bmasters9
04-27-2010, 06:25 AM
Have any of you here heard of something that I refer to as "judging without being judged"? By that, I mean that while you might not judge someone for doing/not doing something, they judge you for doing/not doing that same thing. A couple of examples:
--KJV-onlyism: This is something that a lady named Gayle Riplinger is known for. She holds to the view that KJV 1611 is the only true Bible, and anything else is a "PER-version." The problem with this is that, to me, she's welcome to hold that view, and I don't judge her for it if that's what she believes, but to her, we're not welcome to hold the opposing view. She says that if we use anything else but KJV 1611, we're going to Hades; in other words, if what we read in our Bibles is not "walketh" but "walks," it's not good for us spiritually.
--Being against the medium of television: A person named Jerry Mander wrote a book in '78 that was highly critical of the medium, and proposed, in his view, four arguments for its elimination. He stated that, to him, all of it was bad-- there was not a single good show to be found, even then, and that any viewing, even for short periods, would have detrimental effects. Ordinarily, I would not have judged him for that view if that's what he believed, and to me, if he didn't like the medium, he didn't have to look at it. But to him, that wasn't enough-- he wanted it eliminated. To this I said, hold on there! I never judged him for being against the medium, but when he turns around and judges us for not holding the same views as him, something's very wrong.
The flipside of this is that if I had judged them for their views, I might not have a leg to stand on, but I'm generally a nonjudgmental person ("nonjudgmental" meaning I may judge or have opinions about things, but I don't judge people).
--KJV-onlyism: This is something that a lady named Gayle Riplinger is known for. She holds to the view that KJV 1611 is the only true Bible, and anything else is a "PER-version." The problem with this is that, to me, she's welcome to hold that view, and I don't judge her for it if that's what she believes, but to her, we're not welcome to hold the opposing view. She says that if we use anything else but KJV 1611, we're going to Hades; in other words, if what we read in our Bibles is not "walketh" but "walks," it's not good for us spiritually.
--Being against the medium of television: A person named Jerry Mander wrote a book in '78 that was highly critical of the medium, and proposed, in his view, four arguments for its elimination. He stated that, to him, all of it was bad-- there was not a single good show to be found, even then, and that any viewing, even for short periods, would have detrimental effects. Ordinarily, I would not have judged him for that view if that's what he believed, and to me, if he didn't like the medium, he didn't have to look at it. But to him, that wasn't enough-- he wanted it eliminated. To this I said, hold on there! I never judged him for being against the medium, but when he turns around and judges us for not holding the same views as him, something's very wrong.
The flipside of this is that if I had judged them for their views, I might not have a leg to stand on, but I'm generally a nonjudgmental person ("nonjudgmental" meaning I may judge or have opinions about things, but I don't judge people).