Christians can help each other get to heaven, he did not mean that Christians can actually formulate a plan together to get to heaven. He meant that Christians can help others get to heaven by being an acive agent in pointing out they need a savior. If people don’t know they are sinners and need to be saved, why and how would they accept a savior. We are called to be a witness. This does not mean that we can “do” anything to help people get saved. But by telling others about Jesus and pointing out they need a savior in a loving way and in the Holy Spirit’s timing is our mission. We are not just supposed to go around and be a bunch of judging pharisees is not the idea the article is conveying even though some have inferred this.

      • Actually I believe his usage of “help me get to heaven” was referring to accountability. Here is a part of being Christian far too many ignore: The Bible says whoever believes in Christ will be made new and clean of his/her sin. So what happens exactly when you sin again? You ask for forgiveness again, and again, and again, because the more you confront your sin (and others help you) the more you become sin-free. The point he is trying to make in the article is that we are supposed to judge a person’s actions, to recognize sin, or else it will run rampant… look around you in society and tell me you do not see this happening, there is a direct correlation to the Christian community and Church becoming relatively silent when it comes to sin- and the extreme growth of sin in recent history. One part he left out about sin, is the Bible actually explicitly tells you to judge, inside the church.

        Read: 1 Corinthians 5:11-13 Amplified Bible (AMP):
        11 But now I write to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of [Christian] brother if he is known to be guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater [whose soul is devoted to any object that usurps the place of God], or is a person with a foul tongue [railing, abusing, reviling, slandering], or is a drunkard or a swindler or a robber. [No] you must not so much as eat with such a person.
        12 What [business] of mine is it and what right have I to judge outsiders? Is it not those inside [the church] upon whom you are to pass disciplinary judgment [passing censuring sentence on them as the facts require]?
        13 God alone sits in judgment on those who are outside. Drive out that wicked one from among you [expel him from your church].

        How is it that we have forgotten so much about what the Church was taught in its early days? How is it that we have become so diluted with sin that you don’t speak out about someone openly committing adultery? How is it that if we feel we can justify something, its not sin? I’ll tell you how, its not holding each other accountable for ones actions, its by not supporting each other as followers of Christ. One of my favorite movie quotes says it best: “Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.”

        Along with that quote, I’d like to provide one of my own regarding justification, which by definition makes me both laugh and cry that people who constantly justify say don’t judge. Here is my personal quote: “If you must justify you’re actions here on earth, chances are you won’t be able to in Heaven”

        • Dana Ferguson says:

          Absolutely on point. Let me add, a preacher “judges” in every sermon, yet we don’t condemn him/her. Many times my pastor of old would notice the sins of the congregation and point them out as sins in his sermons without mentioning anyone in particular. Even good Christians need guidance less we fall short unawares.

      • Le says:

        Yes, James, I agree with you!

    • Allan says:

      We absolutely help each other get to heaven. It’s one of the best aspects of the church (community of belivers). Jesus is the way, but it’s the Christian’s duty to point a lost world to the way (Jesus), and to help struggling brothers and sisters to stay on the way (Jesus).

      As we learn in the book of James, chapter 5:19-20 – 19 My brethren, if any among you strays from the truth and one turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. (NASB)

    • Linda says:

      Yes you can help a fellow Christian serve The Lord and direct there path towards heaven. In the Bible there are many scripture’s. The Book of Jude 1:23 Rescue others by snatching them from the flames of judgment. Show mercy to still others, but do so with great caution, hating the sins that contaminate their lives.

  3. Cherie says:

    Amen, well said.

  4. Nicole B. says:

    I’m sorry but there is too much fallacy and conjecture for me to take this seriously. Where are your credentials?

    • Lizzy Lu Who says:

      Ah. Ahem. Ah heh heh hem! Where are YOUR credentials?

      • Jeremy Gamet says:

        Ah ahem ahamah ahammememememeemhemmmm? Lizzy he has a good point. I’d like to know exactly what ecclesiastic training he has. His lack of emphasis on the new testament is suspect.

        • Doopy says:

          Well, I’ve been studying the Bible and exploring theology for 20 years, and agree 100% with Mr. Walsh’s point. We are repeatedly, specifically, told to judge in the Bible. That much is clear to anyone willing to read it.

          Now, rather than arguing credentials (ad hominem fallacy) let’s argue the point. Is there anything technically wrong with the points made?

        • Jeremy, Really? Lack of New Testament? I don’t mean to be sarcastic but just about everything he quoted was from the New Testament! When we are unable to answer an argument, the most convenient defense is to attack the messenger. Credentials? I don’t get the question at all. Had he eloquently voiced an opinion you agreed with, would you care about his credentials? The discussion should be centered around his argument, not his seminary degree or ordination certificate.

        • Jesus lived by the OT. Could it be that Jesus further clarified and exemplified what the OT was already getting at?

        • Linda says:

          Jesus never cared for people’s credentials. I recall that the leaders of his day were described as snakes & vipers.

      • Nicole B. says:

        Well I’m studying at a university to get a degree. As a student I’m bound to ask questions. I was reminded of lessons in my Written Comm class as I read this article if you must know. So yes I am asking for his credentials because they are crucial to the validity of this article.

        • Tony says:

          When it pertains to spiritual matters, the only crendential one should (or the one that really matters) is the Holy Spirit. No degree or formal education will ever substitute being filled with, taught by, and led by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth. (John 16:13). The only authority and source is the Holy Bible (Word of God). No other credentials are necessary. However if you are not saved and filled with the Holy Spirit, none of what he said as pertaining to judging will make any sense to you. Why? Because you don’t have the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul said it best in I Corinthians 2:14, “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” Let’s read the next 2 verses (15-16) The SPIRITUAL MAN makes JUDGMENTS about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgement; “for who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” BUT WE HAVE THE MIND OF CHRIST.”

    • David says:

      You asked “Where are your credentials?” Please read the following and then know that his credentials come from the true, authoritative, word of God. When that is the case, you absolutely need no credentials of your own:

      One Solitary Life:
      He was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in still another village, where he worked in a carpenter shop until he was thirty. Then for three years was an itinerant preacher.

      He never wrote a book.
      He never held an office.
      He never had a family or owned a house.
      He didn’t go to college.
      He never traveled 200 miles from the place where he was born.
      He did none of these things one usually associates with greatness.
      He had no credentials but himself.
      He was only 33 when public opinion turned against him. His friends ran away.

      He was turned over to his enemies and went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed to a cross between two thieves. When he was dying, his executioners gambled for his clothing, the only property he had on earth. When he was dead, he was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.

      Nineteen centuries have come and gone, and today He is the central figure of the human race, the leader of mankind’s progress. All the armies that have ever marched, all the navies that ever sailed, all the parliaments that ever sat, all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man on earth as much as that One Solitary Life.

      • Nicole B. says:

        I’m not referring to Jesus. I’m referring to the author of this article. Where are the sources cited for his statistics? Where is his research? What position does he hold within the church that gives him the okay to write this? Has this blog post even been approved the Catholic Church?

        • notsocrazy says:

          1) The only time he ever uses the word statistic, it’s clearly a somewhat facetious reference to how quickly you can draw negative responses from people on social media. 2) As a Christian, he is entitled to read and draw from the Word of God, and write about it in a fashion that makes no claim to any more legitimacy than his own opinion. Note that he does not claim to be representing the Church as a whole. 3) It’s been a long while since things had to be approved by the Catholic Church to be Christian, and it’s never been true that something must be approved by the Catholic Church to be right. As a Protestant who is aware of Church bodies like East Orthodox, the Ethiopian Church, and the Coptic Church, only Catholics are still self-centered and ignorant enough of Jesus’s teachings to think that the Pope, and not God’s Word, is the final say on God’s Word.

        • Alisa says:

          To notsocrazy:
          ” only Catholics are still self-centered and ignorant enough of Jesus’s teachings to think that the Pope, and not God’s Word, is the final say on God’s Word.”

          I am not Catholic, but Catholics are still Christians and still people and still deserve respect and love. That is a perfect example of why “don’t judge” has become so over-done in the first place. Because instead of judging biblically and lovingly, we judge in a manner that Jesus never intended. We think that “judging” calls us to tell others what they must do because we are right. No. If you feel led to tell someone about their sin, then do it. But after that it is up to God to convict them and change their ways. If they do not feel convicted, then let it be.

          We need to be aiming towards becoming one body, not continue bashing each other. If as Christians we attack each other, what does that accomplish? What does that say to non-believers?? While I agree that God’s Word is final, I think that you can agree that sometimes we all need some guidance to hear God’s Word clearly. If Nicole B would like something to be approved by the Catholic church before she believes it, then that is her conviction, just like it is yours that it doesn’t have to be. I’m sure that there are much bigger, and more eternal aspects of your faith that you do agree on.

    • Be careful about demanding credentials aside from the Word. If it’s truth then even the common man will be able to discern it.

      • Michelle Angelo says:

        But doesn’t Satan work in secretive ways? Can he not creep into the heart and brain of the common man to whisper?

    • Linda says:

      The Bible is all the credentials you need.

  5. This is a fantastic post – and it is sure to generate a lot of anger as people pass judgment on you.

    • Fantastic post – right on the mark. I have been “in the church” for 59 years – best explanation I have heard of this subject. As far as “credentials” go………I believe the Pharisees asked the same thing of Jesus.

      • Nicole B. says:

        Something tells me that I am not a Pharisee and this author is not Jesus. I have been a member of my faith for many years now. How is it wrong of me to question this post?

        • Rob B says:

          There’s absolutely nothing wrong with questioning the post itself. It’s the fact that instead of debating or discussing what he said, you want to know who gives the man the authority to write this type of criticism of Christianity and that type of thinking is usually used to deflect attention from the point the author was trying to make in the first place.

        • Your so educated that you can’t accept that he is a blogger who is entitled to his opinion, if you disagree, then go somewhere else and STOP comenting.

        • Alisa says:

          Nicole, I think it is good to question all things. There is such things as spiritual abuse, and there are many “spiritual leaders” who are very far from Christ, so questioning is wise. I think others are upset at your demand for credentials, because it is their belief that God can teach through any and all people, regardless of credentials. Because the author has no credentials listed, I suppose you will have to decide for yourself whether his points are worth listening to. If you ask me, you’re following this article better than those who are so adamantly backing him up; you’re judging it and deciding for yourself! Question away- I have no doubt you’ll find the answers.

  6. Melissa says:

    This was so very well articulated, and backed up with scripture. As always, you broached a subject that most people refuse to, and did an excellent job. Thanks for this!

  7. Scorpy says:

    I think the author is right in that society nowadays tends to want christians to be passive and meek, like Buddhism which teaches people to live and let live. I agree this shouldn’t be the case, but I also believe there are individuals who are qualified to judge and individuals who are not. Jesus warns us to “first remove the beam that is in our own eye” before worrying about the speck in our brother’s eye.

    Judgement should be from a spirit and intent to lead another person to experience life to the fullest with God at your side each day. Instead, a lot of christian’s judgement comes from a place of self righteousness and insecurity where their intent is to make themselves feel like they’re better than the other person.

    Before judging, pray that God will give you the wisdom to choose the right words and methods to reach this person.

  8. It is not THAT we judge, it is that we condemn and discriminate against others BY and WITH our judgments. People have taken to using the bible more as a bludgeon than as a blanket to comfort. I do not believe God would approve, and when He sent His Son to teach, the message was about love and unification under the Father, and the path to Him. Jesus did not leave instructions from the Father to judge others from a position of self-righteous piety.

    • Legacy says:

      So true! Christians tend to condemn instead of using judgment as a discernment tool. And to boot they condemn based on their position of self-righteousness instead of by God’s terms, I.e. “your sin is much worse than my sin so I’m a better/more spiritual person than you” nonsense. How about “therefore there is now no condemnation in Christ”?!?

      • Le says:

        Legacy, I have seen and spoken with some who did hold the attitude of which you speak. Made me sick. I tend to think those “my sin is better than yours” type people are not Christians, whether they call themselves that or not. Why? For the simple reason that ALL have sinned, and without the saving blood of Jesus, NONE of us have the hope of heaven. The most basic truth of Christianity, and one I am so very blessed to know. I am grateful to know many, many believers, and they do not have this attitude at all. I do have to disagree with your usage of the last Scripture. “No condemnation in Christ” refers to those who are redeemed – those who have trusted in Jesus as their Savior and asked Him for forgiveness of their sins. What it is saying, is that once one has taken that step of faith, he is a child of God. Despite the depravity of his sins, he is no longer condemned, but forgiven. God has cast his sins as far as the East is from the West. No one can pluck him out of his Father’s hand. While he is still a sinner, he is redeemed. God no longer looks at him and sees, “sinner,” but sees “His child.” Does that make sense? That particular passage doesn’t have anything to do with condemning one another, but with God no longer condemning those who have trusted in Him for their salvation, and reserving a place in heaven for them. Just trying to answer your question. Hope that helped.

        • Legacy says:

          So….God doesn’t condemn us because we’re in Christ, but his followers are supposed to for the same reason? There’s no logical reasoning there. Our mission is to love. Christ died for all and loves all. There were no caveats to His love- for those who accept Him or those that don’t. He gives us instructions on how he’d like us to live, but he doesn’t say “Joe down the street” is the Holy Spirit to lead and guide us to Him. Preach the word and let everyone have their own experience with God and let the Holy Spirit clean His own fish.

        • Le says:

          Oh no, Legacy. I didn’t say anything about condemning one another at all. I just explained what the verse meant. You are right, in that, it is never our job, as believers, to condemn. But it is our job to share the Gospel message, which is simply this: All have sinned(that’s you and that’s me), we all deserve to be punished, Jesus Christ came to earth, lived a perfect, sinless life(the only One ever to do that), died on the cross voluntarily for our sins(yours and mine), and rose again 3 days later, so that any who believe that He is the only way to heaven and trust in Him for forgiveness of our sins can be saved. Those rules in the Bible are more than just guidelines- they are there to show us the depravity of our hearts and then to point us to the One who gives us hope and can cleanse us from those sins. There is a reason we must tell the truth about sin. Without sin, there would be no need for a Savior! And to share that is truly a gift of love. You see, there was a time when someone shook off their fears of what my reaction would be, and ever so kindly and truthfully told me that I was a sinner and deserved to be punished. But that there was a very real, living Hope – and that hope was in the saving blood of Jesus. That day, I confessed my sins to God, asked for forgiveness and trusted that the perfect, saving blood of Jesus paid for my sins. That day I became a child of God – forever! Not because of any redeeming quality that I have, but because Jesus offers grace and forgiveness to anyone who accepts it. Anyone! And I am forever grateful, most of all to God, but also to the person who loved me enough to tell me. You see, they did not condemn me, but let the Word of God show me the truth, and loved me enough to lead me to the One who saved me. ❤

    • It is true that there is a lot of that. But I don’t think that was the point of this blog. The pendelum has swung so far that Christians are afraid to ever voice their opinion that a behavior is wrong in the eyes of God and unhealthy for those preacting it (one and the same). If we are judging correctly (something Jesus told us we should do), we would have the courage to say that some things are wrong, while having the best interests of the offender in mind. To never speak out about the error of sin is to be a doctor who did not have the courage to speak out about choices that would lead to sicknesses and death.

  9. Matt says:

    I don’t really understand your comment:
    “I’d rather have you hurt my feelings as you help me get to Heaven, than protect my feelings as you usher me right along to Hell. ”

    A Christian who has been saved — I am assuming you are that — is already going to Heaven. From what I understand (and believe) getting to Heaven is not all about how good I was or am even currently as a born again Christian; it’s all about how good Jesus is and that He died in our place for all our sins so we could be saved. And Jesus pointed out that sins weren’t just “the big stuff”; for example we sin by just looking at someone with envy, lust, anger, or think of things way deep in our hearts that others don’t even see — even if we don’t act on each one of these sinful feelings. Each one of those “small” sins is just as bad as a “big” one — it’s only we humans that like to rank them. So. What is accomplished by my pointing out your sins, I’m not really sure. As for pointing them out to someone who is not a Christian and expecting that to save them?…..I’m sure that works for some people. But what I often see on Facebook is we Christians arguing publicly against a particular sin and getting a lot of Facebook “likes” or affirmative comments, and maybe we feel ….uh…. a bit superior because we are “in the right” and we are defending the faith. Feeling superior or self-righteous is certainly a sin. I worry that that is what the Pharisees did: they pointed out the obvious sin of others and felt that they were doing a service to the community, being holy, being a bit superior, being role models, being defenders of right living. They must have found Jesus’s approach counter intuitive and counter justice — how dare you forgive that woman caught in adultery even before we have thrown our verbal stones at her, let alone our physical ones?

    • C71clark says:

      Isn’t one of our biggest jobs here to go out and preach the Word? If I understand it correctly, we are supposed to tell people about Jesus. Not just the politically correct parts either. The goal is to try and help other come to Jesus and be saved. Pretty hard to do that if you ignore any/all sinful behavior they are engaged in.

    • Sarah says:

      Well, see here. Among the many things Jesus has told us to do, becoming ‘more like the Father’ is one of the most important. “All scripture is God-breathed and good for teaching.” and “Correct one another in love.” (I don’t remember where these verses came from. :S)

      Sure, there is no doubt that God is the final Judge. There’s no point system or special pill to take that gets you an eternity with God. Those who are saved are saved by God’s grace and decision. Soo… Then, why are we here? To sit in our sin and twiddle our thumbs until we get swooped up to heaven in a fiery chariot?

      “God invented earth and heaven and he put people on earth just so they could die and go to heaven.” — many people’s subconscious thought

      Uh… what? That doesn’t even make sense.

      No, no, no. Earth makes sense because it is good. Everything God makes is good.
      I heard this thing somewhere and it goes like, ‘God loves us exactly where we are, but He loves us too much to let us stay there.’ God is constantly calling us to a higher standard of living because he knows that sin is bad for us. Bad for every inch of us.

      I think this is part of the reason why he made us relational creatures. So that we can have trusted groups of loved ones with clear eyes that can see when we’re being poisoned by this sin. I remember somebody once told me that we have communities of friends around us so that they can hear and see God when we are unable to.

      I definitely see the validity in the worry of becoming self-righteous when it comes to ‘correcting’ other peoples sins. With my pride and observant eye, I fall prey to this all too often. But I think this is where the ‘love’ in ‘correct one another in love’ comes in. After all, when we love somebody, we lay down ourselves for the benefit of the other.
      I know that when the time comes for me to point out the sin in a friends life, I have to go through an obstacle course of spiritual and emotional nature. Testing my heart, praying fervently, asking, ‘Should I really do this?’ ‘Is it my place to do this?’ ‘Is my heart in the right place for this?’
      It takes a lot to get to the point where I can honestly and lovingly set them down and tell them what I see.

      I feel like that is one part (a big part) of what TRULY loving a person looks like.

      I don’t know, I hope this helps a little bit in showing WHY we should point out the sins of others..

    • Jinak says:

      Matt,
      Once we have been saved after hearing God’s Word, believing (Mark 16:16), repenting of our sins (Acts 3:19), confessing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Luke 12:8, John 12:42) and are baptized for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38, 1 Pet 3:21, Rom 6:4, Acts 22:16, Gal 3:27), we can still fall from God’s grace.

      Paul often reminded the first century church in his letters that grace is not granted to us just because we were at one time saved, but we must stay in God’s grace (Gal 5:4, Heb 4:1, Heb 6:4-6). Paul himself in 1 Corinthians tells how he practices discipline so that he himself will not be disqualified from God’s grace (9:24-27). Jesus in Revelation 2:10 tells the church to be faithful until death. 2 Pet 1:5-11 tells us what things to practice so that we will never stumble and the entrance into the eternal Kingdom will be supplied to us. To be covered by God’s grace is a life-long process.

      God requires us to constantly strive to live a life without sin. We live knowing even our best is still imperfect and we can only gain our reward in Heaven through Jesus’ cleansing blood. That blood which washes us clean of the sins we must constantly repent of with sorrowful hearts and renewed determination to live tomorrow perfectly.

      It is because of this life-long process that we come to one another in love, reminding our brothers in sisters what the bible says regarding sin. We judge against God’s word, not against our own lives, so that we may help one another stay on that narrow path that leads to Heaven.

  10. dave simpson says:

    we are no longer under the law of Moses Jesus died to save His people from theirs sins. we are living in the grace dispensation now and are told not judge other fellow believers but we can be fruit inspectors we are told this Matthew chapters 5-7.

    • dave, If you reread the post, you’ll see that nearly every Scripture quoted was from the New Testament, not the Law of Moses. And there are times when the New Testament actually requires us to judge other fellow believers, see 1 Corinthians 5:11.

    • Joe M says:

      The verse talking about do not judging, is mis-quoted and is used as an excuse by a multitude of the human race to justify their deeds (whether good or bad). However, if you look at the whole context around that verse; you will realize that you can judge people. How you judge others is how you will be judged.

      Every day we as a human race judge others in the actions that they take. Judging actions is acceptable, however, we do not judge whether someone is going to hell or heaven.

      If I am sinning, I expect and rely on fellow believers to come up and say, “What you did there wasn’t right.” or something along those lines. THAT is our DUTY as believers.

      However, while we are living in the grace dispensation; we cannot receive that grace when you INTENTIONALLY choose to dis-obey the Word. If something was written as being wrong and sinful, and a person chooses to live in that lifestyle; they have NOT repented of their sins. Repent means to turn away from sin and turn fully towards God.

      No one lives sinless, and there are times where we all stumble. Those that make a choice each day to continue the wrong actions are not turned towards God.

  11. Daniel J says:

    Amen! As Jesus himself said in John 7:24, “Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.” This clearly tells me that we are commanded to judge in a discerning/wisdom type of manner, but not in such a way that we pronounce that someone is going to Hell or Heaven.

  12. Dee Love says:

    My favorite Scripture to judge is Jude 1: 14-15 – “…,the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,[that’s us]

    15 To execute judgment upon all,and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed,and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

  13. Bryce D. says:

    “We must show them how to be discerning, critical thinkers.”
    If only Christians really were critical thinkers… If Christian’s were really ‘critical thinkers,’ then there wouldn’t be Christianity at all. There is zero physical evidence supporting the existence of a deity. None; zilch. Christianity, quite simply, is a circular reasoning fallacy: A book says to believe in a deity. The deity says to believe the book. To believe the book, then you must believe the deity; but to believe the deity, you must believe the book. When in actually, there is no physical evidence to support either.
    So yes, I hope Christianity does show children how to be critical thinkers but doing so will cause its own demise.

    • Michael R. says:

      To be a critical thinker requires this to be false. I believe in God, but I do not believe the “Holy Bible” is what keeps me believing in God, because I do not hold it to be inerrant nor wholly true. It has been translated many times by man, so who knows what they changed, added, or deleted, either by accident or on purpose. It has some good points and I believe can still lead to a person to be better if they follow its edicts, but my belief in a higher power comes from years of actual experiences that cannot be explained away with coincidence, known science or logic. I am also a very scientific person and love the quote Heisenberg gave: “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

      • Angeline says:

        You’re right about the bible being full of errors & missing large chunks from it’s original volumes, and how it contains some good points (keyword, “some”). However, I can’t really vibe with you on the “at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you” part. The truth is, no one can claim for certain that any God exists. Anecdotal evidence like personal experiences prove nothing. People of all spiritual faiths and beliefs, monotheistic, polytheistic, or even neither, have claimed all sorts of “unique experiences” throughout all of history. That doesn’t make any of them any more legitimate. The human mind is capable of any manner of imaginations.

    • Kristen says:

      Haha that’s funny because Christianity has existed for 2014 years and God has been around since the beginning of time, were you there?! How long have you lived? Have you come back from the grave? Sorry I’ll take my chances with the “so called” diety as you proclaimed than believing you a mere human! It’s all about faith.

    • Angeline says:

      This is exactly the same thing I thought when I read that line. Critical thinking is what lead me right out of Christianity, & coincidentally that was the best decision I’ve ever made.

  14. Bryce D. says:

    “We must show them how to be discerning, critical thinkers.”
    If only Christians really were critical thinkers… If Christians were really ‘critical thinkers,’ then Christianity would cease to exist. There is zero physical evidence supporting the existence of a deity. None; zilch. Christianity, quite simply, is a circular reasoning fallacy: A book says to believe in a deity. The deity says to believe the book. To believe the book, then you must believe the deity; but to believe the deity, you must believe the book. When in actuality, there is no physical evidence to support either.
    So yes, I hope Christianity does show children how to be critical thinkers; but doing so will cause its own demise.

    • James says:

      Bryce, i am a Christian. I have made my faith my own. I am not one who has blindly accepted the faith of my parents for no better reason. I have looked at other religions. And i know the beliefs of evolution. There is logical explanation to how we all got here and why for that matter. It takes faith to believe in a deity that u cannot see and understand, but it also takes faith to believe in evolution. You seem to be in favor of raising critical thinkers. Do supporters of evolution really use critical thinking? There is no observered science behind the theory of evolution, and even Darwin himself doubted his own theory. The simularities in life and animals could lead to a common designer just as much as one could believe they all evolved from one another.

      I do understand your point about circular logic. God says the Bible is real. The bible says God is real. Science and history agree with the Bible more than you think. And prophies that were “Proven” to have been written hundreds of years prior came true and were documented by other writers hundreds of years later. It takes more faith to believe the Bible is not real.
      I’m sure you knew all of this already since you want to be a critical thinker and you would want to make an informed decison about whether or not the Bible has any validity behind it. But i agree, faith is not something you cannot still accept without a logical reason to accept it in the first place.

      • Angeline says:

        It really hurts my brain when people say evolution requires faith. No, it doesn’t. Faith, by definition, in the context of religion is “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.” There is nothing spiritual about evolution. It’s a natural process that has loads of available proof that supports it if you would just do a little research. There are intermediate fossils that possess both human and ape-like traits. There are organisms that roam the earth now that are reminiscent of organisms that lived millions of years ago. It requires no faith to believe something that has evidence visible to anyone who wishes to see it.

        Faith in religion requires no proof. The reason faith, in a religious context, is faulty, is because since it requires no proof, it can be applied to absolutely any scenario that the individual wants to be true. You want to believe in unicorns? Okay, just have faith that unicorns exist in another dimension that you can travel to once you die! You want to believe that life is one big play & we’re all being controlled like puppets? Okay, just have faith in that! Any number of things can be imagined with religious faith, which is why logical thinkers don’t take it seriously.

        • James says:

          I have a hard time believing that you really think believing in unicorns has as much validity than believing in the Bible. If you believe the Bible is full of errors, then enlighten me please. I will agree with you and others that there are translation errors and that mankind does not have in effect the orginal wrtten Word of God. But i will say that any translation can be matched with science and history.

          It does take faith to believe in God. I cannot prove there is a god. But can you prove there is not a god? I understand that just because one cannot prove there is not a god does not lead to the conclusive evidence that there has to be a diety.

          But what natural explanation exists for mankind through science and evolution? I cannot comprehend life before matter, and where did God come from. You cannot fathom where did the big bang spark come from. It takes faith to believe either theory. Scientists are looking for a way to reduplicate a big bang theory event. This does mean that there is evidence that the world was created by evolution. Scientists have also developed a dating system based on millions and billions of years. Since documented history only expands 6,000-10,000 years at best, what basis do scientists have for a scale in the millions and billions of years. If i say an orange weighs 10,000 lbs, then i guess a watermellon could weigh, 50,000 lbs. I would then have to weigh so much more, i will not try to formulate that. 🙂 fossils have forms from volcano explosions within our lifetime and have proven they do not take the millions of years that some scientists have speculated that they take.

          You mentioned that there are intermediate bones that have animal and human….. You study into these “findings” and they are covered in multiple layers of hoaxes and supposedly multiple tests that produced different results. At any rate, it is not conclusive evidence for macro evolution. Mutations have occured and have been observed and studied. Mutations have not occured across the entire living populous, and most mutations result in a loss of information, not an increase.
          Unless u actually take the time to read and research both sides of science, evolutionary and creative design, i’m afaid you are guity of being brainwashed into accepting one side of a mutiple complex debate that will not be settled with scientific evidence.

          But please, share whatever specific evidence you have in favor of evolution and against the Bible.

        • True. Evolution doesn’t require faith. I don’t see it being in conflict with scripture – taking Genesis 1-2 to allegorical meant to show deeper truth of “prototype” people and who God is to us doesn’t bother me. And as you said, faith requires just that faith. And sometimes its hard because its so subtle. In that, I find the beauty of it – the choice, the freedom, the subtlety 🙂

        • James McKenzie says:

          Here is an article I found about scientists, biologists, mathematicians are perplexed at the lack of apparent evidence for the “theory of evolution.” If you actually do any digging, there is “less” evidence for evolution than you think. You actually are left to just blindly accept it or “believe” that evolution is true. The article arose over a controversy over a biology text book in Texas.

          It’s not surprising, and certainly not controversial, that Ken Miller’s Pearson textbook, Biology, adopted for use in Texas, discusses and explains natural selection. Nothing wrong with that. For example, the textbook states “Natural selection does not make organisms ‘better.’ Adaptations don’t have to be perfect — just good enough to enable an organism to pass its genes to the next generation.” (p. 463) Fair enough. But the textbook never mentions that many biologists doubt that natural selection can explain the origin of new biological features, and that explaining the origin of the enormous complexity and diversity of living organisms remains one of the greatest challenges of biology.

          University of Zurich evolutionary biologist Andreas Wagner acknowledges that “Biologists know many fascinating examples of evolutionary innovations, and they know that natural selection can preserve an innovation once it has originated. However, they know little about the principles that allow innovations to originate in the first place.”1 A press release from the Santa Fe Institute, about a Nature paper co-authored by Wagner, states much the same thing: “Exactly how new traits emerge in evolution is a question that has long puzzled evolutionary biologists.”2 Writing in Nature, Wagner says: “How evolutionary adaptations and innovations originate is one of the most profound questions in evolutionary biology.”3 Other biologists concur.

          In 2009, Günter Theißen of the Department of Genetics at Friedrich Schiller University in Jena, Germany wrote in the journal Theory in Biosciences that modern Darwinian theory has not fully explained the origin of novel biological complexity:

          [W]hile we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin’s undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology.4

          An even more striking criticism of what he called the “dogmatic science” of neo-Darwinian thinking can be found in a 2006 paper by Theißen:

          Explaining exactly how the great complexity and diversity of life on earth originated is still an enormous scientific challenge . . . . There is the widespread attitude in the scientific community that, despite some problems in detail, textbook accounts on evolution have essentially solved the problem already. In my view, this is not quite correct.5

          U.S. National Academy of Sciences member biologist Lynn Margulis is also a notorious critic of neo-Darwinism, having written that “Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambigious evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation.”6 In a 2011 interview a few months before her death, Margulis continued: “Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create…. neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”7

          Evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe likewise describes himself as “a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory,”8 which he insists “cannot explain origins, or the actual presence of forms and behaviors”9 in organisms. Journalist Susan Mazur elaborates on Salthe’s criticisms of Darwinism:

          Stanley Salthe, a natural philosopher at Binghamton University with a PhD in zoology — who says he can’t get published in the mainstream media with his views .. . . told me the following: “Oh sure natural selection’s been demonstrated . . . the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations . . . . Summing up we can see that the import of the Darwinian theory of evolution is just unexplainable caprice from top to bottom. What evolves is just what happened to happen.”10

          In 2008, Nature published an article covering the Altenberg 16 conference, quoting biologist Scott Gilbert. He said that “[t]he modern synthesis is remarkably good at modeling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modeling the arrival of the fittest.”11 Stuart Newman stated in the same article, “You can’t deny the force of selection in genetic evolution . . . but in my view this is stabilizing and fine-tuning forms that originate due to other processes.”12 Evolutionary paleobiologist Graham Budd was similarly open in the article about deficiencies in explanations of key evolutionary transitions: “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of the land, . . . [b]ut these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.”13

          Pearson replies to these kinds of arguments by stating that “the reviewer may have taken this statement out of context, implying that it suggests evolution proceeds only by natural selection.” But just because there are other mechanism of evolution doesn’t mean those other mechanisms can produce novelty. As Jerry Coyne explains, other evolutionary mechanisms like neutral drift are impotent to create new features: “Both drift and natural selection produce genetic change that we recognize as evolution. But there’s an important difference. Drift is a random process … As a purely random process, genetic drift can’t cause the evolution of adaptations. It could never build a wing or an eye.”14

          In its response to the reviewer, Pearson cites two papers which supposedly show that “several mechanisms for the generation of evolutionary novelty have indeed been ‘firmly established.'” The first of these papers is a short comment by Manyuan Long on the standard model of the evolution of genes by duplication followed by divergence. That Pearson would cite this paper shows how little the publisher appreciates what’s wrong with neo-Darwinian evolution.

          The duplication/divergence model of gene evolution ignores the problem of multiple coordinated mutations. There’s no question that gene can duplicate. The question is whether duplicated genes can traverse likely evolutionary pathways to acquire new functions before they are subfunctionalized. This is typically held to be a neutral walk , detached from selection pressure. However, population genetics imposes limits on how many specific neutral mutations a gene is likely to accumulate.

          In 2010, Douglas Axe published evidence indicating that despite high mutation rates and generous assumptions favoring a Darwinian process, molecular adaptations requiring more than six mutations before yielding any advantage would be extremely unlikely to arise in the history of the Earth. The following year, Axe published research with developmental biologist Ann Gauger describing the results of their experiments seeking to convert one bacterial enzyme into another closely related enzyme. That is the kind of conversion that evolutionists claim can easily happen. For this case they found that the conversion would require a minimum of at least seven simultaneous changes,15 exceeding the six-mutation-limit that Axe had previously established as a boundary of what Darwinian evolution is likely to accomplish in bacteria. Because this conversion is thought to be relatively simple, it suggests that the model of evolution by gene duplication could not produce even many modest gene conversions.

          In other experiments led by Gauger and biologist Ralph Seelke of the University of Wisconsin, Superior, their research team broke a gene in the bacterium E. coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the bacteria’s genome was broken in just one place, random mutations were capable of “fixing” the gene. But even when only two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution got stuck, apparently unable to restore full function.16 This is because it was more advantageous to delete a gene with low functionality or none than it was to continue to express it. This suggests that it is highly unlikely that the standard gene duplication model would produce new complex functions because gene duplicates are likely to be deleted before evolving some new function.

          Another paper cited by Pearson deals with an unusual protein, an antifreeze protein, which acts more like “debris” in the cytoplasm to prevent freezing rather than performing a specific and complex function. This is not likely a viable model for explaining the origin of typical proteins.

          Pearson’s textbook makes no mention of controversies over the ability of natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms to explain the origin of biological novelty. This controversy is well represented in the peer-reviewed technical literature, and it should be acknowledged in the textbook. Unfortunately, neither Pearson nor the panel of reviewers in Texas want students exposed to fundamental controversies over natural selection.

          Indeed, elsewhere Pearson’s textbook asserts that even given the entire history of the Earth, there is “plenty of time for evolution by natural selection to take place.” (p. 466) But much evidence contradicts this claim.

          Biochemist Michael Behe and physicist David Snoke have performed computer simulations and theoretical calculations showing that the Darwinian evolution of a functional bond between two proteins would be highly unlikely to occur in populations of multicellular organisms under reasonable evolutionary timescales. They found:

          The fact that very large population sizes — 109 or greater — are required to build even a minimal MR feature requiring two nucleotide alterations within 108 generations by the processes described in our model, and that enormous population sizes are required for more complex features or shorter times, seems to indicate that the mechanism of gene duplication and point mutation alone would be ineffective, at least for multicellular diploid species, because few multicellular species reach the required population sizes.17

          In other words, in multicellular species, Darwinian evolution would be unlikely to produce features requiring more than just two simultaneous mutations on any reasonable timescale or population size.

          In 2008, Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt sought to refute Behe in the journal Genetics with a paper titled “Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution.” But Durrett and Schmidt found that to obtain only two specific mutations via Darwinian evolution “for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take > 100 million years.” The critics admitted this was “very unlikely to occur on a reasonable timescale.”18

          The context of Pearson’s claim makes its omission of this controversy even more egregious. Pearson makes this claim when discussing the evolution of whales, however the evolution of whales from land-mammals is thought to have occurred in less than 10 million years.19 This timespan allowed by the fossil record is far shorter than the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth, mentioned by the textbook in this section. Indeed, the research by Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger, as noted above, also shows that many modest evolutionary conversions of one protein to a closely related protein would likely require more coordinated mutations than could arise in the entire history of the Earth. In short, there is a genuine scientific controversy here, despite Pearson’s claim that there is “plenty of time for evolution by natural selection to take place.” The facts of the matter should have been disclosed to students.
          – See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/is_there_plenty081531.html#sthash.ZFBWSBsq.dpuf

  15. Shannon Johnson says:

    People don’t seem to understand, it takes more than saying “Jesus I accept you into my life” to be “saved”…. Jesus didn’t just say “oh I’m going to save the world” and then do nothing about it. It took him actually doing something about it by going to the cross and being beat and tortured to death to give people a chance to be saved. How can someone expect to just say a few words and be saved when Jesus himself had to endure such wrong doing on OUR behalf. He could’ve refused, after all he was human, but he had a love for humanity so strong he said not my will but thy will be done. And people complain about having to follow a few “rules” that the bible sets. If it wasn’t for those “rules” imagine what the world would be like! The bible sets a standard not to punish people, but to protect them, and give a better life.Try living by the bible and see how much more joy you will find, and when I say live by the bible I don’t mean pick and choose what to follow. Follow the whole TRUTH!

  16. Calvin Jones says:

    I applaud your take on this very important subject that so many Christians have fallen victim to because they don’t know how to defend their faith. It’s time to say good bye to doormat Christianity and stand up for the cause of Christ and the Gospel.

  17. Brent says:

    I have never posted on this site. I read it often but this is my first comment. I want to start by saying that I agree entirely with the original article. I think the point that some are missing is this. Look at the situation of sin as an oven or a stove. Would I allow my children to play with it? No that would not show any love. That would actually be abusive to sit and watch my children climb into a stove and do nothing about it. In the same way we need to call sin, SIN. That is what it is. If we do not then how do we be the light and salt of the earth. Our actions should back up out speech but in no way stop the talking about the topic. As for the idea that their are not critical thinkers in the faith. Im pretty sure that their are many that would surprise you Bryce. I know many that have doctorates in many different professions that have been able to teach at universities such as Harvard. I am not one of them but the idea that because someone is religious and Christian is in tern stupid is factually incorrect. In being open minded i would encourage you to listen to others and not brush them off as closed minded because they believe differently than you.
    I believe the Bible and all of it because I have experienced its life changing power in my life. I was healed completely when science/Doctors had no answer and offered no help and left me to die and I am alive and well.
    I also understand Grace in my life as I was addicted to Porn for years. I do not judge others as someone that is superior but as someone that has experienced the free gift of grace with the understanding that it was sin. My eyes were opened and I was forgiven. Without others informing me of my wrong way how would I know what I was doing wrong? We need to understand the we need to speak the truth in love.
    Hope this makes sense.

    • Jo says:

      Using your stove analogy, it would be like telling everyone else’s kids to not play with the stove while your kids are in the corner playing with knives.

      Think of the whole plank lecture. Yes you shouldn’t be dwelling on someone’s speck while you have a plank in your eye but the flip side is speck guy looks at your plank, judges you a hypocrite, and doesn’t listen to another word you say. None of us are perfect so to try to protect others by judging does not work, compassion does.

    • JS Smith says:

      And you think Matt is “speaking the Truth in Love” in this case?

    • Tommy Wilson says:

      This is my first reply also Brent after stumbling on to this article, which I agree with. Wow, so many well written responses including yours. I love reading them for I learn so much! I could write many paragraphs in response but I only want to ask one question (of everyone) and make a point by it that I hope will stir some “critical thinking”.
      What is the definition of sin? Does the bible give a clear answer? I believe it does!
      I believe this is critical to know because if you don’t clearly define it how do you know if you have sinned or not? Is a sin a sin because Aunt Martha said so? There is one verse I want to point out because it is foundational. If we don’t get this, then we just don’t get it.
      I John 3:4 says “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression (violation) of the law.” If sin is the transgression of the law then following or obeying the law is NOT sinning. Isn’t that what we want to do, not sin? So how can we say that the law is done away with when its there to define sin for us? Also when Jesus says to repent of your sin, He is saying stop transgressing the Law and start following it, is He not? In the above article by Matt Walsh he said the point is to “judge RIGHTLY.” How can we do that without the law to tell us what is rightly?
      Thats right!….we can’t! So my encouragement to everyone is to study and obey the Law as best you can because its the only way to know how to judge rightly. :0)

    • Le says:

      Well said, Brent, and I agree! 🙂

  18. Dakota says:

    I think It’s easy to forget that every human falls under the category of those who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, that is the point. It can all be summed up into “none is righteous” or “all have sinned” Also- Matthew 1″Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2″For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” you see we are not called to Judge sin. The closest thing to Judging sin that I would think to be biblical would be church discipline (and still many churches can exercise this very poorly) and even then the point should be redemption. “Love covers many sins” I appreciate how the article attempts to separate “final” judgement and other times of judgement meant to “shed light” but if your objective is truly to shed light as a fellow fallen human for the sake of extending Christ and the kingdom outward and you exercise yourself as such it should not be mistakable for judgement. I prefer to think of it as seeking to speak truth with love for the sake of the redemption of creation.

  19. Hugh Smith says:

    you really want to feel justified in your hatred of people who believe, feel, think, and act differently than you don’t you? You really are going for the hard rationalization here. Read what you wrote from the perspective of someone who isn’t christian, and see how bitter, desperate, and absurd you sound.

    • Disagreeing with someone’s harmful choices automatically makes you a hater? For me to say, “Taking LSD is foolish and harmful to the brain,” means that I hate all drug addicts? There are a lot of people who are guilty of hate, maybe even you, but simply disagreeing with another persons choices and sharing those reasons does not constitute hate. But saying it does is a great intimidation tool of political correctness to shut down reasonable debate.

      • Le says:

        You are absolutely right, Scott. I have many friends and family members who lifestyles I disagree with them, but I love them so very much. We don’t need to agree with everyone to love them, and we don’t automatically hate by disagreeing.

  20. JS Smith says:

    But most importantly, Jesus also wants you to be self-righteous, prideful, arrogant, and condescending, apparently. Jesus and God ARE Love. The tone and delivery here is most certainly not. Let’s not point sinners to Jesus and let Him do the work, let’s point people to Walsh and let him do it for Him. My goodness.

  21. John Zulauf says:

    I think I’ll let Jesus settle this one…

    Matthew 7:1-3
    New International Version (NIV)

    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.

    3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

    • jose soto says:

      that’s not all Jesus had to say about sin and judgement. the context of the entire subject as a whole is sorely lacking.

  22. Samantha says:

    Yep, and Sin is the big problem I have with Christianity. Something that tells me I’m a bad person just for being born?

    Sorry, that’s a religion created just to control you.

    • jose soto says:

      well, then you must also have a problem with Hinduism, Buddhism and a host of other religions. followers of these religions live in deplorable conditions and have done so before Christianity ever came into existence.

    • Jacob says:

      Then tell us, Samantha, why ARE you a bad person?

    • Angeline says:

      I agree. The whole concept of sin seems like a huge slap in the face to humanity. Anything that causes pleasure is sinful. Having sexual thoughts is sin unless you’re married, even though that’s basically unavoidable after puberty? I’m not going to apologize for being human, with human emotions & desires & biological functions, especially when this supposed god created me this way in the first place.

  23. jose soto says:

    I don’t know if people are ignorant, stupid, retarded or just don’t get it. Mr. Walsh gave some good points backed by biblical verses and sound reasoning. Mr. Walsh stayed within the context of the subject and didn’t isolate one or two verses to make his point. through the years I have noticed just how confused and in error people are when it comes to the bible and I’m just speaking about those who actually attend church. it doesn’t take a genius or a PhD in theology to understand exactly what Mr. Walsh was talking about.

    • jose, I probably agree with a lot of your thinking, but using words such as, “ignorant, stupid, retarded” to describe those you disagree with is counterproductive to a discussion. And Jesus had some pretty strong words for name-calling in Matthew 5:22. As we share the teachings of Jesus, let’s do so with grace (Ephesians 4:29).

  24. Jonathan says:

    It’s hilarious to me how most, not all, of you are just fulfilling exactly what he said would happen. All you are just questioning who he is to say these things? What authority/right/qualifications does he have to say these things? I applaud him in what he said, he has every right to say it. I’ve been waiting for someone to be bold enough to say it, so thank you.

  25. Chris says:

    Judging is really not the issue, Jesus wants us to Jusge the problem. To me the problem comes in us judging and then treating a person differently because of our Judgment. Can we judge yet still love like Jesus? When we were yet sinners Christ died for us! The whole post informs us we can judge now I would like to hear your thoughts on how we are to love in spite of our Judgement. We seem to be of one extreme or the other. I judge people everyday. And then I try to respond to people as Jesus responded to me. Cans you write a post about life after we judge? Otherwise you have just condoned people like Westboro Baptist Church?

    • Candace says:

      I completely agree with this. I don’t know how many people would even talk to some of the people Jesus shared his ministry with and that is a huge problem.

  26. jennettp says:

    The verse(s) about judging are highly controversial these days. Both sides are using them – and mostly wrongly !!

    God intended us to exercise good JUDGEment in JUDGING who we will associate with or in what actions we will take. We are also to use JUDGEment in advising our brothers who have gone the wayward path. But this does NOT mean that we are to “sit in JUDGEment” of others … for by the same standards with which we JUDGE others, He (God) will JUDGE us ! So if you condemn a person for a mistake, or a slip of the tongue, and you condemn that person forever, then GOD will JUDGE you likewise.

    So remember what Jesus said – let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Our responsibility is to be loving and kind and forgiving in our JUDGEment of others. Jesus tells us to love others as He has loved us. Are you FORGIVING in your JUDGEment, or are you condemning ?

  27. If your role as a Christian is to help spread the word, you should consider how you come across to those you are “preaching” to. Here’s what I mean. I know two kinds of Christians. The kind that shows up on places like FB and argues with strangers about how other people are sinners, makes blanket judgments about whole groups of people without knowing a single thing about them, and generally comes across as an ignorant, bigoted meat head. Then there are the Christians who LIVE Christianity. They are RARE. They move through this world not spouting scripture, not openly judging, just living as Christ probably did–helping others, living selflessly, being kind and gracious. And they never ask for anything in return. They will be there for you in heartbeat–regardless of who you are. I have never heard such people openly express a “judgment” about others. Should I ever decide to become Christian or rejoin the faith I left as a teenager, THAT is is the kind of Christian I want to be.

  28. Hey buddy.
    Thanks for posting your opinion.

    Just a couple points

    -We are NOT asked to separate wheat from chaff. Jesus does that in the end of days. (Matthew 3 and 25). It troubles me that you want to take this judging job away from Jesus.

    -We are warned that if we judge we will be judged. Matthew 7. You mentioned this passage (which is one of the biggest biblical counter-points to this blog) but you just said “look at the context” but you didn’t voice what you thought the context was. It seems obvious to me that it is saying the slack you cut others (the grace you show to others) is the slack that will be cut you.

    -In 1 Corinthians 5 Paul is very clear that we to judge those inside the church and NOT TO JUDGE those outside the church. We judge those inside the church because we have all agreed to live by the same moral code so it’s ok for us to help each other live by that moral code. Those outside the church have not agreed to that. Unless all your facebook friends are christians and you have a private setting, your facebook wall is outside the church.

    -And Finally..no scripture…just my opinion. When we stop hiding behind scripture and dictionaries I believe that we will find our opinions are only political stances we feel we need to adhere to. And thank God we will not be judged by God for our political stances. What we will be judged by is how we treat each other. (in and out of church). You cannot be a godly person by forming a political opinion or typing a facebook status. You can only become godly by loving and serving God and your fellow man (in and out of church) (esp. the poor). So maybe we should quit typing our political opinions (aren’t you tired of it) and love each other however we can. (matthew 25)

    • Jacob says:

      Justinswordvomit (kind and loving name!) wrote: ” And thank God we will not be judged by God for our political stances.” Hitler, Stalin and Chairman Mao are all glad to hear your SUMMARY JUDGEMENT that they will not be called to give an account for their political beliefs.

    • dustanswordvomit, I appreciate a lot of what you said. This is the first post I have read by this blogger, so I’m not sure if you are referring to other posts of his or not. And I also caught the wheat and chaff comment, which bothered me. But I didn’t get the political nature of this post. I get the “political correctness” that he is attacking, and it’s hard to disagree with his main point, that Christians are supposed to judge as to whether or not behavior is right or wrong. We have to. We can’t even discern correct behavior for ourselves or the values we are to teach our children if we do not judge what is right or wrong. Paul certainly made reference to the wrongness of lost people’s behavior in his epistles. My take on this post is that it brings to light the lack of courage on the part of Christians (partly because they are intimidated by political correctness) to lovingly share what is taught in the New Testament books about what is right and wrong. If everything that everyone does is just good and ok, Jesus had no reason to come and make the horrendous sacrifice he did. No one would need salvation.

      • He using two different meanings of the word judge. 1. Judge as using good judgement and 2. judge as passing judgement on others. The author of thise= blog uses them interchangeably when they are homonyms. He uses verses for 1. to justify 2.

        I wasn’t too clear on what I meant by talking about political stances. I will try and clear that up. I don’t necessarily mean how we think governments should be run or what political party someone subscribes to (though that may be part of it) Your views on gay marriage, abortion, divorce, welfare, minority treatment, etc are political stances because they are political issues that have a long history.

        For example Gay marriage. Some say that we need to stop gay marriage because the bible says it’s wrong.

        Others say every human adult has the human right to marry and shouldn’t be excluded from the rights others share..

        Both cultivate their view out of a moral high-ground that has been around for a long time and we act and react based on a political tradition. (human rights tradition vs. biblical foundation tradition)

        I think it’s a smoke and mirrors game.In both camps ( and all the camps inbetween) are people that love God and others (esp. the poor) and there are those that fail to do so. Holding so tight to our political stances as the expression of our faith could be straining a fly to choke on a camel (matthew 23: 24) Not that we shouldn’t have views, beliefs, about right and wrong but I think we focus on it so much we miss the whole point of Christianity.

  29. Marius says:

    The only credentials you need is the Holy Spirit.Very true post,three cheers(that would be non- alcoholic ones).

  30. Jude says:

    Thank you for the excellent explanation….covered every single point very well. Your wisdom is wonderful young man. God has blessed you with great insight. ♥

  31. Autumn says:

    Pride is a dangerous thing. I am not Jesus. I look to Jesus to learn, but I know that I am not Him, do not have His understandings, do not have his Perfection. But I can try to live as a follower of Christ. I can lead through my life and words, I can invite to study scripture together, and I can teach what I think I understand and bring to those who understand better than me. The equation of this understanding as being “accepting of everything” or “do whatever” is so simplistic, but so characteristic of so many divides between Christians themselves, who are all elbowing and squashing one another to shout “*I* am a TRUE Christian.” It is heartbreaking and a strong reminder how human we all are.

  32. “You’re judging so I’m going to judge you and tell you that you’re a piece of garbage because you judge so much!”

    Now that one made me laugh 🙂

  33. Tiffany says:

    “You shall not round off the hair on your temples or mar the edges of your beard.”

    I can see from your picture you’re a sinful hair-cutter. Hope me pointing this out helps you get in Heaven. Or is this one of those antiquated verses that YOU have decided aren’t relevant now?

    • I don’t think most Christians follow the Old Testament. The only reason we follow the ten commandments is because they are repeated in the new testament. (ex. the Sabbath, that seems to be iffy)

      • David says:

        The Old Testament is the upper story of how God raised up and prepared a people to lead them to the Savior, Jesus Christ, who fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies. I suggest reading the purpose of the Old Testament at http://www.youmustbesaved.com/preview_020.htm as the Old Testament is a vital source of Scripture, God’s Word, for all true Christ professing Christians to follow.

        I have not read the entire website at http://www.youmustbesaved.com/preview_020.htm and they have a copyrite statement at the bottom of the page, and I make no endorsement here, but whoever is behind that website, seems to have a very good grasp on what the Old Testament is about.

    • Austen says:

      Where in the bible is this, and what version? genuine question.

      • Jamie says:

        Leviticus 19:27-28. But it is in reference to a tradition of shaving/cutting in order to mourn the dead. These verses put an end to the practice for the purposes of mourning. It doesn’t address shaving/cutting carte blanche as Tiffany seems to suggest.

        • Austen says:

          Thank you Jamie. Verse 28 does make the meaning of v. 27 clear. Tiffany, I hope you have learned to use context when reading Scripture, it’s important.

  34. Tim says:

    Here’s the thing. You can judge people all you want. But when people judge you back, you have to respect it. If you say gay marriage is wrong, and I say religon can’t be used to justify federal law, christians tend to cry persecution. But it isn’t. It’s making a judgement on your christian belief, as you do on others non-christian beliefs. You have to realize that a majority of the world is not Christian, and even in the US more and more are moving away from it. Any judgement you make on religious bounds towards those people is simply going to be ignored by those people, as it should.

  35. Micah says:

    Maybe there is a difference between judging and being judgmental that is important to remember.

  36. Great article. But I disagree with: “this is the same Jesus who told us to separate the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the wolves”. At least I recall that for the wheat and chaff it’s the angels whom will do the separating. It makes sense because, as you stated so clearly, we cannot judge the heart, just the fruits of it. I envy your expressive style. Godspeed.

  37. Wow! You’ve really got it in focus. The dictionary definition sheds a lot of light on the subject.
    “Judge: To form an opinion of; decide upon; settle; to infer, think, hold as an opinion.”
    The instruction is not to judge, which is the only scripture to which sin-advocates seem to ever pay any attention.
    Read the definition again… to judge is all about deciding and forming an opinion.
    That is God’s job, not ours.
    BUT.. an important but… to accept God’s judgement is to accept His authority.
    To call that a sin which God has explicitly called a sin is not judging.
    It is accepting God’s judgement.
    We are not judging.
    God is.
    He has the authority to do so. We have the responsibility to accept His judgement.
    It’s really not too complicated!

  38. Michelle Angelo says:

    Reading this post and what most of the commenters are saying makes me want to throw out my faith and make sure my children will never turn out to be these people. You can say you hate the sin but not the sinner, but I know as well as anyone else it’s the sinner who gets thrown into hate fire, by people they know and people on the internet who don’t have an inkling of what’s going on in their life. I couldn’t understand why my significant other stopped going to church. He said there was too much judgment and he was sick of it. Perhaps many of the people here go to that church. And why would you group in Republicans with Nazis and Westboro? You added your subtle hint of politic to your religion post and by doing so you clearly claim that most people who say not to judge are democrats. That’s ridiculous and absurd. Congratulations on causing all this controversy and bickering commenters being rude to each other. It’s definitely not the ideal Christian way.

  39. I agree with you, partly, but I fear the implication of this kind of post. I definitely believe that if you believe in the truth of the Bible, certain things are, irrevocably, sins (abortion and living a homosexual lifestyle for example, as well as adultery, embezzlement, stinginess, and oppression of the poor). Yes, we should be clear that those things are sins. However, the problem is that many Christians interpret this as a license to vilify and to feel superior to other sinners. Just because I believe that something you are doing is wrong doesn’t give me a right to put myself on a pedestal and to act like I’m better than you. “Judging” as you define it doesn’t mean self-righteousness, but that’s how many choose to act it out (from both sides of the political spectrum, I might add).

    Jesus lived by the Word, but he was also a guy that prostitutes, tax collectors, and other marginalized “sinners” flocked to. They wanted to touch him, to eat with him, and to follow him. How many Christians who “judge” can say the same thing? There was something about Jesus that showed empathy and love, while at the same time not being wishy-washy on holiness. At the end of the day, you’re not going to “help” anyone to heaven by pointing out their sins. The only way you can help anyone is by pointing them to Jesus. Only in an encounter with Him can a “sinner” realize the extent of his/her sin. I wish you had mentioned that aspect in your article too.

    But I suppose, your bread and butter is getting people ‘riled up about this sort of thing. The tone of your article isn’t one of someone who actually cares about helping people. You sound like you’re just trying to stir up controversy to bring more eyes to your blog. Too bad you can’t use those critical thinking skills of yours for good, instead of promoting more division.

  40. eeyore031370 says:

    Reblogged this on Paula's Journey and commented:
    I believe he says it so well!!

  41. bradleelandis says:

    I agree with you, but I don’t think you ever actually dealt with the scripture that says, “Do not judge” (Matthew 7:1-5; Luke 6:37-42). In context, he’s saying, don’t judge when you’re doing the same thing or something worse. Judge rightly, according to God’s standard, not my own standard.

    Judging is wrong when it becomes gossip. Instead of going to our brother with their sin, we tell everyone else, “Do you know what she did?!?” Gossip is sin.

  42. If you didn’t judge, you wouldn’t live very long!

  43. strick says:

    An excellent post. I agree with all the points made, and this is something that desperately needs to be said in today’s world. However, the author has missed an opportunity to use Scripture to outline the conditions under which a Christian may judge”rightly”. An examination of the whole passage in Matthew 7 reveals these principles:

    1) Judgment begins with myself. I must first judge my own life and ensure that I do not welcome or harbor sin.
    2) The spirit in which we judge is very important. We should always judge lovingly and with an eye toward correcting a problem. Any judgment performed with the intent to cause hurt or make ourselves feel better about our sins is sinful.

    Speaking out against sin in a public forum and lovingly correcting our brothers/sisters in Christ is the responsibility of a Christian. To wink at sin and allow it to continue unchallenged is wrong, and the key to correction is love and compassion.

  44. Freakin' Femme says:

    Wouldn’t the “do not judge” bit come with the parts that tell Christians to be kind? There is a difference between “constructive criticism” — which is what I believe you are referring to at least in the last part when you write about being “helped” into heaven — and judging.
    “Judging”, to me, observing a behavior and then, based on that behavior, extrapolating what you think this person’s lifestyle may be, what their past must be like, and other such implications which may be entirely untrue, because . . . we don’t know a person until we walk a mile in their shoes! Anyone read “Walk Two Moons”? That is all about not jumping to conclusions.
    One thing I know for sure, the Bible tells us to remove the log from our own eye before removing the speck from our neighbors. Isn’t that the same as “do not judge”?
    One example: my mother — a sinner, like everyone else, who also struggles with judging — shared with me a time when she was attending a Christmas eve church service in which a group of children was performing a Christmas play. One boy was continuously shouting out and disrupting the event, and my mother began to subconsciously pass judgement. She began thinking that the parents of this boy must be terrible, must have never taught him proper conduct, etc, until after the service was over and she learned that this boy was deaf and had been adopted from Russia just the day before. The immense feelings of guilt, embarrassment, and the need to apologize and some how set things right (although she had done nothing but think these things in her head) enveloped my mother and continue to remind her to accept people before judging them. It can be near-impossible for us to give up our human instincts to analyze and draw conclusions, but it is an excellent habit which will make us, in my opinion, more full of love and compassion instead of hate and a self-serving attitude.
    Wow, that was longer than I meant it to be.

  45. I think the guy who wrote this article is 100% spot on!!! Amazing way he put it and I couldn’t agree with him more. If you have a child and that child is hanging out with a bunch or drug addicts and thieves, are you going to just keep quiet and tell your child not to judge??? Come on people! “Evil companions currupt good behavior”….we have to judge someone to know if they are evil…we have the bible, we are supossed to live accordingly but that doesn’t mean check your brains at the door people.

  46. thinkpraylove1 says:

    “Wherever we have the races mixed up in large numbers, we have trouble….These religious liberals are the worst infidels in many ways in the country; and some of them are filling pulpits down South. They do not believe the Bible any longer; so it does not do any good to quote it to them. They have gone over to modernism, and they are leading the white people astray at the same time; and they are leading colored Christians astray. But every good, substantial, Bible-believing, intelligent orthodox Christian can read what the Word of God and know that what is happening in the South now is not of God.” – Bob Jones Sr., in his treatise against integration entitled, ‘Is Segregation Scriptural?’
    Not that Matt will read this but Bob and Matt sound a lot alike in their description of those terrible religious liberals….except Bob was defending segregation. Coincidence? No.

  47. A fascinating discussion is definitely worth comment. I think that you need to write more on this issue, it might not be a taboo subject
    but typically people do not speak about such topics. To the next!
    All the best!!

  48. These are genuinely great ideas in about blogging.
    You have touched some pleasant things here.
    Any way keep up wrinting.

Comments are closed.