Judging and punishing others

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Rose2020
Scholar
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2022 9:54 am
Has thanked: 36 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Judging and punishing others

Post #1

Post by Rose2020 »

1 Corinthians Chapter 5 .

Surely Paul did not mean physical harm should be meted out to a known sinner by his brethren?
I take this chapter to mean if a person is obviously a bad influence, he ought to be made to leave. After all God is the true judge. Yet such cruelty has been exercised over the centuries, by taking the words in the Bible as a license to beat, torture and kill.

To apply Paul's teachings to our lives, I would say simply dissociate from those who are a corrupting influence, but do not be cruel and even murderous yourself.
To me, Jesus always taught with love. Paul knew that - he did not personally harm anyone did he?

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: Judging and punishing others

Post #61

Post by 2timothy316 »

tam wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 2:05 pm Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 2:02 pm [Replying to tam in post #56]

None of this is proof that you or anyone else can hear the voice of Jesus.
Considering that you claim to believe the bible, should it not be proof to you that Christ (Jaheshua) does speak and that His sheep do listen to His voice?


Peace again.
LOL Yet it's not proof to you in Paul's case right? Yet you want it to be proof to me? That's really funny. It's suppose to be proof to me but to you its not.

At any rate here is the answer to your question. The Bible is clear, the Bible is not Jesus-breathed. Also, nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus tell people what to write. The Gospels were started and completed after Jesus' death. Please refer to 2 Timothy 3:16.


If he actually did speak to someone then what those people would say would be profound and they would be in harmony with the Bible and NEVER say one of it's writers were in error. Have you ever read in the Bible where a writer calls what another Bible writer wrote wrong? The Bible says that when Jesus spoke they said that he 'spoke with authority'. Tam I have never heard anything like from you or anyone else that claims that Jesus speaks to them. I hear quite the opposite.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Judging and punishing others

Post #62

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 4:53 pm
tam wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 2:05 pm Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 2:02 pm [Replying to tam in post #56]

None of this is proof that you or anyone else can hear the voice of Jesus.
Considering that you claim to believe the bible, should it not be proof to you that Christ (Jaheshua) does speak and that His sheep do listen to His voice?


Peace again.
LOL Yet it's not proof to you in Paul's case right? Yet you want it to be proof to me? That's really funny. It's suppose to be proof to me but to you its not.
Think about what you're saying here. You are the one who claims to be following the bible, that the bible is the word of God. You are the one who claims to believe EVERY word in that bible, that all words are equal, regardless of who is speaking.

I claim to follow Christ, the TRUE and LIVING Word of God. I hold all things up against Christ (including anything written in the bible).

So I am not using a double standard by following Christ over Paul.

I simply applied your self-declared standard to you.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: Judging and punishing others

Post #63

Post by 2timothy316 »

tam wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:50 pm Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 4:53 pm
tam wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 2:05 pm Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 2:02 pm [Replying to tam in post #56]

None of this is proof that you or anyone else can hear the voice of Jesus.
Considering that you claim to believe the bible, should it not be proof to you that Christ (Jaheshua) does speak and that His sheep do listen to His voice?


Peace again.
LOL Yet it's not proof to you in Paul's case right? Yet you want it to be proof to me? That's really funny. It's suppose to be proof to me but to you its not.
Think about what you're saying here. You are the one who claims to be following the bible, that the bible is the word of God.
Think about what you were asking. You are saying I should trust something as proof that you don't trust as proof. :blink:
I don't believe the Bible is proof that Jesus speaks to his sheep all the time. I believe that people listen to Jesus voice ONLY when they read the Bible. There is nothing else outside of that. No voices, no person, no dreams nothing but the Bible. I refer to 2 Timothy 3:16 again. Particularly where it says, that the scriptures makes person of God, "completely equipped for every good work." Not partially and not for just some good works. My belief is that there is no other divine source for instruction.

Contrary to what many think, there is nothing more that needs to be divinely instructed beyond the Bible.
Seems to me a person that does think this way, wants to appease one's own righteousness standard because the world doesn't act the way in the they think is righteous. Not because they hear Jesus' voice. Yet Jesus says in the Bible to, "seeking first...his righteousness" meaning God's standard for what is righteous and not our own.

I am curious about something though,

Tam, tell me please, why should a person trust the Bible as proof that Jesus speaks to his sheep all the time even though you don't trust all of the Bible yourself? This would be like you asking a person to get on a boat and then when a person asks, "What aren't you getting on the boat too?" Your answer is, "No way, that thing is full of holes!"

Does this mean you'd use something that you do NOT fully believe in, like the Bible, just to to try and prove your argument? Using a person's beliefs to manipulate a person to your thinking, though you do not hold those same beliefs?

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Judging and punishing others

Post #64

Post by tam »

Peace again to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 12:42 pm
tam wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 5:50 pm Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 4:53 pm
tam wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 2:05 pm Peace to you,
2timothy316 wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 2:02 pm [Replying to tam in post #56]

None of this is proof that you or anyone else can hear the voice of Jesus.
Considering that you claim to believe the bible, should it not be proof to you that Christ (Jaheshua) does speak and that His sheep do listen to His voice?


Peace again.
LOL Yet it's not proof to you in Paul's case right? Yet you want it to be proof to me? That's really funny. It's suppose to be proof to me but to you its not.
Think about what you're saying here. You are the one who claims to be following the bible, that the bible is the word of God.
Think about what you were asking. You are saying I should trust something as proof that you don't trust as proof. :blink:
Perhaps you should have read and responded to the rest of my post.

I am saying simply that the bible supports what I shared. You claim to accept it as proof, therefore, should you not accept that Christ does indeed speak, as is recorded in that book? If not, why not?

I don't believe the Bible is proof that Jesus speaks to his sheep all the time.
Despite what it records (both in word and example).
I believe that people listen to Jesus voice ONLY when they read the Bible.
Yours is a common belief, even if incorrect. Most in Christendom believe as you believe. Even some/many people who claim that Christ or God speaks to them actually only mean through the bible.

There is nothing else outside of that. No voices, no person, no dreams nothing but the Bible.
Why? Because you don't hear? Because the leaders of your religion say that there is nothing outside the bible? Even though the bible claims and shows otherwise? Even though Christ and God exist outside the bible, and are living beings? Even despite the fact that people who love their children and/or their disciples/brothers/bride... tend to speak to them as long as they are capable of speaking?

The very book that you claim to believe in states the opposite of what you have stated. I provided all the biblical support in previous posts.
I refer to 2 Timothy 3:16 again. Particularly where it says, that the scriptures makes person of God, "completely equipped for every good work." Not partially and not for just some good works. My belief is that there is no other divine source for instruction.
Funny that Paul, who had the scriptures, fought against Christ... until after Christ intervened. Paul certainly knew that there was a divine source for instruction outside of the scriptures (not that Paul referred to letters he wrote as scripture). Paul even said himself that learned FROM Christ (not the other apostles, not men).

Seems to me a person that does think this way, wants to appease one's own righteousness standard because the world doesn't act the way in the they think is righteous. Not because they hear Jesus' voice.
Your thoughts here make no sense. Are you suggesting the world IS righteous? And what 'personal righteous standard' do you think I am attempting to appease?
Yet Jesus says in the Bible to, "seeking first...his righteousness" meaning God's standard for what is righteous and not our own.
Well, not exactly... it means to seek God's righteousness (the Kingdom and HIS righteousness). Meaning that God IS righteous, in all His actions and words. See that rather than our own righteousness.

Its not about 'standards' of behavior or rules, per se.

It is about the actual and personal righteousness of God.

Seek first the Kingdom and HIS righteousness.


I am curious about something though,

Tam, tell me please, why should a person trust the Bible as proof that Jesus speaks to his sheep all the time even though you don't trust all of the Bible yourself?
I'm not telling you what you should or should not trust. YOU said you believe and trust and follow the bible. So that is something for you to work out, even if you would prefer to focus on any fault of mine.

I know that a person can trust Christ (and so also His Father). I can testify to that. I know that what my Lord has said is true (a- because He said it and He speaks only truth, and b - because He has kept His promises to me, always spoken truth to me and never led me wrong).

Does this mean you'd use something that you do NOT fully believe in, like the Bible, just to to try and prove your argument?


No. This means simply that what I have shared is supported by what is written. I know my Lord's words are true. I simply pointed those out to you from the book that you claim as 100% true. So that you can see for yourself what is supposed to be happening (according to Christ, according to other witnesses, according to what is written).

When I first heard someone else say that Christ speaks, I wasn't sure what to make of that. I resisted for a moment (fear of being misled by men again), but then I checked. I looked up the provided verses and saw that Christ is indeed supposed to be speaking, that He said He would, that others testified to His having spoken to them after His death and resurrection and ascension. And of course there is reasoning from common knowledge and sense (living beings speak) and love (living beings are going to speak to those they love, even to others if they so choose). But of course the biggest thing is that Christ said it Himself, that His sheep listen to His voice, that He had more sheep to call, that they TOO would listen to His voice.

He was not speaking to people 'via' the scriptures when He said that. Nor later (in all the examples provided of Him speaking). He was speaking - HIMSELF - to people, and His sheep were listening to His voice.

This is something to REJOICE over!!

Using a person's beliefs to manipulate a person to your thinking, though you do not hold those same beliefs?

Just pointing out what Christ said in the book you claim to be following. Just bearing witness in a way that you can look up and see for yourself.

But what you do with that (or beyond that) is up to you... or at the very least, it is not up to me.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy
- Non-religious Christian spirituality

- For Christ (who is the Spirit)

2timothy316
Under Probation
Posts: 4161
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:51 am
Has thanked: 175 times
Been thanked: 457 times

Re: Judging and punishing others

Post #65

Post by 2timothy316 »

tam wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 6:22 pm
This means simply that what I have shared is supported by what is written.
So lets test if you, 'support what is written'.

“Remove the wicked person from among yourselves.”​—1 Cor. 5:6, 11-13.

So the judging of as person as wicked and then shuning that person, support it or is 'Paul in error'?

If you don't then what you share from the Bible is determined by your own feelings and not that you actually 'support what is written'. It makes you a cherry picker of the Bible. Accepting in the Bible only what is righteous according to your standards of righteousness.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Judging and punishing others

Post #66

Post by Purple Knight »

2timothy316 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 10:41 am There are different types of judging.

There is judging someone's eternal placement. (Dead or alive) This is a not something we should even be speculating on and certainly not something we would be threatening people with as something we know as a certainty. Saying, "You're going to be killed in Armageddon for what you did." This type of judging we shouldn't do and there should be no variation of such a judgement. The Bible is clear on this, that how we judge others is how we ourselves we will be judged. (Matthew 7:2)

There is judging was can do as individual as to who we will associate with and even who our family can associate with. For example: A person is a known thief and drug user, I have the judgment call on whether to allow that person to associate with me or my children. This type of judging has to do with protection. Because what is a judgement at its base but a choice and then action based on that choice.

In the JW religion elders have to make judgement calls much like a parent would have to do. If there is a person that is practicing a wrongdoing they have been given the responsibility to examine the report and then make judgment call as whether members of the congregation should associate with that person. Now some hate this idea. I personally support it. I'd even support if I was the receiving end of this judgment. Why? Because its an effort to correct me and it might save my life when God's judgement day comes. For Jehovah disciplines those He loves. (Hebrews 12:6)

There are other judgements that we all make everyday that have nothing to do with a person's eternal fate. Some are even required by law for some people to make a judgement. Like a doctor that must report suspected abuse to law enforcement. It doesn't matter if the doctor has first hand knowledge or not, by law it still must be reported.
I can clearly see good lines for accurate, logical categorisation here on the different types of judgment. However, to me these types of judgment seem difficult to disentangle in the real world, especially when your whole religion teaches (not wrongly imo) that the world is a bit of a cesspit. So you might be in this world that belongs to Satan and the law might be that he goes to jail, within which there is an overwhelming chance he'll be raped himself. And you might know that this doctor does indeed rape his patients while they're under anesthesia.

If I'm a sane person I know this doctor is doing something wrong. I know he ought not to do that. But so far I can disentangle. And while it hurts to admit it, if I were a believer I would be able to understand that perhaps God knows more than I do and it's not my business to say with my limited knowledge that he's going to Hell. Now, I am not enlightened enough to not want him punished at all, though if I were a believer I would probably actively work toward that.

So here's where it becomes difficult for me to disentangle.

The tricky part is, whether I want him punished or not, I want him to stop, and that's only going to happen if somebody makes him stop. So I have to use some type of force. Now maybe I've achieved the enlightenment necessary to have no hate in my heart when I'm doing it, so let's say I report him and let the worldly world do its thing. To me, I've still cast a stone here, and just as a stone is forceful and hurtful, I know what will bloody happen when I report him: He'll be punished. So to me I have now flung that stone at him, flung those consequences at him with my own hand, and in so doing, cast a judgment about what punishment he deserves. If I don't think he deserves a lump on the head I can just not throw a rock at him, and if I don't think he deserves prison and rape... I can just not report him. This is still different than wishing Hell on him but frankly idk what's going to happen in Hell that's going to be much worse than prison rape, so I don't see it as all that different in practice. The only place it would be different is in my own mind where I let God do God and make the ultimate judgment.
2timothy316 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 10:41 amPeople say that Jesus and Paul are at odds but they are not. Both scriptures below are in harmony. Jesus describes the steps. Paul describes the offenses. Both agree on the action to be taken if one is found to be in the wrong.
Right, don't associate with him. Walk away.

You and JW have admitted that this may ultimately require force. If we look at it as both of you suggest, we do come to the conclusion that force must be warranted, because we assume the perfection of the edicts that tell us don't eat with him, so logically if he breaks into my house and plops down at my table I have to remove him. (That, or leave my own house.)
JehovahsWitness wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 2:50 amJesus did not say a Christian could not touch anyone; there is no such bible rule, so I cannot see how this passage would be violated restraining someone from who poses a physical danger or escorting someone off private property by force if need be.
I believe you to be correct and I think the matter is about how far you ought to go or permit yourself to go with Jesus's apparent (I could easily be wrong here) edicts of pure pacifism and absolute nonpunishment.

Now, I think we'd both agree that if Jesus had protected the hooker, saying, let ye who is without sin cast the first stone, and a throwing axe emerged from the crowd, striking her down, neither of us would look favourably on the thrower of said axe, even if he said, "What? Dude told me not to throw a stone. I threw an axe."

I hope we'd both see that as a nitpick. And there are going to be lots of those, because even if the word of God is perfect, our language is not. Add to that the fact that Jesus speaks in stories and examples, and there are going to be a lot of grey areas where we can't know for sure if we were told not to do something. I might look at turn the other cheek as a clear example of never fight back, never self-defend, never ever put your hands on another person, ever. Someone else might understand it differently, pulling it back to the bare minimum of what was literally said not to do. And they'd be correct if they said, well, we were never told not to use any force, ever... As would the fellow be when he says, I was never told not to throw an axe.

Now I'd agree with you if you said these are far different degrees, one is much more of a stretch than the other, and the axe is an obvious attempt at a word-twist. However, the main point here is, we have stories and examples, not extremely clear rules that cover every situation, so how far is too far? Which generalisations from these examples are reasonable extensions of the words, and when can we reasonably say that we were never told specifically not to do that, so we probably can?
JehovahsWitness wrote: Sun May 15, 2022 3:25 amIf we cannot see the way to harmonize passages at any given time we still accept it as true and wait for God's guidance. What we do not say is "Paul got it wrong" because we hold that Paul was writing under inspiration and therefore we are reading not Paul's words but God's word spoken through Paul. JWs witness hold that if God did not want any given thought or instruction in the bible canon, he would have ensured it not be there. In short we believe the bible, ALL OF IT.

Point in hand, GOD tells us to have elders that judge wrongdoers in the congregation. GOD also told us to "stop judging". Both statements are we believe, true. We believe that in order to claim to have "the truth" one must always accept the interpretation that harmonizes passages. Since God is a God of order, such harmony MUST be possible. This is a fundamental truth for any truly bible based faith.
This is actually quite similar to what I do in the purely considerational. I simultaneously hold that everything is true and I almost never simply discount things without an obvious, logical, internal contradiction. It's a great idea and it works well. Even if two rules actually can't both be true, that doesn't mean you can't follow both of them. Often you can.

Now as to the matter at hand, it looks like nobody except an Elder would ever have to shoulder that burden, and for regular members of the congregation, you simply avoid judging others and you're fine. It may well be that a contradiction exists, but without being an Elder you don't have to worry about being forced to choose. Without being an Elder, there is a correct course of action laid out for you regardless of whether these two things can or cannot be harmonised. If you're worried you shouldn't call the police, no problem - just don't. Nobody said you had to. Ultimately an Elder will do it, and since you're not to judge him for calling the police, you're safe.

But beyond the scope of pure reason, beyond debate, out in the real world, sometimes you will have to choose. Though I am reminded of your answer from the Forest Gump's mum thing, which is that perhaps if we get things wrong and think we're doing the right thing, or as close as we can get, there is a great understanding of how difficult it is to get things exactly right.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Judging and punishing others

Post #67

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 10:39 pm
... let's say I report [a criminal] and let the worldly world do its thing. To me, I've still cast a stone here, and just as a stone is forceful and hurtful, I know what will bloody happen when I report him: He'll be punished. So to me I have now flung that stone at him, flung those consequences at him with my own hand, and in so doing, cast a judgment about what punishment he deserves.
The bible warns "what you sow, you REAP" this is a divine principle which supports victim's right to ensure convicted criminals are punished by duly appointed authorities. Indeed there is a bible command to submit to secular authority which have been permitted by God to exist in part, for that very purpose.
1 PETER 2 : 13, 14

For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves to every human creation, whether to a king as being superior or to governors as sent by him to punish wrongdoers but to praise those who do good.
NOTE It is not the victim's responsibility how a convicted criminal is treated when incarcerate. If fellow prisoners themselves break the law in prison that is between them and the prison authorities.

There is good reason to conclude that Jesus reference to "casting the first stone" is NOT part of John's original script. That said, Jesus did announced an end to the temple based system of worship (and by implication its associated legal system). None of this however amounts to a prohibition on the principle of stopping harmful or illegal activity or or of punishing the guilty. The only question for a Christian is how to legitimately achieve these ends, without violating bible law and principle.
For a Christian life (and blood) is sacred, and nobody but God has the right to take a human life.

Thus a Christian has every right to attempt to prevent the murder of himself or those under his protection. Since, as has been said, there is no bible law against the use of physical force, it is entirely reasonable and biblically legitimate for a Christian to use force to escape or prevent threat to one's life. There is no biblical edict of pure pacifism and absolute nonpunishment.
Purple Knight wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 10:39 pm... I think the matter is about how far you ought to go or permit yourself to go ...
The same principle of the sacredness of life however prevents the Christian from violently attacking or murdering anyone; so there is a limit to what he can do. For Jehovah's Witnesses then, if escape is imposssible and it came to kill or be killed, we leave our hope of future life with the God who gave it .

Given the above then, there is no parallel between the Christian position and saying "I was not told not to throw an axe" since throwing an an axe at a person is a life threatening action prohibited by scripture. It is the same principle that influences Jehovah's Witnesses decison not to carry arms for protection against criminals since there is a good chance it could lead to loss of life and their becoming bloodguilty in the eyes of God.





RELATED POSTS

Early Christians and military service
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 83#p788183

Do the Divine wars in the bible authorize Christians to participate in human conflicts?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 64#p827364

What did Jesus mean by "turn the other cheek"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 50#p773650
To learn more please go to other posts related to...

CHRISTIANITY , WAR and ...PACIFISM ​
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Judging and punishing others

Post #68

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 10:39 pm

If you're worried you shouldn't call the police, no problem - just don't. Nobody said you had to. Ultimately an Elder will do it, and since you're not to judge him for calling the police, you're safe.
I dont quite follow your point here: Jehovah's Witness elders have religious (ecclesiastical ) responsibilities the rest of the congregation do not have, but not secular or civic ones. In short, ALL Jehovahs Witnesses (elders or not) have to decide if they report knowledge or suspicion of criminal activity to authorities or not. And all Jehovah's Witnesses (whether an elders or not) must obey the law as long as it does not conflict with divine law.

Reporting a crime is not judging the suspect, that is the duty of a judge, but it is under normal circumstances a moral and civic duty to report knowledge of a crime.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Judging and punishing others

Post #69

Post by onewithhim »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 10:39 pm
2timothy316 wrote: Mon May 16, 2022 10:41 am There are different types of judging.

There is judging someone's eternal placement. (Dead or alive) This is a not something we should even be speculating on and certainly not something we would be threatening people with as something we know as a certainty. Saying, "You're going to be killed in Armageddon for what you did." This type of judging we shouldn't do and there should be no variation of such a judgement. The Bible is clear on this, that how we judge others is how we ourselves we will be judged. (Matthew 7:2)

There is judging was can do as individual as to who we will associate with and even who our family can associate with. For example: A person is a known thief and drug user, I have the judgment call on whether to allow that person to associate with me or my children. This type of judging has to do with protection. Because what is a judgement at its base but a choice and then action based on that choice.

In the JW religion elders have to make judgement calls much like a parent would have to do. If there is a person that is practicing a wrongdoing they have been given the responsibility to examine the report and then make judgment call as whether members of the congregation should associate with that person. Now some hate this idea. I personally support it. I'd even support if I was the receiving end of this judgment. Why? Because its an effort to correct me and it might save my life when God's judgement day comes. For Jehovah disciplines those He loves. (Hebrews 12:6)

There are other judgements that we all make everyday that have nothing to do with a person's eternal fate. Some are even required by law for some people to make a judgement. Like a doctor that must report suspected abuse to law enforcement. It doesn't matter if the doctor has first hand knowledge or not, by law it still must be reported.
I can clearly see good lines for accurate, logical categorisation here on the different types of judgment. However, to me these types of judgment seem difficult to disentangle in the real world, especially when your whole religion teaches (not wrongly imo) that the world is a bit of a cesspit. So you might be in this world that belongs to Satan and the law might be that he goes to jail, within which there is an overwhelming chance he'll be raped himself. And you might know that this doctor does indeed rape his patients while they're under anesthesia.

If I'm a sane person I know this doctor is doing something wrong. I know he ought not to do that. But so far I can disentangle. And while it hurts to admit it, if I were a believer I would be able to understand that perhaps God knows more than I do and it's not my business to say with my limited knowledge that he's going to Hell. Now, I am not enlightened enough to not want him punished at all, though if I were a believer I would probably actively work toward that.

So here's where it becomes difficult for me to disentangle.

The tricky part is, whether I want him punished or not, I want him to stop, and that's only going to happen if somebody makes him stop. So I have to use some type of force. Now maybe I've achieved the enlightenment necessary to have no hate in my heart when I'm doing it, so let's say I report him and let the worldly world do its thing. To me, I've still cast a stone here, and just as a stone is forceful and hurtful, I know what will bloody happen when I report him: He'll be punished. So to me I have now flung that stone at him, flung those consequences at him with my own hand, and in so doing, cast a judgment about what punishment he deserves.
If we don't figuratively "cast a stone," as you say, we aren't helping that person. When we see something he is doing that is wrong---seriously wrong---and we don't speak to him and if necessary speak to the elders, we are not helping that person to stop doing his deliberate sinning and return to Jehovah. It is helpful to him, to aid him in turning around and giving up his willful seriously sinful actions so that the congregation is protected AND he can return to a good relationship with God.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Judging and punishing others

Post #70

Post by Purple Knight »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 10:43 am
Purple Knight wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 10:39 pm

If you're worried you shouldn't call the police, no problem - just don't. Nobody said you had to. Ultimately an Elder will do it, and since you're not to judge him for calling the police, you're safe.
I dont quite follow your point here: Jehovah's Witness elders have religious (ecclesiastical ) responsibilities the rest of the congregation do not have, but not secular or civic ones. In short, ALL Jehovahs Witnesses (elders or not) have to decide if they report knowledge or suspicion of criminal activity to authorities or not. And all Jehovah's Witnesses (whether an elders or not) must obey the law as long as it does not conflict with divine law.

Reporting a crime is not judging the suspect, that is the duty of a judge, but it is under normal circumstances a moral and civic duty to report knowledge of a crime.
My point is actually that you're right about waiting for enlightenment because under most circumstances, unless you've deliberately taken more responsibility on yourself to protect and shepherd the congregation, you can simply not act and you're safe. Sometimes I feel cowardly choosing non-action, but I do feel it's the right choice if I really don't know. In the vast majority of situations, even if you think you see a contradiction, you can find an action (which is often simply inaction) which is safe regardless of whether there really is a contradiction and which bit is true and which bit is false.

For example, let's say Mike tells me, that fellow is evil and it is good to strike him down.

But Bill tells me, that fellow has done no wrong, don't strike him down.

Bill and Mike cannot both be correct, but Mike never required me to strike the fellow down, so doing nothing is safe regardless of who is correct, and if I'm not sure it's fine to simply wait for more information.

There may be a few circumstances that require a person to make a choice right away, but they're definitely few and far between. I wasn't thinking of it this way but a debate forum is definitely not one of them.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 1:41 amNOTE It is not the victim's responsibility how a convicted criminal is treated when incarcerated. If fellow prisoners themselves break the law in prison that is between them and the prison authorities.
I can see where you're making a distinction. However, just because someone else is to blame doesn't mean I am not also to blame. Just as I know that if I throw a stone, the person I hit will lose 1d4 hit points, I know that if I cause him to be put in jail, he's going to be raped. I get that unlike the stone, the prison rape scenario has, in between myself and the person I caused to be put there, a human being who has responsibility for his actions. I really should be able to expect the rapist not to rape. But the world is ruled by Satan and prison is no exception... and I know rape will probably happen. I can throw a stone hoping I'll miss and I can help put a criminal in jail hoping he won't get raped, but I still know what my action is likely to accomplish.

In the cesspit world ruled by Satan that your religion admits exists, I have a very bad choice between letting a criminal continue hurting people and helping to toss him into a den of rapists where he will be raped. I can pick the latter and say to myself, "but, I didn't rape him, so I'm good," but this feels like a form of moral cowardice. And at least how I read it, this bad choice being unacceptable to foist on people is both the reason everyone but Noah and his family had to drown and the reason Sodom and Gomorrah had to be destroyed: If the world is bad enough, there can be a point at which no good choice remains, even for a good person.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 1:41 amThere is good reason to conclude that Jesus reference to "casting the first stone" is NOT part of John's original script. That said, Jesus did announce an end to the temple based system of worship (and by implication its associated legal system). None of this however amounts to a prohibition on the principle of stopping harmful or illegal activity or or of punishing the guilty. The only question for a Christian is how to legitimately achieve these ends, without violating bible law and principle.
For a Christian life (and blood) is sacred, and nobody but God has the right to take a human life.
Thus a Christian has every right to attempt to prevent the murder of himself or those under his protection. Since, as has been said, there is no bible law against the use of physical force, it is entirely reasonable and biblically legitimate for a Christian to use force to escape or prevent threat to one's life. There is no biblical edict of pure pacifism and absolute nonpunishment.
I agree that there's not. But I don't see it as obvious that only temple law is being abrogated. I see an example of, previously punishment is this, and now, we don't punish. There is more than one example of this. Previously, an eye for an eye, but now, don't retaliate, don't hit back. Only temple law? Why cut it there, precisely? Is it because the Bible says to submit to the laws? It says submit to the laws, not embrace the laws or help enforce them. To me this just reads as more of the usual, don't fight back, submit to anything and everything.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 1:41 amThe same principle of the sacredness of life however prevents the Christian from violently attacking or murdering anyone; so there is a limit to what he can do. For Jehovah's Witnesses then, if escape is impossible and it came to kill or be killed, we leave our hope of future life with the God who gave it.

Given the above then, there is no parallel between the Christian position and saying "I was not told not to throw an axe" since throwing an an axe at a person is a life threatening action prohibited by scripture.
I only wonder then why that principle never stopped anybody from stoning any hookers before then, when Thou Shalt Not Kill was already a commandment. I can easily harmonise it by imagining that this disharmony was exactly what Jesus put a stop to, having to tell people that the life and blood of he who violates the law is sacred, too. However, that must still be inferred and we're back to the question of how we apply the example given of not stoning hookers to death: To all punishment, to temple law, or merely to the case of specifically stoning specifically hookers to death.

Post Reply