A Different Take on What Prompted Jesus to say, "Judge not, least you be judged"

[Vouthon]

@Sunstone I have a cache of your great threads to write responses to, and don't know where I should begin. I'll get round to each in turn, when my schedule is freer.

I think that your OP is a refreshing take on this justly famous passage, the common interpretations of which have become somewhat vanilla and 'Sunday school PC' given its widespread currency in popular culture.

The staple mindset shared among the majority of 'mystics', might be well summarized in a pithy quatrain by Angelus Silesius (c. 1624 – 9 July 1677), one of my favourite of the Catholic mystics:


Alexandrines of Angelus Silesius

I know the nightingale mocks not the cuckoo's call;
Though my song apes not yours, may I not sing at all?

​

Which is to say, one is enjoined to tolerate and even transcend differences in others without passing judgement (within due measure). And I think that you are correct in the belief that this is intricately bound up with, or rather the logical conclusion of, the experience of all-pervading oneness and the breakdown in barriers that their consciousness perceives. A particularly striking illustration of this tendency can be seen from reading the works of St. Angela of Foligno , (1248 - 1309), an Italian mystic of the Catholic Church:

In a vision I beheld the fullness of God in which I beheld and comprehended the whole creation, that is, what is on this side and what is beyond the sea, the abyss, the sea itself, and everything else. And in everything that I saw, I could perceive nothing except the presence of the power of God, and in a manner totally indescribable. And my soul in an excess of wonder cried out: "This world is pregnant with God!" ...

God presents himself in the inmost depths of my soul. I understand not only that he is present, but also how he is present in every creature and in everything that has being, in a devil and a good angel, in heaven and hell, in good deeds and in adultery or homicide, in all things, finally, which exist or have some degree of being, whether beautiful or ugly.

She further said: I also understand that he is no less present in a devil than a good angel. Therefore, while I am in this truth, I take no less delight in seeing or understanding his presence in a devil or in an act of adultery than I do in a good angel or in a good deed. This mode of divine presence in my soul has become almost habitual

(Paulist Press, 1993, pp. 212-213)

​

I guess it becomes pretty difficult to adopt a censorious attitude to the world after you've experienced that! How many people have told you that they've been able to find the presence of God in "hell, the devil and acts adultery" because everything is "pregnant" with the one Being, without distinction as to merits,

@9-10ths_Penguin opines that Jesus contradicted his own doctrine of non-judgementalism (which I must admit, no one I've read has argued might be an interpolation) courtesy of the colourful language he used in denouncing certain religious opponents, such as the Pharisees and Sadducees.

In his defence, I would argue that he did that only to warn his disciples against following poor models for imitation and not blindly accepting the superior authority of religious leaders, merely forthe fact that they occupy a supposedly elevated "holy" office. The historical Jesus, scholars explain, was passionately committed to the belief that the temple system and the ritual puritans who vouched for it were about to be radically uprooted in a great seismic historical change (the apocalyptic dimension to his thought). The apocryphal Gospel of Thomas preserves something of these theological assumptions, despite its probable final redaction in the second century, in its third logion:


Gospel of Thomas (Lambdin Translation) -- The Nag Hammadi Library

Jesus said, "If your religious leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you....

His disciples said to him: On what day will the kingdom come? Jesus said: It cometh not with observation. They will not say: Lo, here! or: Lo, there! But the kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.
​

He had a strong dislike for the hierarchical structure of the Judean religious establishment (i.e. "Don't let anyone call you 'Rabbi,' for you have only one teacher, and all of you are equal as brothers and sisters" (Matthew 23:8) and "But you shall not be like them. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who leads like the one who serves." (Luke 22:26)).

This partisan agenda on his part, and the bold language he employed to back it up, was much less about judging the motives of these religious leaders (i.e. "forgive them for they know not what they do", right?) than it was ensuring that his disciples did not submit themselves to the yoke of their office and sanctimonious authority, since in the words of Jesus,

"They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on the people's shoulders, but they themselves do not to lift a finger to move them...and they take the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, and [receive] respectful greetings in the market places, and [are] called Rabbi by men" (Matthew 23:4-7) and yet by their elitist actions, "shut off the kingdom of heaven from the people, devour widows' houses...and travel over land and sea to win a single convert" (Matthew 23:13-15).

There is a potent undercurrent of radical populism underlying these remarks, that should not be divorced from their appropriate context.

Readers are often surprised to find that Jesus condemned mainstream Judaism of his day for being a proselytising faith (particularly in light of what his own followers were about to unleash on the world for the next two millenia) but it was not averse to such activities at this time:

Idumaean

Edomite history was marked by continuous hostility and warfare with Jews, Assyrians, and Syrians. At the end of the 2d cent. B.C., they were subdued by Hasmonaean priest-king John Hyrcanus I, forcibly circumcised, and merged with the Jews. Herod the Great was Idumaean. ​

And wikipedia::

Forced conversions occurred under the Hasmonean Empire. The Idumaens were forced to convert to Judaism, either by threats of exile, or threats of death, depending on the source.[26][27]

In Eusebíus, Christianity, and Judaism Harold W. Attridge claims that “there is reason to think that Josephus’ account of their conversion is substantially accurate.” He also writes, "That these were not isolated instances but that forced conversion was a national policy is clear from the fact that Alexander Jannaeus (ca 80 BCE) demolished the city of Pella in Moab, 'because the inhabitants would not agree to adopt the national custom of the Jews.'" Josephus, Antiquities. 13.15.4.[28]

Maurice Sartre has written of the "policy of forced Judaization adopted by Hyrcanos, Aristobulus I and Jannaeus", who offered "the conquered peoples a choice between expulsion or conversion"​

Jesus likely had in mind events like this earlier expansionist policy of forced conversion by the independent Jewish state (before its occupation by the Romans) and he condemned it unreservingly.

As I have reiterated before, Jesus properly understood was as far from judgmental as a religious teacher can humanly expect to be.

One need only consider the research of eminent, secular New Testament scholars such as Professors Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, Marcus Borg and John P. Meier in this respect.

The Jewish scholar Geza Vermes believed that Jesus' association with people scapegoated as 'sinners' by the mainstream, orthodox religious establishment (the holiness system and ritual puritans), was the factor that differentiated him more than any other from his contemporaries and predecessors. In the postscript to Jesus the Jew, he described this as constituting what was special about the teaching of Jesus, saying this:

In one respect, more than any other, Jesus differed from both his contemporaries and even his prophetic predecessors. The prophets spoke on behalf of the honest poor, and defended the widows and the fatherless, those oppressed and exploited by the wicked, rich and powerful. Jesus went further. In addition to proclaiming these blessed, he actually took his stand among the pariahs of his world, those despised by the respectable. Sinners were his table-companions and the ostracised tax-collectors and prostitutes his friends.

[Jesus the Jew, Geza Vermes, 1994, p. 196]​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@9-10ths_Penguin opines that Jesus contradicted his own doctrine of non-judgementalism (which I must admit, no one I've read has argued might be an interpolation)

FWIW, I have no idea if it is an interpolation; verses 1-6 just seem disjointed from the rest of the passage (and verse 6 seems disjointed from the ones that come before and after). I've seen speakers with that sort of disjointed, parenthetical style - Donald Trump comes to mind - so maybe it really all was one speech from a speaker who jumps around from one topic to another and then back to the original topic.

I haven't looked at any manuscript evidence or anything like that. It's just that the passage flows better without verses 1-6, and AFAICT there's nothing in those verses that's referred to by the rest of the passage, so the passage is still perfectly coherent without those verses.

courtesy of the colourful language he used in denouncing certain religious opponents, such as the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Not just colourful, but denigrating. Don't forget that to a Jewish audience, "swine" doesn't just connote "lowly" or "dirty," but also "inherently unclean" or "untouchable."

In his defence, I would argue that he did that only to warn his disciples against following poor models for imitation and not blindly accepting the superior authority of religious leaders, merely forthe fact that they occupy a supposedly elevated "holy" office.

It doesn't read like an admonition against being a follower of the wrong sort of leader; it reads like an admonition against trying to lead the wrong sort of follower.

Regardless, the way it accomplishes this is by judging those other people to be "swine" and "dogs."

 

[stvdv]

19 jun 2018 stvdv 011 97

However, the most important thing to emphasize in the context of this thread is this: In whatever form the experience takes, whether of a oneness or of a One, there is no self left to judge non-self. There is no "other" to be judged. Or, put differently, to judge someone else is to judge yourself.

When we "accept" this truth, we get quite humbled. I judge myself, so I don't Love myself, so I don't Love God.
Jesus was quite smart. These 2 words were enough a teaching. After 2000 years we still struggle to put this simple advice into practice.

When in "normal" mode, forgetting "my true Self" and someone judges me, then, if I say nothing I feel bad afterwards; sticks in my mind.
So I found the solution "Just tell them, He you are judging me; did you just try to explain me about Jesus and His teachings?"
Of course always they are very quick and happy to reply "Aha, now you are judging me". This happened at least a dozen times to me.
And I can then reply "No, there you are wrong again; I just show you what you did. But I don't judge you. If you like you can continue to judge, but when you meet Jesus, you can't say stvdv did not warn you"

Of course if I judge they can point the finger at me. But I will be very happy to say "thank you so much for pointing out my error. My wrong"

When in "enlightened" mode there is no problem. Then I don't have to respond. Took me quite a while to figure out "to act normal [tell them nicely the truth] when I am normal; and only remain silent if I am in the enlightened mood"

So as you all have guessed, I most of the time do have to respond

 

[Vouthon]

FWIW, I have no idea if it is an interpolation; verses 1-6 just seem disjointed from the rest of the passage (and verse 6 seems disjointed from the ones that come before and after). I've seen speakers with that sort of disjointed, parenthetical style - Donald Trump comes to mind - so maybe it really all was one speech from a speaker who jumps around from one topic to another and then back to the original topic.

FYI, I feel its important to note that there aren't actually likely to be any extended speeches by Jesus that were remembered in toto, outside the parable stories.

The teachings of Christ, as best as scholars can discern, were assembled by the gospels writers (and their sources) into lengthy orations out of a bewildering cacophony of sound-bites concerning everything from parables, wisdom sayings, mystical aphorisms, apocalyptic-prophetic oracles, community guidelines and much else besides.

Any "flow" that one can detect is liable to be due to the skill (or lack thereof in poor Mark's case, given his dodgy command of Greek) of the evangelist penning the gospel.

Luke is thought to have been the most urbane and confident in his style, thus his artificial, Hellenistic-style rhetoric tends to move along in a fantastic order. Matthew is considered to be rather good but also irritatingly ponderous, and you seem to have detected a lapse here in how he structured his themes. John is deemed to have been symbolically the richest and deepest but syntactically limited.

Not just colourful, but denigrating. Don't forget that to a Jewish audience, "swine" doesn't just connote "lowly" or "dirty," but also "inherently unclean" or "untouchable."

But it was a generic, wisdom saying that didn't identify any specific individuals. It's intent was to act as an ethical injunction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

FYI, I feel its important to note that there aren't actually likely to be any extended speeches by Jesus that were remembered in toto.

Of course.

The teachings of Christ, as best as scholars can discern, were assembled by the gospels writers (and their sources) into lengthy orations out of a bewildering cacophony of sound-bites concerning everything from wisdom sayings, mystical aphorisms, apocalyptic-prophetic oracles, community guidelines and much else besides.

Any "flow" that one can detect is liable to be due to the skill (or lack thereof in poor Mark's case, given his dodgy command of Greek) of the evangelist penning the gospel.

Right... but if you take out verses 1 through 6, then it all works together... like one person wrote it in one sitting. Verses 1-5, and then verse 6, come across - at least to me - like interjections into what would otherwise be one coherent stream of thoughts on a single theme.

But it was a generic, wisdom saying that didn't identify any specific individuals. It's intent was to act as an ethical injunction.

So judging a group of people isn't judging?

 

[Vouthon]

Of course.


Right... but if you take out verses 1 through 6, then it all works together... like one person wrote it in one sitting. Verses 1-5, and then verse 6, come across - at least to me - like interjections into what would otherwise be one coherent stream of thoughts on a single theme.

The Sermon on the Mount isn't actually a sermon though.

It's a cluster of disorganized sayings that the evangelist likely saw fit to group together here because he couldn't find anywhere to incorporate them into the body of Mark's biography of Jesus, which he used as his base text for the broad contours of Jesus's life.

Matthew was relying upon a preceding source of remembered aphorisms (i.e. Jesus said, Jesus said). Luke has the exact same teaching in his gospel, probably from the same source.

I just see little reason to look for order here or consistency of thought.

So judging a group of people isn't judging?

He doesn't identify either individuals or a group.

It's like us referencing an everyday phrase like "a pig with lipstick is still a pig".

To put "lipstick on a pig" is a rhetorical expression, used to convey the message that making superficial or cosmetic changes is a futile attempt to disguise the true nature of a product or person.​

That doesn't mean that I'm necessarily calling a particular person a pig, I'm just making a moral statement.

Jesus was viewed by the religious elites as a Galilean hick, a man from the backwater of Nazareth who'd worked with his hands and spoke the language of the commonfolk (as one can tell from the nature of his parables, using images of farmers and women baking bread to convey spiritual and ethical messages), I'm sure they thought for calculated reasons.

While this is to an extent masked by the majestic prose of the KJV, I think we shouldn't mistake his (what we would call) "populist" oratory style for judgementalism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Sermon on the Mount isn't actually a sermon though.

I wasn't talking about the whole Sermon on the Mount. I'm talking about Matthew 6:25 through 7:12, minus 7:1-6 - the passage that describes how God knows our needs and will provide for us. Try reading it for yourself - deleting those verses makes the passage much more coherent.

It's a cluster of disorganized sayings that the evangelist likely saw fit to group together here because he couldn't find anywhere to incorporate them into the body of Mark's biography of Jesus, which he used as his base text for the broad contours of Jesus's life.

I understand that. What I'm saying is that Matthew 6:25-34 and 7:7-12 taken together sure read like a single quote on a single theme.

Matthew was relying upon a preceding source of remembered aphorisms (i.e. Jesus said, Jesus said). Luke has the exact same teaching in his gospel, probably from the same source.

I just see little reason to look for order here or consistency of thought.

By the same token, do you see any reason to assume that Matthew 7:1-6 couldn't have been added by inserting it into a passage? Why assume that each quote was appended onto the end?

He doesn't identify either individuals or a group.

It's like us referencing an everyday phrase like "a pig with lipstick is still a pig".

To put "lipstick on a pig" is a rhetorical expression, used to convey the message that making superficial or cosmetic changes is a futile attempt to disguise the true nature of a product or person.​

That doesn't mean that I'm necessarily calling a particular person a pig, I'm just making a moral statement.

Jesus was viewed by the religious elites as a Galilean hick, a man from the backwater of Nazareth who'd worked with his hands and spoke the language of the commonfolk (as one can tell from the nature of his parables, using images of farmers and women baking bread to convey spiritual and ethical messages), I'm sure they thought for calculated reasons.

While this is to an extent masked by the majestic prose of the KJV, I think we shouldn't mistake his (what we would call) "populist" oratory style for judgementalism.

If he didn't intend the epithets to refer to specific people, then it doesn't work as an instruction.

If it wasn't intended as an instruction to the people listening, how do you think it was intended?

 

[Vouthon]

By the same token, do you see any reason to assume that Matthew 7:1-6 couldn't have been added by inserting it into a passage? Why assume that each quote was appended onto the end?

Luke's gospel contains the same teaching in amidst an assortment of other consistent sayings but in a different order, and with a few additions of L material (Matthew alone has the verses about the swine beginning 7:6). The breadth of verbatim material in the Sermons on the Mount and Plain, respectively, suggest that the evangelists acted primarily as compilers and editors, and that the "judge yet not" passages are an authentic part of the earlier, common source.

Also, the Gospel of Mark (which both Matthew and Luke followed closely wherever they could, except improving his language and structure), included a variation of the same saying involving the second "measure for measure" part of the teaching: "And he said to them, 'Take heed what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get'" (Mark 4.24).

It also shows up in the Didache and other very primitive extra-canonical sources. Given its multiple attestation, it clearly must have been present in Matthew's source material, so I would find it odd for him to have omitted it only for a later redactor to have inserted it.

But, who knows, you may have a point.

I think it's better to see the lack of consistency and flow as a consequence of Luke's superior literary skills, such that he has simply arranged the disorganized material in a less haphazard manner. This isn't surprising since he was simply better at it, as every Greek linguist agrees.

Whereas Matthew is likely to have been less prone to deviate from the rambling, chaotic melange of the original sayings material, Luke brought order to what he read and was more parsimonious.

 

[Faithofchristian]

"Judge not, least you be judged." -- an obscure Jewish mystic, circa 30 AD.

It is a known truth that our noble and esteemed species of super-bright, poo-flinging great apes loves a good joke, and one of our species all time favorite good jokes has been to spoof children into believing that "Those other folks are far too judgmental, but we ourselves are not." Like all good jokes, there is sometimes a kernel of truth to that.

People do indeed vary a bit in how overtly judgmental they are. But if we think of "judgemental" in a way that will surely seem much too harsh to many of us, as judging others (and things) when it is neither useful nor practically necessary to judge them, then I think we can see how nearly every person on the planet would be judgemental in that light. That definition might offend some people, but I see it as more useful in the context of this thread than vaguely saying judgementalism is "going too far", or something else along those lines.

I could be wrong about this, but so far as I know, there is only one more or less coherent group of humans that, by accounts of them, are notably lacking as a group in judgemental behavior -- assuming, of course, that we stick to our definition of "judgementalism".

That would be mystics. There might be a far larger group of people who are remarkably non-judgemental, but I don't think that larger group would be unified in any way other than that they are non-judgemental. Mystics, on the other hand, are noted for having several significant things in common. More important, I think, they have those things in common despite that they come from all sorts of different cultural backgrounds. You can discover mystics in nearly every culture of any size on earth.

That means their non-jugdementalism must not depend on cultural factors alone, such as religion, other ideologies, and so forth. And it is precisely that which makes them interesting here.

Please don't let me confuse you: By "mystics", I am only referring to those people who have had, or claim to have had, one or more "mystical experiences". I am not referring to all those other people who merely study mysticism, or even those who try to follow the teachings of mystics in order to attain to their own mystical experiences. Most mystics, but certainly not all of them, describe their experiences as "experiences of god". Some, though, interpret their experiences as of something else, or are agnostic on the issue of whether they might have been experiences of god.

So, assuming that mystics tend to, at least overtly, judge others more or less only when it is useful or necessary to do so -- which would make them notably less judgemental than even most normal non-judgemental people -- then why is that the case? What is it about them that makes them radically non-judgemental compared to most folks?

I myself do not believe it has anything at all to do with any willful or conscious effort on the part of mystics to avoid useless or unnecessary judgements. I don't even think it has much to do with how mystics consciously think about things. Rather, I suspect it has to do with how they perceive themselves and the world. But I don't mean by that anything along the lines of a worldview -- a worldview is merely a set of beliefs, but not an actual way of perceiving.

For the purposes of this thread, there are only two important ways of perceiving things, and they are radically different from each other. First, is the way everyone us is no doubt familiar with, the way of our normal waking consciousness. The second way is the mystical way, which some folks call a "higher consciousness", but which I prefer to think of as a different kind of awareness, or simply a different way of perceiving.

There are many ways to distinguish between the two, but there is no way to distinguish between them that everyone will "get". However, I believe the best way is this: Consider that you instantly and simply "know" whenever you experience something -- anything -- what is "you" and what is "not-you". We make that distinction moment by moment during the entire time when we are awake and conscious without usually becoming acutely aware of it. That is, we do not need to actually think to make that distinction, it is simply a matter of how we perceive ourselves and the world.

Now imagine that division of everything we are experiencing moment to moment as self or non-self -- imagine that division suddenly evaporating, completely ending within perhaps a fraction of a second. What would your perception of yourself and the world be then?

That's exactly what happens to mystics. At some moment, for reasons no one seems to be really sure of yet, their normal waking consciousness abruptly ends and is replaced by a radically different kind of awareness.

Mystics differ somewhat on the details of that awareness, but most agree at least this much: Their perception of themselves and the world as divided between self and non-self is replaced by at least a perception of all things -- including themselves -- being in some way or sense just one thing. That is, they agree on the fact that they experience a sense of the "oneness" of all things within their entire perceptual fields (sight, hearing, touch, etc, and also including internal sensations, such as hunger).

Some go well beyond that to say everything dissolves into -- not just a perception of oneness -- but a perception of a One. The difference being you would still see the tree in front of you in the first case, but everything would -- near as I can understand it -- dissolve into a blinding white light in the second case.

You could write books about that experience alone, so I am certainly leaving out a lot here. However, the most important thing to emphasize in the context of this thread is this: In whatever form the experience takes, whether of a oneness or of a One, there is no self left to judge non-self. There is no "other" to be judged. Or, put differently, to judge someone else is to judge yourself.

Again, "Judge not, least you be judged". Of course there is so much more to it than that. For instance, the full psychological consequences of judging others on oneself. But I offer this OP as perhaps an interesting secular take on the famous sentence. No more than that.

But the question is, What prompted Jesus to say "Judge not, for in the way you judge, you shalt be judge"

Could it be because the Pharisees were judging people and found doing the same thing.

What about Jesus also saying, Judge not by the appearance, But judge righteous judgment"
What prompted Jesus to say this.

Could it be because the Pharisees were judging people by their appearance, and not by the good intentions of people of righteous judgment.

Like the parable of the good Samaritan. Where the Pharisees were judging the Samaritans base on their appearance and not by righteous judgment.of the good things the Samaritans were doing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Amen to that!

I've long said that he deserves the official sobriquet, "best contributer, period!"

I don't know anyone else who devotes such care and depth to their postings. He's part of the furniture at this rate, right?

*coughs*antique*coughs*

 

[David1967]

Once a child is brainwashed before the age of 7 years, it is almost impossible to deprogram or reprogram

Even when successful, there is often still the underlying fear of, "what if I'm wrong".

 

[Audie]

Even when successful, there is often still the underlying fear of, "what if I'm wrong".

If it is a worry, then I guess they should take
their chances, trying to fool god into thinking
they really do believe.

As for me-

I dont ever cover my hair in public,
and according to Islam, that sin will get
me hung by my hair in eternal fire.

It is pretty bad. What do you suggest?

islamic hell - Google Search:

 

[David1967]

I dont ever cover my hair in public,
and according to Islam, that sin will get
me hung by my hair in eternal fire.

Somehow I seriously doubt that a being of that magnitude would be sitting around worrying about ladies hairstyle, or covering or any such mundane thing.

islamic hell - Google Search:

I'm not Muslim so I guess I don't have to worry about "Islamic Hell".

 

[Audie]

Somehow I seriously doubt that a being of that magnitude would be sitting around worrying about ladies hairstyle, or covering or any such mundane thing.



I'm not Muslim so I guess I don't have to worry about "Islamic Hell".

It is my answer to pascals wager.

 

[David1967]

I dont ever cover my hair in public,
and according to Islam, that sin will get
me hung by my hair in eternal fire.

Angry people imagine angry gods.

 

[outlawState]

But the question is, What prompted Jesus to say "Judge not, for in the way you judge, you shalt be judge"

Could it be because the Pharisees were judging people and found doing the same thing.

What about Jesus also saying, Judge not by the appearance, But judge righteous judgment"
What prompted Jesus to say this.

Could it be because the Pharisees were judging people by their appearance, and not by the good intentions of people of righteous judgment.

Like the parable of the good Samaritan. Where the Pharisees were judging the Samaritans base on their appearance and not by righteous judgment.of the good things the Samaritans were doing.

What Jesus' meant by judgementalism is epitomized by the example in Mark 7:1-13. Because of the rules for washing in temple rites, and other ritual washing in the Levitical law, the Pharisees had construed washing as a good idea and established other traditions such as washing hands before meals. When the disciples did not follow these traditions, the Pharisees purported to judge them - according to merely human rules, said Jesus,

Jesus found fault with the Pharisees because, at the same time as they judged the disciples according to merely human rules, they themselves set aside the law of God by allowing service to father and mother to be devoted as a gift or offering consecrated to God, thereby destroying the commandment "honour they father and mother."

A typical example today of such hypocrisy would be modern divorce law; is there anything more to it other than unbridled hypocrisy?

 

[Miracle]

1:Most people are brainwashed into "my belief is better". At least we have 2 billion Christians, and a similar amount of Muslims [adds up to 50%]
Once a child is brainwashed before the age of 7 years, it is almost impossible to deprogram or reprogram

2: When escaping "brainwashing", or lucky to be deprogrammed comes stage 2. Detach from attachments. So that we are open to the truth. The world is perfect. There is nothing wrong in it. It is just the glasses one wears. Green glasses and you see the world as green. "Love Glasses" and you see the world as Love. If you judge someone, it just means "You feel no Love". When you realize this, you won't make a fool of yourself judging others.

More easy to see; more practical. When some humans desire to murder, then consciousness creates victims. That is just how consciousness works. Bible calls it creations. It is all the same. Just natural or universal Laws that work how they are supposed to work.

When one doesn't see "the light", looking through worldly glasses, then of course one is trapped into this illusion. That's why the goal of life, for some, is to get untrapped, enlightened. Once one had this experience one knows. But only when fully awakened one realizes it all the time. Till then one just bounces between the waves "up and down".

1. Most people are brainwashed regardless of faith-based beliefs. Everyone has a belief and everyone believes their belief is better than others wether they think about it or not. It is only in the face of uncertainty can we be truly "open-minded", but majority are certain of something and that certainty will always lead to "my belief is better"; if not in word, then in deed.


For example: Implicit/unconscious biases -

(It is 2.5 minutes long) These biases are manifested in people’s behavior, while they may not say that their belief is better than someone else’s their actions say it all. And it impacts the children that copy what they see.


2. Truth is relative until otherwise agreed upon. The world isn't perfect and it would be unwise to say so, especially when everything and everyone within it are a testament to its corruption/evilness. Wearing glasses is a poor way of seeing the world. Until we can accept that the world will never be a better place, then can we start on a journey to fix it/make it better. When people refuse to speak out on what is wrong then we will never have love. Love is judgement, judgment is "the faculty of being able to make critical distinctions and achieve a balanced viewpoint; discernment." Without judgment, we have chaos and cruelty. Where the problem lies is when corrupt men, cast corrupt judgements. Which is why the Bible further states, "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". Once that is done, then we have a perfect man, who makes perfect judgements that bring about love in a way we’ve never seen. [the issue is not many people are perfect, if I should say 99.99.....998% of the world is not perfect at all]


What it seems you are looking for is a change of heart, not just perspective.


In the end, it all comes down to tolerating the diversity of thought, attitude, and action of other people.

 

[stvdv]

22 jun 2018 stvdv 012 08

Most people are brainwashed regardless of faith-based beliefs

Glad we agree that faith has been brainwashing people. Of course there are some added "brainwashes". But "hell and doom" is major one

Everyone has a belief

Until one is Self Realized of course. Thanks for the short video. A good point. Trauma easily makes us act different from what we think and speak.

everyone believes their belief is better than others wether they think about it or not

My guru told me "all believes are equally valid, never talk demeaning about the belief of another". Lets agree to disagree on this one.

It is only in the face of uncertainty can we be truly "open-minded"

Good observation. Until we are Self Realized we are groping. So uncertain we all are [99.999999%]. My guru, Jesus++ are exceptions IMHO.

but majority are certain of something and that certainty will always lead to "my belief is better"; if not in word, then in deed.

That is why my guru tells "your belief is NOT better than that of the other". It starts with thought. He tells "thought,word,deed need be 1".

while they may not say that their belief is better than someone else’s their actions say it all. And it impacts the children that copy what they see.

Best start to control thought/words into "my belief is not better". JUST tell kids "If I make 1 mistake you MUST tell me and I will change myself?"
[Very easy to motivate yourself 100% if creative AND humble AND able to say sorry AND don't believe "my religion is better".]

Truth is relative until otherwise agreed upon

That is true. I explained from Advaita + Sanathana Dharma viewpoint "consciousness is Truth, world is illusion". Just my belief.

The world isn't perfect and it would be unwise to say so

For me it is "of course wise to think so" + okay on RF.debate AND if 1 finds it "informative" it was not unwise IMHO. Others can practice ignore.
[Of course don't read this outside the context that I have given "advaita". When this is read out of my given context, then I agree that is unwise]

especially when everything and everyone within it are a testament to its corruption/evilness

We are here on "religious forum" and debate. So it feels good to share this positive advaita view here. Outside not are able to understand.

Wearing glasses is a poor way of seeing the world

Except when we wear glasses of LOVE, then we see the world correct

Until we can accept that the world will never be a better place, then can we start on a journey to fix it/make it better

Not sure what you mean here. My feeling is "world and life is trouble, better to focus on God, Self Realization..."

When people refuse to speak out on what is wrong then we will never have love.

I agree. It is indeed paramount that "thought, words and deed be 1". Tell what you feel, act as you speak.

Love is judgement

Let's agree to disagree on this one. I just have another definition of "LOVE". I do believe God loves unconditional and is not judgmental.

judgment is "the faculty of being able to make critical distinctions and achieve a balanced viewpoint; discernment." Without judgment, we have chaos and cruelty

It is very healthy to scrutinize our own mistakes. No doubt about that. It's the easiest to change yourself. If all do that, the world will be perfect.

Where the problem lies is when corrupt men, cast corrupt judgements

Injustice I am very allergic to. Sadly the world is full of it.

Bible further states, "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"

One of my favorites from the Bible [correct my own faults and be mild to others' mistakes, but correct them when they start to hurt me/others]

Once that is done, then we have a perfect man, who makes perfect judgements that bring about love in a way we’ve never seen

I am very fortunate to have met such a person who was just perfect. The best motivation if you have such an example.

What it seems you are looking for is a change of heart, not just perspective.
In the end, it all comes down to tolerating the diversity of thought, attitude, and action of other people.

Very nicely said.

 

[Miracle]

Glad we agree that faith has been brainwashing people. Of course there are some added "brainwashes". But "hell and doom" is major one

I don’t believe faith has been brainwashing people AT ALL. Sorry, if it appeared like I did. I am in support of faith 100%, depending on what exactly people have faith in. I personally don’t see Hell as brainwashing people, it’s real and many people re walking themselves there. The sad thing is that people are forced into Christianity, not that they are Christians, instead of making a decision on their own, as I did a few years ago (I can share with you why I decided to be a Christian if your interested in hearing).

Trauma easily makes us act different from what we think and speak.

What do you define as trauma. What we think is influenced by everything around us, mostly (depending on the environment) from our parents. What competes with our thinking is the world outside our doorstep and plastered all over the tv.

guru, Jesus++ are exceptions IMHO.

Jesus++? What does that mean? And what does IMHO mean? Sorry, I’m new to this website, just made it today.

That is why my guru tells "your belief is NOT better than that of the other".

Do you believe that belief to be better than other options/beliefs?

JUST tell kids "If I make 1 mistake you MUST tell me and I will change myself?"

I guess it depends on the age. How would they know whether you made a mistake? Isn’t the purpose of a parent to teach the child, to judge them according to the principles they’ve been governed by?

That is true.

It is true when we disregard God, and the wickedness of man. However, if we do acknowledge these two points then the correct definition of truth is God. Truth is God as because man is wicked and does not want to obey God they readily accept deception. Turning lies into truths by simple agreement (reminds me of group think).

Of course don't read this outside the context that I have given "advaita". When this is read out of my given context, then I agree that is unwise]

I’m not sure what your talking about. Advaita, what is that?

Except when we wear glasses of LOVE, then we see the world correct

Glasses are man made. They are delusions. No matter how hard you pretend that there is love, it will never manifest. Once you can accept the world for what it is, then can you shift through the sieves to find love.

I do believe God loves unconditional and is not judgmental.

I believe you and I serve a different God. The God of Christianity is not just a friend, father, or King. He is also a Judge first and foremost. As much as he loves us, we should not allow our poor understanding of God to blind us from the truth that he also judges.

It is very healthy to scrutinize our own mistakes. No doubt about that. It's the easiest to change yourself. If all do that, the world will be perfect.

Yes, I agree. Judge yourself as harshly as you can, however, as a Christian, you are commanded to judge that people may come to the light. That these people maybe purged of sin and be able to judges others in love.

I am very fortunate to have met such a person who was just perfect. The best motivation if you have such an example.

Who is that person, if I may ask? And my example would be a true Christian. A true Christian is defined by the Bible, I would say they are a walking Bible.

 

[Miracle]

When you love someone you tell them the truth regardless of how pain it may hurt.

If someone is walking toward a ditch, you need to be able to tell them their walking on the wrong path, that there lies a ditch. If you say nothing, and they fall, can you honestly say you love that person?