02 Apr '08 17:11>1 edit
Over the years I've heard this as a defense for just about anything and everything. I must say that I've found this defense to be perplexing on a number of levels.
1) It's not a defense for the issue at hand, rather an attempt at deflection.
2) If you read the verse in context, it becomes apparent that Jesus is speaking against hypocrisy and not "judging" per se.
3) Realistically, the statement is a judgement that the other person is guilty of judging.
Often this verse is invoked as a defense against an accusation that the person is guilty of some sort of bigotry. However when faced with the fact that bigotry is in itself a judgement, the defender will often explain that he wasn't judging, but merely "shining the spotlight" (or some other euphemism).
Here's one that I recently read that is mind boggling:
"I don't pass judgement on people I don't agree with. Only God can judge in that way. But I reserve the right to judge what an individual may say or do."
Is there a distinction that I'm failing to understand?
If not, what do you think is going on here?
1) It's not a defense for the issue at hand, rather an attempt at deflection.
2) If you read the verse in context, it becomes apparent that Jesus is speaking against hypocrisy and not "judging" per se.
3) Realistically, the statement is a judgement that the other person is guilty of judging.
Often this verse is invoked as a defense against an accusation that the person is guilty of some sort of bigotry. However when faced with the fact that bigotry is in itself a judgement, the defender will often explain that he wasn't judging, but merely "shining the spotlight" (or some other euphemism).
Here's one that I recently read that is mind boggling:
"I don't pass judgement on people I don't agree with. Only God can judge in that way. But I reserve the right to judge what an individual may say or do."
Is there a distinction that I'm failing to understand?
If not, what do you think is going on here?