What is judgemental, and who of us here is judgemental?

[_charity]

On another thread, I have been getting quite a bit of flack for being "judgemental." The follow is an example, though not by any means the only one.

I've mentioned several times before that I really quite respect charity in a lot of ways.
I don't / wouldn't personally find the comment offensive - if it was directed at me or not. For the same reason others have mentioned. And I respect that most of the time, she is simply voicing her belief as she sees it.

But what really gets me is the hypocrisy of round upon round of judgment leveled against all and sundry capped of with an innocent look around, then pointing at herself and saying "What - me? I'm judging? No no no - you have it all wrong..."

I think Merc can be unnecessarily contentious, obnoxious and hostile. All the time. He practically looks for fights.
...but here's the thing. If I were to ask Merc the question: "Merc - do you think that sometimes you are hostile and aggressive?" - I really can't see his reaction being "What - ME?! Why would you say such a thing...?!"

While I was preparing a response, I decided I am really judgemental. As I think we all are. We all have ideas about right and wrong. I think we would all agree that a serial killer like Ted Bundy, who raped, tortured and murdered at least 30 young women and maybe as many as 100, had gone over to the "dark side." We would probably all agree that Mother Theresa, who worked her whole life without thought of personal gain, to be a very good person.

As a believing LDS, I would have to say that while we can look at their acts, and think we know about their motives (their "hearts) that we can't really know. Maybe there was some mitigating circumstance in Bundy's life that God is going to say, "Teddie, you weren't really responsible for those acts, you can go to heaven." On the other hand, maybe every little act of kindness that we saw Mother Theresa do, she did with a mean and begrudging heart. And isn't going to be given credit. And we all have to admit that we don't really know.

I could make a statement "A person who really understands that smoking is addictive and causes multiple health risks who plans an ad campaign to entice young people to smoke knowing they will likely become addicted, is evil." Now, there are some conditionals in that phrase--"understands and knows." Were I to make that statement, I would be implying that you couldn't really call any individual ad executive evil unless you had some infallible proof that the person "understood" and "knew" what he/she was doing.

So, if I were to make that statement to a room full of ad executives, the appropriate response from all those really good hearted people would be, "I would never try to entice young people to smoke if I though they would become addicted."

But what happens when one of them jumps to his feet and screams, "How dare you call me evil!" To the logical mind that says that the person has looked into his heart/mind, determined that yes, he does plan ad campaigns to entice young people to smoke while knowing that there are multiple health risks and addictions. So, since he can't say that he isn't doing what we would all consider a wicked behavior, he has to deny that the behavior itself is wicked.

I think that is what happens here. I have never pointed a finger at any poster on this board, and said, "You are wicked." I have stated my opinion about what constitutes wicked behavior. Then it is up to the poster to look at him/herself and determine if they are doing that kind of behavior.

What I think is appropriate for the message board is to discus whether or not the behavior is wicked. We don't need to talk about who is or isn't doing it. Because that is left up to the person him/herself to evaluate. I don't know most of you in person. Even if I did, I wouldn't know what was really in your hearts. Therefore I don't, I haven't and I won't judge you as being either "good" or "wicked."

But if you bring your own behavior to the table, we can discuss what you think about it.

[_John Larsen]

I'm judgmental. I find the idea of not being judgmental quite silly. Prejudice is bad. Bad judgment is also a negative. However, judging, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad.

Jesus got this one wrong.

[_charity]

There's judgement and then there's JUDGEMENT. The judgement that Jesus gets to do is the final judgement. None of us get to judge who goes to heaven, spekaing loosely of "heaven." Jesus also said by their fruits ye shall know them, which indicates judgement.

[Guest]

Jesus got this one wrong.

I wouldn't say Jesus got it wrong. The 'principle' is sound. Before unloading on someone else about how 'sinful' they are, maybe take a second to think about how sinful YOU are. And maybe go easy on the guy / gal. Or perhaps consider that shoving the persons sins down their throat isn't gonna be the most productive way to approach the situation.
...that's how I read what he was trying to say.

Charity,

On another thread, I have been getting quite a bit of flack for being "judgemental."

Can't speak for others, but my 'main' 'flack' wasn't about being judgmental. It was about claiming that you aren't.

While I was preparing a response, I decided I am really judgemental. As I think we all are.

You've hit it on the head charity. And I'm glad you made this response. (Finally)

I'm judgmental sometimes. I know that, and I admit that. You're judgmental sometimes. Everybody is judgmental sometimes.
And I see that as NO bad thing. A principle such as "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is in the same category as "Turn the other cheek" for me. It's a nice principle that we should keep in mind. It should give is pause and help us reflect on the best path. But are they meant to be rules that we are hard-tied to in every single decision we make? We are meant to go about our whole lives "turning the other cheek" in literally every viable situation? Something tells me that's taking it a tad too far.

If none of us ever dared to judge anybody else, then the world would be a pretty scary place in my opinion.
I don't care 'so' much that you do judge. (Although I may comment on that on a case by case basis). It's the attitude of judging and then denying that you are judging at all! that's what I see as some of the inherent hypocrisy in many religious attitudes I'm afraid.

You want to turn this into two uses of the word 'judgment'. And yet - of course - we all know there are two types of judgment. The type of judgment us mere mortals get to pass on each-other, and the judgment the Lord gets to pass on us. Are both valid? YES! You get to judge charity. The fact that you can't judge 'as the saviour can judge' is irrelevant.

What I'm also 'referring to' is the possibility (and let's see how you take this little bit of observation...!) that you may be a tad more judgmental than many, many others (generally) - and yet you keep trying to twist around on the possibility that you don't judge anybody at all!
...I'm sorry, but that really comes across badly to me.

But I wanna keep it in perspective as well. You also handle yourself very well, and you don't 'retaliate' that badly, even when provoked quite severely. So you have my respect there. You're a bit of mixed bag I find :)
(But aren't we all...)

I have never pointed a finger at any poster on this board, and said, "You are wicked." I have stated my opinion about what constitutes wicked behavior. Then it is up to the poster to look at him/herself and determine if they are doing that kind of behavior.

Oh come on charity, this is pretty much what I'm talking about.

A poster says 'X', or says they have done 'X'.
You say that 'X' is 'wicked' in the context of talking with them.

...you just judged them... I'd be one thing to talk about X being wicked in a separate context. But to talk about it being wicked in the context of talking about a specific person's behavior? Yes - of course you just judged them.

If somebody says "I oppose homosexuality", and my reply to that statement was "I think opposing homosexuality is pretty damn low", then that's a judgmental response.
..here's a less judgmental response: "I get why people oppose it. But I disagree. And here's why..."


I know you consider yourself a word-smith. If that is so, then may I suggest you take more care with the words you use (like 'wicked' for example), and the meanings that you know full well those words carry.

As a believing LDS, I would have to say that while we can look at their acts, and think we know about their motives (their "hearts) that we can't really know.

I don't think you need to have to delve down into someones must basic 'motives' to judge them.
In fact, that's really at the 'heart' of the problem.

[Guest]

Here's another way to look at it:

Christ said: "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone".

But - Christ WAS without sin. Correct? So Christ - right there and then - could have started picking up stones and casting them at the adulteress. If he wanted to. He was entitled to...

But he didn't.

This isn't about being 'justified' in your beliefs. This isn't about you being 'right or wrong'.
There are others who believe the same as you, but don't take the same approach that you do.

In fact, I would mention who - in my opinion - is the least judgmental person on this board (and their more on your 'side' than mine I would say), but I know they wouldn't like to be singled out - so I won't. (Ironically, they would be the last person to try and claim that they 'don't sometimes judge')


The title of this thread is:
What is judgmental, and who of us here is judgmental?

I'd like to add a little sub-topic:
What is judgmental, and who of us here is judgmental? And who of us here tries to make out they are not?!

My original point wasn't just about judgment. It was also about hypocrisy.

[_Canucklehead]

Everyone in life has to make judgements; to live without making them would be impossible.

I think that what causes the most annoyance to people, however, is the certain type of dogmatic "I'm right and everyone who disagrees with me is a sinner" judgement that often characterises religious beliefs. It's one thing to come to the conclusion for yourself that homosexuality (or drinking alcohol, or seeing R-rated movies or whatever) is not something that you wish to engage in, but that you allow other people to make up their own minds on the matter. It's something entirely different to proclaim to the whole world that anyone who engages in these activities is, without question, sinning and going to be punished by God.

The difference is that in the first case, the judgement is arrived at via self-reflection and critical thinking, and the conclusions may be open to revision in the future. In the latter case, the "thinking has been done" because some book says that God made the proclamation and so there's no recognition that you may be wrong.

I really see the problem as one between dogmatic arrogance, and genuine critical thinking/philosophy (whatever one wishes to call it), with its inherent humility.

[_Ren]

But what happens when one of them jumps to his feet and screams, "How dare you call me evil!" To the logical mind that says that the person has looked into his heart/mind, determined that yes, he does plan ad campaigns to entice young people to smoke while knowing that there are multiple health risks and addictions. So, since he can't say that he isn't doing what we would all consider a wicked behavior, he has to deny that the behavior itself is wicked.

Err - I'd say most of the time charity, behaviors are denied to be 'wicked' because the person actually genuinely believes that they AREN'T wicked. If you think that all the behaviors you've called 'wicked' or 'abominations' are morally equivalent to 'enticing young people to smoke', then you are fooling yourself.
...and did I judge you just now? Yes. (I try to stay away from circular thinking like 'Is it judgmental to judge someone who is judgmental?' - or 'Is it intolerant to oppose intolerance?'...)

This insinuation that the reason they might object is because they know - deep down - that what they are doing / defending IS wicked - but won't admit it - is yet another instance of your often-present overly judgmental attitude I'm afraid.
You describe one instance of a 'justification' (even as a hypothetical!), and suddenly you feel you can throw it around routinely - with reckless abandon.

As I say, you're still in the 'plus' column compared to many others - on both sides of the aisle.
I'd just rather see you take personal responsibility for this kind of attitude - rather than have it fobbed off on scriptures, and religious technicalities.

[_JAK]

I'm judgmental. I find the idea of not being judgmental quite silly. Prejudice is bad. Bad judgment is also a negative. However, judging, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad.

Jesus got this one wrong.

Our entire system of law is based on judgment. Of course Jesus (not recorded verbatim at the time of his alleged pronouncements) was talking about individuals. He was little connected with the legal system of his time until he was on trial in it.

JAK

[_beastie]

I strongly agree with Ren.

Charity, the reason I keep bringing up your past insults isn't to rub your face in them, or to pretend that you're worse than other posters here. You are no worse than most of us (with a few exceptions of a couple of posters who never, or very rarely, insult, and I'm not one of them). And you're better than some, in regards to the tendency to insult.

The only reason I bring it up repeatedly is because you have the habit of "preaching" to other posters about their bad behavior, while denying that you, yourself, also engage in that very same behavior at times. It's the hypocrisy and the unwillingness - or maybe inability - to recognize that you, also, engage in the same behavior at times which tends to put you over the top, for me.

And I really don't understand it. I don't quite understand why you can't seem to bring yourself to admit that you engage in behavior you find "bad" in others sometimes. I remember when I was a believing LDS, it was very hard for me to fully accept my own goofs and bad behavior because I was trying so darn hard to be good enough for God. To be trying so darn hard and STILL to fail on a regular basis was threatening, and frightening - because it meant maybe I would never be good enough for God. I've wondered if that's what is going on with you, but I think there's something more than that. I really don't know what it is, but until you get a handle on it, you're going to be regularly confronted on this particular bit of hypocrisy you tend to demonstrate.

by the way, we're all hypocrites. That's why we should be extra cautious when we have the desire to "preach" to others about their bad behavior. It is human nature to notice and highlight bad behavior in the "other tribe" while ignoring or justifying the same behavior in your own tribe, or your own self. So I'm not saying that it's hypocrisy that is painting a bull's eye on you right now - I'm saying that it's your tendency to get up on an elevated soap box WHILE simultaneously engaging in that hypocrisy that is making you vulnerable to criticism right now.

I think you need to take a lesson from Juliann on this point. Juliann also has the tendency to insult - but I don't recall her ever denying that she was, in fact, insulting when she did it. From our past exchanges, it appears she feels righteously justified in her insults because her view is that critics - by the very nature of their criticism of the LDS church - "start" it and deserve it, but she doesn't deny her obvious behavior.

[_JAK]

There's judgement and then there's JUDGEMENT. The judgement that Jesus gets to do is the final judgement. None of us get to judge who goes to heaven, spekaing loosely of "heaven." Jesus also said by their fruits ye shall know them, which indicates judgement.

Nonsense, Charity.

There is not a shred of evidence for the implied life beyond death to which you allude. It’s religious mythology, it’s not fact.

There is no evidence for “heaven” as you parrot more religious myth. (No original thinking)

As for what Jesus said, we have no idea. He didn’t write a word that we know. No one at the time of his alleged talks bothered to record what he said. Either the listeners were illiterate (easily victimized by a charismatic figure), or they thought his words unimportant and claims irrelevant. It was only some time after the fact of the biblical texts were manuscripted by someone who heard stories. Exact words of Jesus were not documented.

We know what a little time between the spoken word and the repeat of that spoken word is required for the word to be altered.

People can’t even quote others accurately on this bb when the posts the written word is right before them a few posts behind the misrepresentation of what the person said.

Read the following analysis:

Did a historical Jesus Exist?

Take some time with it and become better informed.

JAK