LOGIC TO "DO NOT JUDGE"
This may be the most misquoted verse in the Bible:
Matthew 7:1 - "Judge not that ye be not judged."
Examine in detail: http://kingjbible.com/matthew/7.htm (KJV)
My opinion that Progressivism attempts to distort truth is shared by many others. It is often said that "Liberalism attempts to control the narrative" meaning that language is used to create falsehoods so that people might accept them more easily. Sometimes this is more blatant, sometimes more subtle.
The book The Death of Truth, by Dennis McCallum, exposes in exquisite detail the methods that have been used by Progressives over the past few decades to distort language in order to control the narrative and thereby, shape culture. It's worth a read especially if you are an educator, leader, manager, Christian, or simply wish to be more informed on this key cultural topic.
These carefully contrived narratives are designed to distract from the truth. Example: "Global warming" was relabeled as "climate change" after the truth came out about falsified data being used to support an agenda promoting global warming, and the lack of real data to support the warming theory).
Another way Progressives do this is by hijacking conservative ideals (and language) to be twisted to mean something else. Example: The rainbow was first used in Genesis 9:17 as a symbol of God's promise given to Noah following the flood but has since been hijacked and twisted to be a symbol to promote homosexuality. The symbol, the language, has been hijacked and twisted to distract from God's word and in fact, to intentionally distort it or attempt to render it invalid.
Not sure about this? If you are were a Christian publisher today, do you think you could use a graphical rainbow in your publications or messages without it being perceived as a promotion of homosexuality? Symbolism is a primary foundation of language so, yes, it's important. Progressives have hijacked the symbol of the rainbow and it was no accident.
The term 'pro-choice' serves as another example. If there are three involved in the transactions that lead to an abortion decision and three sets of DNA involved (the mother, the father, the baby) but only one of the three of them is given a choice, then how is this view 'pro-choice?' Of course, it isn't. In fact, we are beginning to hear talk that Progressives who favor abortion (technically and grammatically correct: 'pro-abortion') are looking for another term to use instead of 'pro-choice.'
Apparently, the term 'pro-choice' is no longer working well to serve their agenda, probably because people are learning what geneticists have confirmed: New life with unique DNA begins at conception. It cannot be rationally argued that the new life formed at the moment of conception is less than human when it has a new human's DNA. This demonstrates one more attempt to control the narrative. When the language is found to be 'not working' for them, they begin using other language that might better serve their agenda.
Consider this example, to the main point of this post:
Many today have found a way to use "Do not judge" to support their own version of truth (relative truth or relative morality). Commonly the verse will be used as if it is one of the Ten Commandments. In fact, often the way it is used, it is twisted in a way to supersede the Ten Commandments. But, those who do this are only using the first half of that particular scripture, attempting to turn it into a command when in fact, it is not a command, but a conditional statement that serves as a warning.
A conditional statement can take different grammatical or logical forms but typically looks something like this (the part in brackets indicates an implied result):
If a, then b, [else c]
IF a vehicle has four wheels, THEN it has more wheels than a bicycle.
IF Abraham was born before Isaac, THEN Abraham is older than Isaac, [ELSE he isn't older than Isaac].
So, fitting the verse into the same logical form:
IF you judge, THEN you will be judged, [ELSE you will not].
And, if the Bible says to not judge, why does Jesus (in John 7:24) instruct us how to judge? "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
God's word commands us to judge not based on our own opinions about what is right or wrong, but to judge righteously, that is, according to God's word, which is righteous. Of course, we might expect someone who does not consider God to be righteous or His word to be Truth to argue with this point, but that discussion belongs elsewhere, as it serves only to distract from the main issue presented here.
Notice that the John 7:24 scripture doesn't fit the form of a conditional statement. in its grammatical form, it is truly stated as a command. It states not only that judgment should be made, but specifies how.
Basically, this is to say, if you judge it to be wrong for one person to take another's life, make that judgment based on God's word, not on your own opinion, or the opinion of another person or the Supreme Court (e.g., abortion).
Consider also that, when someone says to you, "Do not judge" are they not making a judgment about you? Then, do they believe what they are saying or not? They certainly seem to think they do, but if they have thought it through, how did they miss their own hypocrisy?
Ironically, many who use this statement also say they don't believe all of the Bible to be true (but they like the first half of Matthew 7:1). In fact, an extreme irony is when I hear Atheists use "Do not judge" to Christians while they say out of the other side of their mouths that there is no God, so the Bible is worthless, even evil.
These conflict with one another, so, which is it? At least one isn't in alignment with God's word. The problem is that the scripture is being used out of context. What else would explain how a 'Bible believer' could be in agreement with an Atheist over this issue?
Here's someone else's commentary on this topic. It expands a little further and provides food for thought:
If there were no judgment...
All the prisons would be empty and thieves, serial killers, drug dealers, rapists, and murderers would be loose in your neighborhood.You could not discipline your children and teach them not to steal, lie, do drugs, or give in to peer pressure.
School could not be mandated (by parents or the government) but if children did attend, they could not be evaluated as to their progress. Everyone should graduate regardless of their advance. Students could not be graded or disciplined.
You could not judge any false doctrine and would have to allow it to be taught from your church's pulpit ("discerning" is the same thing as "judging").You should leave your children with anyone who said was qualified to be a baby-sitter. You should not bother to check his/her background. Later, you should not be upset if this baby-sitter turned out to be a child-molester, because "thou shalt not judge."
You should marry anyone that asked. You shouldn't worry about his/her character or beliefs. What if he beats you up? What if she cheats on you? You shouldn't get so mad because "thou shalt not judge."
CONTINUES... Read more from the article
MORE ARTICLES: Index
Copyright © 2013 AtheismFails.com. All rights reserved. Please support AtheismFails with your donation.