Elephant in the room - accusation of judging

[shazeep]

well, that is possibly because i have been engaged with someone obviously in denial, but it may also be that you crave a religion, which is what men have established to seek God. As we have seen, religion means different things to different people, even within one religion; and we have many. Many sects of Christianity, all proclaiming that they are the way, generally excluding the others over doctrinal differences; yet there is only one Christ. Even more subsects of sects, splintering again, all looking for a better way.

Now this does not describe all religious people--even if it does encompass them--and for better or worse, when one contemplates getting closer to God, one thinks of what we now call church, and religion, as representative of God, and seeks them out as a guide. The fact that these represent men, and not God, is not immediately apparent, even if it is written in many places in Scripture, and further revealed by those--innocently or not--proclaiming others "lost" whom they have not rightly judged, oblivious of how this will be used against them for political purposes, pretending some separation of church and state.

"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means." Mahatma Gandhi

And so frankly on this basis alone, i am justified in my comments here, even had i offered no better answer than religion--but that is hardly true, as i have suggested a better concept of Christ at every turn. One that will surely bring one into some conflict with their religion, to be sure, because religion is conflicted at its core; an institution of men, with standards, rules, and codes for seeking God.

So i am not discounting your religious experience, i think it was great. I had a similar experience, and had my fleece wetted and dried also; funny how God comes to us where we are, huh? I'm sure we both would consider that a sin now. An even greater one, imo, is teaching what one does not know, where God is concerned, and while i won't claim to know many answers, i reserve the right to point out that your religion will kill you, and you are in fact already dead, and worse off than before, if all your religion did was ensconce your prejudices under some flag that you wave "under God."

[Esaias]

How dare you try to tell others they don't know God! You're sick and evil and dead and religious and you even sound like a fundamentalist bible thumper, ranting in your hatred of everyone who doesn't see things your way. You despise Everyone-Not-Shazeep.

You need help, religion is killing you.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But I insist the mindset and paradigm behind these recent accusations make the command of the Lord for us to be watchman completely impossible for us to fulfilled. This shows the dark counterfeit of truth exposed for what it really is.

Notice God gave words to the prophet to warn people in danger. God did not directly intend tell the people in danger themselves. He used a "watchman."

zek 3:16 And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.

God gives warning to the watchman to give to others.

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life;

God speaks to these others, but the watchman is the avenue of relating that message to them. It is the watchman's responsibility to relate that warning. This is where our recent critics twist the picture and claim nobody has the right to speak warning to others, but should heed warning for themselves. It's the concept that says none of us should warn anyone else of anything. The bible is allegedly supposed to be something we take for ourselves and ourselves only, and we're not meant to apply any of it to anyone other than ourselves.

the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Failure to warn others of the danger they're in leaves the watchman guilty for that other one's destruction and lost state of soul. But this is what the recent criticism accomplishes in the fate of the watchman. According to these critics, who insist we should not warn anyone else of the plight they're in since they believe that's not the nature of the bible, everyone who knows truth would be guilty for those whose souls are lost, for such criticism disables watchmen from performing this divine;y directed duty.

19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Again, keep in mind God is not directly talking to those in danger, but chose to speak to them with warning by way of these watchmen. That is simply a non-existent situation in the work of God in the minds of recent critics.

20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

In these interesting words, we almost get the sense that God lays stumblingblocks before sinners and demands that we are the means by which they are recovered. I';m not here to analyze that so much as the fact that the entire effort to give them warning is effectively cancelled and thrown to the wind by recent criticism that claims we set ourselves up as judges when we relate that warning, for only God can give them this warning. We find the actual intention of God is to warn others through us. God has given the judgment that they're in danger, and it is not the watchmen who are judges at all.

But critics here cry, "Don't judge me! You're judging me when you tell me I am in danger because of my beliefs. All you watchmen are self-admiring club members, who don't see the beam in your own eyes. You have no right to tell me I am in danger! I won't listen to anyone but God Himself. Stop judging me. LALALALALA, I plug my ears to your alleged warnings and cannot hear you! LALALALALA."

21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

Here we find the will of God for the conclusion of the purpose of having watchmen.

This entire concept of taking God;'s word and giving warning to those whom it claims, not who the watchmen claims, is moot and void and effectively nullified to having no meaning nor place of existence in the recent criticism that we're hearing here.

So, again, how is the act of taking scriptures such as, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned," and telling people who won't believe (let alone are not baptized, for who would get baptized if they don't believe) that they're lost and will wind up damned to be the act of violating the will of God, when God gives us a concept as Ezekiel 3 relates?

Folks, don't heed these recent liberal-minded criticisms, that are more akin to the world's spirit right now as it claims homosexuality is not a sin and we actually hate them if we say it is. It's the same reasoning that says we cannot restrict men's restrooms to biologically born males or else we are hateful and judgmental. Just change the terms that end with the suffix phobe and phobic with judgementalism and you have the same spirit of modern nonsensical criticism of religion as a whole in the world that feels morality, as they define it, is not an issue any more. SAME SPIRIT!

Worthy of repeating.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

This issue has popped up so many times, I cannot keep number, and is the favourite ploy of the unsaved who know nothing of Scripture. So, I am surprised it pops up here.

Judging.

So many say we JUDGE others, when Jesus said not to do so, whenever someone says "___ is lost."

Here's the favourite verse thereby taken out of context:

Matthew 7:7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

The ACTUAL context is understood with the entirety of the issue in mind:

Matthew 7:7 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

When you read it ALL, it says the judgment you mete will be meted back onto you again. In other words, if you have something in your eye and you tell someone else about something in their eye, you judged that person for your own problem. In fact, you did worse, because you not only have something in your own eye, but you pointed it out to another when that same one was silent with you.

This means you have to have victory over something that you claim another has a problem with. IT DOES NOT MEAN you are not to point out problems in others. Just don't do it if you have the same problem.

It actually gives you allowance to point out a problem so long as you don't have it yourself.

Furthermore, Paul stated we are intended to judge people who claim to be in the church.

1 Cor 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? 13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

He said those in the church are intended to be judged by believers. Otherwise he would not tell them to cast out the unrepentant fornicator Those outside the church God judges.

Now, when it comes to saying an entire religion's adherents are lost, some claim that is judging. No it's not. The word of God judged them.

Judging is contriving and creating your own criteria for salvation, and thereby determining who is lost and saved. When the bible laid out the criteria and stated disbelief in it or lack of adherence to it means one is lost, then repeating that statement to those who distinctly deny adherence to the biblical criteria are lost is not judging them, but only repeating what the bible said.

Again, judging is when you create the criteria, not when you cite bible where the criteria is plainly laid out.

Now, what I will say next will not be addressed by those who make this claim that we judge. Watch and see:

If it was still judging, and therefore wrong, for a believer to say a certain religious movement is entirely lost because they patently deny what the bible says is necessary for salvation, then we could never fulfil this command from the Lord.

Exekiel 3:16 And it came to pass at the end of seven days, that the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, 17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me. 18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. 20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.

When people say we cannot say muslims or hindus or buddhists are lost, because that is judging them, that's like saying we cannot cry out to people as watchmen and warn them of their anger!

Imagine them responding to you and saying, "You're judging me! You said I'm in danger. That's judging me!"

How is that not the case?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, that is possibly because i have been engaged with someone obviously in denial, but it may also be that you crave a religion, which is what men have established to seek God. As we have seen, religion means different things to different people, even within one religion; and we have many. Many sects of Christianity, all proclaiming that they are the way, generally excluding the others over doctrinal differences; yet there is only one Christ. Even more subsects of sects, splintering again, all looking for a better way.

Now this does not describe all religious people--even if it does encompass them--and for better or worse, when one contemplates getting closer to God, one thinks of what we now call church, and religion, as representative of God, and seeks them out as a guide. The fact that these represent men, and not God, is not immediately apparent, even if it is written in many places in Scripture, and further revealed by those--innocently or not--proclaiming others "lost" whom they have not rightly judged, oblivious of how this will be used against them for political purposes, pretending some separation of church and state.

"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means." Mahatma Gandhi

And so frankly on this basis alone, i am justified in my comments here, even had i offered no better answer than religion--but that is hardly true, as i have suggested a better concept of Christ at every turn. One that will surely bring one into some conflict with their religion, to be sure, because religion is conflicted at its core; an institution of men, with standards, rules, and codes for seeking God.

So i am not discounting your religious experience, i think it was great. I had a similar experience, and had my fleece wetted and dried also; funny how God comes to us where we are, huh? I'm sure we both would consider that a sin now. An even greater one, imo, is teaching what one does not know, where God is concerned, and while i won't claim to know many answers, i reserve the right to point out that your religion will kill you, and you are in fact already dead, and worse off than before, if all your religion did was ensconce your prejudices under some flag that you wave "under God."

This is what I see; take it for whatever it might be worth to you.

The Christ that you are proclaiming in some ways, looks a lot like the Christ that I, and others here at AFF, proclaim. But, in many other, very key ways, the Christ you are proclaiming doesn't look anything like the Christ I, and others here at AFF, are proclaiming. These differences are sufficient for me to say that I think your Christ and my Christ are not the same.

Now, we both know that Paul warned of "another Christ". The question is, is the Christ you are proclaiming the "another Christ", or is mine?

We can continue to wrangle the point and throw verses and sentiments back and forth, and accomplish little.

So, what's the better alternative?

Let's take something out of your playbook. You mention often the Christological phrase "know them by their fruits". So, let's stop for a moment a take a look at fruit. Fruit is a product of what is in the inner man, in the heart. As Jesus said, we are judged by what comes of our heart, and out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

I read your posts, and not all of them, but many, especially as of late, are ad hominem in scope, especially your interactions with Mike Blume. In fact, you've been downright derisive and antagonistic to him. I would even say mean and disrespectful.

I have seen Mike Blume disagree with you at every turn, and have seen him quote a lot of Scripture, and have seen him claim that you are in error, but I haven't once seen him make anything he has to say, a direct attack against you personally, to deride you or put you down.

Granted I may have missed something. Show me if I have. Seriously! But by the abundance of the heart, and the fruit produced from it, as I see I judge. And the fruit associated with your posts, the things you write instead of speak, from your heart, are not the kind of fruit I would be happy to eat, if a metaphor here may be utilized.

And so, in your antagonism and penchant for mean-spirited debate against Mike Blume, and others, I can only conclude that between you and him, if I am to "beware false prophets", as Christ teaches, you're the one I need to beware of.

See, before I was saved by God, as I mentioned, I was a mentally ill, even disturbed, God-hating antichrist (I've shared some of my testimony in that regards from my blog in the Deep Waters section, if you're interested to read more). The reason I was what I was was because when I was 14, I was possessed by an evil spirit, and by the time I was 18-19, I was actively seeking them out, and channeling them on a regular basis.

I hated, even despised anything Christian. I blasphemed the Lord all the time. But here was my best friend from childhood, now an adult like me, and suddenly, instead of being the violent drug dealing gangsta I had come to know, he was a big-hearted, loving, compassionate and devoted follower of Jesus!

And anytime I was in his home, a home I had spent nearly half my life in, the devil(s) inside of me would constantly whisper the following:

"You know where they keep their kitchen knives. There's a big butcher knife in that drawer. Go get and kill them. They won't even realize what's happening before it's too late" (and other such similar things).

My point in sharing this is because the disdain with which you seem always ready and willing to share toward Apostolic Pentecostals like Mike Blume (regardless of the religious label used or not used), is the same disdain I showed to Apostolic Pentecostals, and indeed to all Christians everywhere, back when I was the thrall of Satan.

I urge you to let that speak volumes. I recognize in your rhetoric and attack the very same tone and expression I used to have whenever I thought about Christians, back when I was indwelt by an EVIL SPIRIT.

Now maybe, if you came to Wisconsin or I was where you live, and we met up, we might chat and totally walk away with a different impression from one another. But right now, all we have is what we post to each other. And as I see, I judge. Your words do not ring of the Christ I know. Rather, they ring of an Antichrist I used to know (namely "me").

And that is very unsettling being that what I've just written is in regards to someone who claims to be a follower and lover of the same Christ I follow and love.

[shazeep]

ok well i am just the guy suggesting a little more Christ and less Paul, and i think Mike already accused me of being satan himself, in between flip-flopping on one of the many knots we have examined, from "Love your neighbor" through to the GS not really existing, or not being saved, to legal quotes from Paul unexpectedly culminating in Love, through to our current one here, that one must pick the right religion to be saved. If the Christ you love demands that everyone else be lost in order for you to be saved, we are not following the same Christ at all, wadr.

You are like the third person that has come in to bail Mike out, and i'm sorry if this is curt, but i just spent an hour (plus a couple minutes, i guess) on a thoughtful reply that is now lost, so i may not hit all the points again. Please put any important questions in shorter posts, if you would.

understand if Mike was espousing this tripe in a church setting, i would do this privately, but we are on a forum, and i have been belittled and dismissed multiple times, and never got an apology, but i have apologized multiple times for my indiscretions. I don't expect any apologies, and frankly i doubt Mike is capable of giving a genuine apology, no offense meant, and after all none taken, at least by me. Apologize to the billions you have offended, not me.

So if you want to revisit any of those subjects and take a whack at them, be my guest; i'm sure Mike's replies would be different now, as they even changed in the course of the discussion, which might be the point. If you are teaching what you have demonstrated that you do not know, there is no shame in changing your mind; the shame is in not changing your mind.

[shazeep]

Now, we both now that Paul warned of "another Christ". The question is, is the Christ you are proclaiming the "another Christ", or is mine?

we examined this already, @ what was "sufficient for them," as they did not have the benefit of the NT to quote from.

We can go over this again if you like, or i can give a more complete list of the conundrums we have examined, because i would really like for the takeaway here to be that there is a Christ that Rhema cannot show you, and as you have pointed out perhaps even i cannot show you, but Scripture can. Or if you like, quote some legalese at me, and i'll finish reading the passage and find Love in it, but you might review the several times that this has already happened with Mike, which i didn't pursue too far.

[mfblume]

What I see is a repeated misrepresentation of everything I personally stated. I've never changed my arguments. It's that our friend has pidgeonholed me to a certain belief he assumed I held because he did not like the phrase "All muslims are lost." Forget any clarification I ever made. He ignored it.

The issue of the good Samaritan is a classic example. He kept insisting the good Samaritan proves it's not faith in the work of the cross that makes us righteous, because the story of the cross is not even mention in the account of the good Samaritan. So, here is what was ignored from my explanation. The example of the God Samaritan. said two things about it. , One was that Jesus was not saying we must do good works to save ourselves, but that Christians need to have the fruit to help anyone regardless of their religion....l even muslims! But what the good Samaritan did was not save himself through the good deeds he committed for the fallen victim. In other words, faith that genuinely saves will produce those kind of good works in our lives. But those good works don't save us, instead the faith that produces them saves us.

The second point I made was that Law was a set of works to commit in order to earn righteousness. Paul spoke of that in Gal 3. Moses said the man WHO DOES the commandments will gain life. Salvation by works. But Paul also said that such an avenue toward righteousness is an impossible one to make. If one could succeed, one would indeed be righteous. But no one can succeed. So, Paul claimed that the Law was actually a LESSON teaching us that if we think we can make ourselves righteous, here are the requirements, and you cannot fail in one.... so knock yourself out. And, nope. Nobody can keep it. And God did that purposely as laid out in Romans 2-4 to ready Israel for Christ's coming who would GRANT righteousness through faith in His cross. After learning such a hard lesson on the futility of works toward righteousness, having Christ come to grant it freely by grace through our faith SHOULD have caused Israel to break down the doors for it.

But all of that was taken by shazeep as though i was saying we don't have to worry about good works as if the story of the good Samaritan did not exist in our bibles! I mean THAT is the what he repeated and repeated, despite every instance where I clarified that it was not the case. Yes, the good Samaritan is a LESSON to us, BUT NOT HOW TO BE SAVED. And each time I said that,m which was many Shazeep IGNORED it as though I never said it
and kept repeating his accusation.

I never called him satan, but I said a devil must be inside him to work that sort of misrepresentation and absolute ignoring of what I stated to repeat his twisted version of what I believe every time.

And LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR? I repeated over and over, as well, that YES, we have to love our neighbours as ourselves, but that does not do away with the fact that muslims are lost and they must be made to realize that to be saved. I never once stated LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOUR should not occur nor be believed.

And then he started this "Pick the right religion to be saved." I already explained that it's not religion that saves, but the false religion will surely ........ a soul. Like, these are no-brainers. Children know better than that. It's what the bible actually says that will judge us and save us if we believe and obey it, not my interpretation of it nor any religion's interpretations. It's what it ACTUALLY IS INTENDED BY GOD TO SAY. And in efforts to ensure either of us HAVE the God-=intended interpretation, I invited Shazeep to discuss ACTUAL SCRIPTURE that deals with why each of us believes what we do. That gives the chance for us to point out flaws we can see in each other's belief system based upon how each of us takes a scripture and handles it in view of what the rest of the bible says about it. But S would run away and never participate in that, and then excuse himself by saying IT IS LAWYER PLOYS to twist the word, albeit he believed I was doing it in sincerity, but being sincerely WRONG.

Then it boiled down to attacking me personally when it was not about me or him. It was about what the word said.

I;m not going to apologize for saying I feel he has a devil in him, nor that I feel the darkness in him is what he considers light, nothing such darkness is really dark for that to be the case. Had I called him a jerk or called him names like he did to me, then I would apologize. But I never did that. In short, I do not apologize for what I believe is the case that anyone else in his belief system would also be in severe and grave error due to what the word says.

I mean, in his mind, we cannot warn anyone they're lost because of their religion.... not their religion in and of itself. That's what shazeep is twisting my words to say. They are lost BECAUSE any religion that totally denies the absolute need for the death of Christ to occur in order for them to be saved, along with their conscious faith in the work of the cross to that end of salvation, is lost. It's not about picking religions and getting the wrong one. It's about ensuring religions that successfully convince people they do not need the work of the cross of Christ to have eternal life. THAT's the issue. It's not individuals being offended, nor intention to slander individuals. It is pointing out the only way to God and eternal life is the work of the cross of Jesus Christ. So, if the Koran patently denies the work of the cross even occurred, everyone who believes and adheres to that concept is lost. And a muslim would not be a muslim if they did not agree with the Koran's every page and every claim of truth. So, all muslims are lost.

I say that about Hindus , Buddhists, Taoists, whoever.... ANYONE and ANY RELIGION that denies Christ and Him crucified is our only means of salvation from sin and eternal life is LOST. And Shazeep says that makes me evil, and makes me sick and makes me someone who writes his political correct manner of speaking of excrement so commonly used by those in the world who are prone to cussing, informing me of what's in his heart in that regard.

[mfblume]

Shaz's form of love is you cannot warn someone in a religion that leads them away from faith in Christ and the cross for righteousness, salvation from sin, and eternal life, lest you be accused of being evil and sick. This whole thread was started to point out the grave error in that reasoning, showing that the bible demands we do the very thing Shaz says is evil and sick to do. And notice he never ever deals with actual scripture. Even the ones he claims I violate, he makes a scant reference to them, and when asked by myself to examine them and see if they are indeed are things I violate, he runs and runs and runs. Never ever dealing with them.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Esaias

How dare you try to tell others they don't know God! You're sick and evil and dead and religious and you even sound like a fundamentalist bible thumper, ranting in your hatred of everyone who doesn't see things your way. You despise Everyone-Not-Shazeep.

You need help, religion is killing you.

yes, "Love one another" and "forgive, and you will be forgiven" are despicable, and hideous, huh. You don't think it would be more instructive to examine "everyone who does not believe like me is lost," or is your position now that that describes me, who is suggesting that the Good Samaritan is saved?