 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/27/2004 5:16 PM (GMT -6) |   | I have noted several logical and scriptural problems in the book, Repenting of Religion, which I would like to offer for the consideration (and perhaps response) of all. The following are not in any particular order:
In the book, Dr. Boyd says the following, and I would sincerely like to know where such things are written in the Word of God, okay?
1. Dr. Boyd says in the book that the Holy Spirit is working in all people. (Paul refers to "the (evil) spirit that now is at work in the sons of disobedience," contrasting it to the Spirit of God).
2. Dr. Boyd says in the book that obesity is a sin. (Scripture for this one? I've never been able to find even one).
3. Dr. Boyd says in the book that the knowledge of good and evil is something Christians shouldn't seek. However, Hebrews 5:12-14 says such knowledge is a sign of the mature Christian:
Hebrews 5:12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. NKJV
More later...
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 12/27/2004 6:57 PM (GMT -6) | |
We associate gluttony most often with overeating, but it can occur in many other forms such as drinking, smoking, gambling, sex, accumulating material things, or even too much studying and researching of a narrowly defined subject in theology (OV?), health, genealogy—the list is endless. The key term, however, is "too much". Signs of gluttony are too soon, too eagerly, too quickly.
We must control our desires because excess desire is the driving force behind gluttony. When we lose control of it (desire), we sin, feeding the god that is in our belly, the god of excess, the god of too much, too fast, too eagerly.
Parenthesis mine, from the article:
Gluttony:
Sin of Lust and Greed (Part One)
by Martin G. Collins
Forerunner, January 2000
http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.showResource/CT/ARTB/k/123
I am re-thinking Pudding 
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/28/2004 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by kingsaint
JEE,
I think on the obesity issue you are being a bit uncharitable. O.K., you caught Dr. Boyd on the letter, but not in the spirit. Let us just assume that what he meant by "obesity" (let's call this "obesity-B") is the sin of eating too much (however that is judged), whether by the fat or skinny, whether by those with low or high metabolisms. The point is that we do not treat the sin of obesity-B on par with other sins.
It is not clear how Doc was not himself being extremely unloving (uncharitable) towards obese people by his plain classification of obesity as sin. If there were Scripture to back up this calling of obesity sin, I (obviously) would have no problem with Doc calling it sin. However, I have never yet found anywhere in Scripture where being obese is ever condemned as a sin.
Even if we were to just say Doc misstated things and confused obesity with gluttony (which is a biblically defined sin), we still are left with the virtual impossibility of ever knowing precisely how much food is too much, or how little food is a righteous amount to eat. The fact that Doc compares something so ambiguous and impossible to define as overeating with concretely definable sins such as homosexual activity only serves to further mystify the entire issue, IMO.
quote:
You have a better case with your point (3). I too think Dr. Boyd overstates "love, not judgment (knowledge of good and evil)". We have to make judgments all the time. But again, charity is in order. Let's assume Dr. Boyd means by "judgment" what Jesus does in "judge not, lest you be judged" (let's call this "judgment-J"). The difference between judgment and judgment-J is the difference between Hebrews 5:14 and Matthew 7:1.
Thanks for your feedback. It is certainly not my intention to do anything except be helpful to all in pointing out these errors.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 12/29/2004 12:52 AM (GMT -6) | | JEE, you have raised up some good points that I will be chewing on for a while. It's too bad it comes so late in that this board is ending but it is very interesting. I will indeed be thinking about what you have brought up.
God bless you always,
trosie | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lauratee
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 2/4/2005 5:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello,
New poster here with some friendly questions (thought I'd make a disclaimer so my remarks aren't misinterpreted due to my lack of post history). I've lurked here in the past and finally decided to join in. 
I have not yet read the book, but I do have a few questions raised by your post.
1. Dr. Boyd says in the book that the Holy Spirit is working in all people. (Paul refers to "the (evil) spirit that now is at work in the sons of disobedience," contrasting it to the Spirit of God)."
On the surface, your quote from Paul indicating a spirit of evil at work appears to be a false dichotomy. The fact that an evil spirit is active as well does not automatically dismiss the possibility that the Holy Spirit is also at work. You need to build a stronger case before calling Dr. Boyd's assertions an outright error, rather than a difference of interpretation.
Regarding your commentary on gluttony vs. obesity: Trying to say that obesity is not akin to gluttony is a bit pedantic. Obesity is not a few extra pounds due modern sedentary lifestyle or "pleasingly plump". Obesity is a condition in which the body is at risk of disease due to the excess of energy stores (fat). In essence, it is a form of harm to one's self. A small minority of obesity is hereditary, but most of it is due to phagos, Gluttony, excessive eating. Gluttony goes beyond eating for sustinence and becomes eating for excess pleasure. Like so many other sins, it is the abuse of an otherwise non-sinful activity.
we still are left with the virtual impossibility of ever knowing precisely how much food is too much, or how little food is a righteous amount to eat..."]
Like the sins of greed and coveting, this varies individually. While one person feels no temptation being exposed to a "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" - type television program, others could be consumed with envy and should actively avoid watching such programs. The same goes with foods. If you are a healthy weight and have a healthy attitude about food, you needen't worry about what you eat (people of a seemingly healthy weight but with eating disorders would not have a healthy attitude about food). But if one is unhealthily overweight, and especially if the weight negatively impacts life and/or causes symptoms such as high cholesterol, joint pain, shortness of breath, fatigue, etc., non-nutritious foods should be cut out or restricted. What is the purpose of eating empty calorie foods such as soda pop, candy, chips and refined products if they cause us harm and supply no nutritious value? What is the purpose of eating high-calorie foods such as pizza, sauces, cheeseburgers, fats and oils if we can nurture our bodies with alternatives that don't make us ill?
Knowing how the Bible condems gluttony and even goes so far to say in Prov 23:3: "and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony," should we confront our church leaders who are obese and ask them to prove their obesity stems from a medical condition and not a weakness of the flesh? Should we allow non-medically obese teachers to instruct at church schools? And - this one strikes close to home ;p - my church serves doughnuts and pizza after services. Should we refuse to to serve fat people unless they can prove their obesity is not a result of over-eating?
From my understanding of his book, Dr. Boyd calls out the Church's hypocracy in tolerating this sin as a matter of one's personal walk with Christ, whilst vehemently condemming others less acceptable (less common) in our society. And I agree with that. I can't condem those struggling with food issues because I know the struggle all to well myself. We are all sinners and fall short, and are on different legs of our spiritual journey. But I do think it is improper for us not to extend the same grace to others struggling with the same in-born sin nature. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 2/4/2005 6:00 PM (GMT -6) | |
Lauratee said...Hello, New poster here with some friendly questions (thought I'd make a disclaimer so my remarks aren't misinterpreted due to my lack of post history). I've lurked here in the past and finally decided to join in. I have not yet read the book, but I do have a few questions raised by your post. 1. Dr. Boyd says in the book that the Holy Spirit is working in all people. (Paul refers to "the (evil) spirit that now is at work in the sons of disobedience," contrasting it to the Spirit of God)."On the surface, your quote from Paul indicating a spirit of evil at work appears to be a false dichotomy. The fact that an evil spirit is active as well does not automatically dismiss the possibility that the Holy Spirit is also at work. You need to build a stronger case before calling Dr. Boyd's assertions an outright error, rather than a difference of interpretation.
Hi Lauratee,
I said I had noted several problems in Boyd's book. I did not say these were "outright errors."
Regarding your commentary on gluttony vs. obesity: Trying to say that obesity is not akin to gluttony is a bit pedantic.
You seem to have misunderstood me. I didn't say obesity was AKIN to gluttony; I said they were not the same thing.
Obesity is not a few extra pounds due modern sedentary lifestyle or "pleasingly plump". Obesity is a condition in which the body is at risk of disease due to the excess of energy stores (fat). In essence, it is a form of harm to one's self. A small minority of obesity is hereditary, but most of it is due to phagos, Gluttony, excessive eating.
Recent scientific and medical studies directly contradict that assertion.
Gluttony goes beyond eating for sustinence and becomes eating for excess pleasure. Like so many other sins, it is the abuse of an otherwise non-sinful activity.
I have never denied that gluttony was a biblically defined sin.
Knowing how the Bible condems gluttony and even goes so far to say in Prov 23:3: "and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony," should we confront our church leaders who are obese
Again, your statement assumes that which has been positively disproven; i.e., that obesity is always indicative of gluttony. As an anecdote, I know of one brother who so rigorously fasted in the past that he now gains weight even on a near-starvation diet. Point is, there's much more to obesity than just gluttony. I could provide you with links to recent scientific studies which document this.
From my understanding of his book,
I thought you said you hadn't read the book.
Dr. Boyd calls out the Church's hypocracy in tolerating this sin as a matter of one's personal walk with Christ, whilst vehemently condemming others less acceptable (less common) in our society. And I agree with that. I can't condem those struggling with food issues because I know the struggle all to well myself. We are all sinners and fall short, and are on different legs of our spiritual journey. But I do think it is improper for us not to extend the same grace to others struggling with the same in-born sin nature.
The Augustinian idea of sin as a nature and not an act is not founded upon scripture or Logic. But that's for another thread, perhaps.
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 2/5/2005 12:05:15 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lauratee
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 2/8/2005 3:50 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE,
In all honesty, I was bothered by your response for the entire weekend and debated whether or not to respond myself or just move on. I don't wish to engage in an argument and my tendancy is to let it go. But I feel you nearly completely mischaracterized what I wrote and I should clear the air. Perhaps you misunderstood me; I admit to directness, but I don't think I was disrespectful.
I bolded your quotations and italicized mine.
You wrote:"I said I had noted several problems in Boyd's book. I did not say these were "outright errors."
Before you get defensive, please understand that I only used the word "error" because you used it yourself: "It is certainly not my intention to do anything except be helpful to all in pointing out these errors." I thought you might have a point, but you could have supported it stronger. If you did, I might be able to make a better judgement of the book when I get a chance to read it (my local bookstore is temporarily out of stock).
From your response, it seems as though you did not fully understand what I was saying. You wrote: "You seem to have misunderstood me. I didn't say obesity was AKIN to gluttony; I said they were not the same thing. " But I never said that. In fact, my entire point was the opposite. I wrote: "Trying to say that obesity is not akin to gluttony is a bit pedantic." Or another way to say that might be: "saying that obestity is not related to gluttony is a bit nit-picky". I never said you were wrong (pedantic points are correct), just that IMO, it was a bit of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I do believe that in America, most obesity stems from poor food choices: portion size, advertising, sedintary lifestyle et. al. I thought you stated that you wanted the opinions of others when you wrote that you "would like to offer [your points] for the consideration (and perhaps response) of all."
You wrote: "I have never denied that gluttony was a biblically defined sin."
Nor did I claim you did. Since we agree on this point, why argue about it?
You quoted me: "Knowing how the Bible condems gluttony and even goes so far to say in Prov 23:3: "and put a knife to your throat if you are given to gluttony," should we confront our church leaders who are obese"
You wrote:"Again, your statement assumes that which has been positively disproven; i.e., that obesity is always indicative of gluttony.
No, I never said that "obesity is always indicicative of gluttony." In fact, upon cursory review of my post, I count 4 references to obesity having a medical (e.g., non-gluttonous) origin; including the statement of mine above - but you chose not to quote that part. The full quotation, which would not have supported your assertion goes on to say: " and ask them to prove their obesity stems from a medical condition and not a weakness of the flesh?" Clearly, I would not have made a distinction between the two if I did not, in fact, believe a distinction exists.
I wrote: "From my understanding of his book,"
Your response: "I thought you said you hadn't read the book."
Nice pot-shot. Was there a purpose to it?
If my understanding of the book was wrong, correct me - using my quote in some kind of attempt to make me look bad does not serve a valuable purpose.
And why you would try to use it against me is a bit perplexing. There seems to be enough information in this thread alone for me to deduce a basic summary of that aspect of the book. Nor do I see it to be a very important point for you to make, because my post addressed your statements and my own thoughts, questions and opinion, which stands independent from the book itself. It would be one thing if you had only asked for people who had read the book to participate. But you asked for "the consideration (and perhaps response) of all."
I am reconsidering my plans to participate in this board. Not because you challenged my ideas, JEE, but because the way in which you responded seemed entirely devoid of charity. I came here in sincerity as a seeker, already a Christian but looking for a place I can ask hard questions to grow in my faith. I am interested in discussions, but not tit-for-tat arguments and twisting of words. I guess my skin isn't thick enough to post on an internet message board, even if it's with other Christians. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 2/8/2005 5:44 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Hi Lauratee,
My sincere apologies. I certainly wasn't "getting defensive." I do think it's kind of funny for anyone to say, "my understanding of the book" when they haven't even read it yet. But anyway...sorry if I misunderstood you. I was really more interested in the thoughts of people who had read the book.
Lauratee said: A small minority of obesity is hereditary, but most of it is due to phagos, Gluttony, excessive eating. Gluttony goes beyond eating for sustinence and becomes eating for excess pleasure. Like so many other sins, it is the abuse of an otherwise non-sinful activity.
When you assert about obesity that most of it is due to gluttony, I honestly don't get how you aren't directly contradicting the idea that obesity is a multifactorial problem, and that overeating is just one factor in the equation. Sedentary lifestyle is a huge factor in obesity,  and our increasingly sedentary workplaces tend to greatly aggravate the problem. And, if one wants to say sedentary people are guilty of slothfulness, that may be true, but how can we really call a person who productively works 8 or 10 hours straight at a computer "slothful?" And yet such a person will no doubt gain weight and become fat if she doesn't exercise regularly outside of her job. In biblical times, most people walked everywhere, and sedentary jobs were no doubt few and far between.
All I'm saying is that Boyd's book caricaturizes all fat people as by definition guilty of GLUTTONY, which the latest medical research simply contradicts, and Mr. Non-Judger judges over half of the American populace as "sinners" based on the false assumption that all fat people got that way by being gluttonous. Just a regular (non-gluttonous) diet combined with a lack of exercise will generally make the anyone gain weight.
Be Blessed,
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 2/8/2005 5:20:12 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/9/2005 6:58 PM (GMT -6) | | This might not get responded to. The discussion at this point doesn't seem to be about the book the thread title refers to. O well. I'll try.
I read a copy of Christianity Today's book review on the book. The author first criticized the book and presented reasons. Then he identified something in the book that he also identified with. The review was short, to the point, and had a balance of tone.
Anyone read it?
What do you think. Specifically...
Thanks. | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 2/10/2005 8:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Bert,
I glanced over the review the other day at a friend's house. I don't have it here in front of me, but I remember when reading it that it sounded very similar to what John Earp has been saying in this thread.
The author of the review says that it seems odd that a book about not being judgmental is very judgmental against the majority of Christians throughout history. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment whether this is a fair assesment or not.
Blessings,
Ross
"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 2/10/2005 10:56 AM (GMT -6) | | I'll probably regret this "rant" of sorts...but o well, here goes...
I've read the book. It's passionately repetitive, its full of rhetoric, it's not aimed at the academic, it fails and falls short...ok, I agree. I’ll even add (like I have in the past) that I see JEE's concern with the "love not judgment" stuff too. That’s a problem. However…in my view, its by far of lesser concern than the idea of transforming status quo "judgment without love" Christianity! we're missing the point.
I think it's important to realize that the idea of love not judgment in and of itself has merit and is a GOOD thing, a great thing, indeed, a needful and vital thing.
Can we write about it perfectly, no... do we practice it perfectly, no. Does that mean we shouldn't try? Absolutely not.
In this forum (which lacks key communication components such as body language etc) we cannot expect to feel the perfected loving ways of those with even the best of intentions. So, we give each other the benefit of the doubt. I think we can and should at least rejoice over the attempts of those who explicitly state that they are trying! For cryin' out loud...check out the other Christian (non-loving) sites...or the atheist sites for that matter. Status quo classical judgmental christianity leads people away from Christ. That's the bottom line. To do anything opposite of that seems to me to be heading in the right direction.
So, while I agree that the love not judgment thing has to be ironed out. And, the question of HOW to do this WELL has to be answered. I still think the good news is that we are talking about it and trying to do it any way we can. After all, many of us came from a very judgmental mindset. Now, at least we are in process of working our way out. Just because we can't do it perfectly (and people have a problem with that) doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Just because d.boyd didn't write about it perfectly (in a 200 page book) doesn't mean he shouldn't raise the issue.
Personally, I feel it’s urgent to get a book like that out. If I could have I would have scribbled on a piece of paper "repent of religion" and had that published myself! Qualifying a statement like that could take forever (or at least ages and ages) . I don't care about that. That's a secondary concern. Everyone has an opinion.
After reading atheist discussion boards and (once again) seeing how Christian's misrepresent Christ...and drive people away...I really don't think any of us should be concerned with tit for tats over content in a book or how much we fail at loving. Our biggest concern (imo) should be turning away from misrepresenting Christ.
To quote one of boyd's sermons "if we do love...everything that needs getting done gets done." The message is love...at cost to ourselves. If that's our focus, perhaps we won't drive people to atheism.
Rant over. uh oh ...
love
selah
For your steadfast love is higher than the heavens, and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
psalm 108:4 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 2/10/2005 11:17 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/10/2005 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Hmm.
Personally, I think that Doc would have been a whole lot better off if he would have spent MUCH, MUCH more time developing the a more biblically wholistic idea of DISCERNMENT. This one thing would have increased the work TONS...and I know that this would have be welcome by many of the critics. Why would this have been helpful? Because discernment is a BIBLICAL CONCEPT that is QUITE distinct from "judgement" (ala the Matthew 7:1 sense). He could have discussed loving accountability from within the broader context of discernment. "Judgement" would be reserved for God alone, but "discernment" (it could be argued) is EXPECTED of human beings. Especially human beings living in a spiritual war. He could have used both OT and NT analysis of the concept...And discussed how discernment is necessary. Plus, the term would have made for an easy nexus for trinitarian discussion, for biblical discernment always entails the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. (Amos Yong has a fascinating work, "Discerning the Spirit(s)" that operates on a principle similar to this.) Discernment of the times. Spiritual discernment. Discernment of the heart. There are so many ways that he could have went with this. Actually, I would have made the argument that loving God and loving the neighbor actually REQUIRES biblical discernment. Given the enemies of the "flesh", "world", and "devil" and the intricate, complex matrices that these things form, living without healthy, God-empowered, love-energized discernment would be at best irresponsible and at worst, terribly dangerous! We cannot live simplistically in a complex world, nor are we asked to.
Not "judgement", but discernment!
All this said, I DO believe that his ideas are a much needed corrective to the overly judging way things occur in much of Western Christianity right now.
Hmmm...maybe we should get Doc to write on this...or maybe I should just write a paper on it. Thinking...
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/10/2005 1:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
nah, really, I agree with your point on discernment. Greg does too, though. (I thought he brought that UP in the book, no?)
Well, he sure enough knows (and preaches) the distinction between judgment and discernment...and how that works out practically. I remember him talking about it A LOT just prior to the book coming out...and for quite a while after. I'd be willing to bet he'd add more on that if he knew there was a need AND could "redo" it at this point.
I know what you mean. I'd heard him talk about it, too. THAT's what I thought was so weird! I did some checking here and it seems that he had a sermon on it and everything. This was in 2002, so this was before I got here...
Judgement and Discernment
http://gregboyd.officehiway.com/2002/2002-09-01_Boyd_Judge-and-Discern.mp3
Sermon Study Guide
http://www.whchurch.org/whchurch/studyguides/studyguide.02.09.01.doc
From the Study Guide...(emphases mine)
This week we wrap up with a discussion on the difference between judgment and discernment. As we have seen, love is expressed most clearly in God’s being willing to be born a human and die for us, even while we were still enemies of God. Love is willing to place infinite worth on another person. God did this for us. We are to receive this love and to extend it to others. The main obstacle to our doing this is our pattern of “eating” of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We become judges of others (on the basis of what we think we know) rather than loving them (on the basis of what we DO know about God’s love for all people). Because we are not God we are not able to BOTH love others and judge them at the same time (Omniscience and perfect holiness are required). So we are given this clear command: Love God and love your neighbor. If we succeed at this we will have fulfilled God’s calling on us in this life. If we do not love in this way, nothing else we do is of spiritual value either. It’s an all or nothing affair.
Greg pointed out in this message that there is an important tension for us to be aware of in how the Bible uses the word “judgment.” There are many prohibitions against judging others, for even Jesus did not come to judge but to save. But then there are many passages that seem to encourage, even command us to use good judgment. Are these two uses of the word “judgment” the same? Does the Bible contradict itself in this manner? After listing various examples of these two uses of the word, Greg offered this important distinction: “discernment” separates things or ideas from each other and is important for our daily functioning as decision making people, but “judgment” separates people from one another and destroys our ability to love them. Greg offered an example where he noticed an “outlandish” outfit a woman was wearing. His noticing it was not yet judgment, but it provided the opportunity for discernment on his part. He discerned that the outfit may be an unwise choice in some areas of town that are not safe, and he also developed the opinion that he did not like or appreciate the outfit. That is discernment on the one hand and opinion on the other. Judgment would be drawing conclusions about that person based on what was noticed. For instance, if Greg would have thought to himself, “she is trying to seduce men” or “she is sexually promiscuous” these thoughts would be strategies for separating himself from her on the basis of simply what Greg noticed about her outfit. In love, Greg may still feel negatively about the outfit, but because of the infinite worth this woman has (because Jesus died for her) Greg would be moved to compassion. If Greg finds himself feeling negatively about the person herself and condemning her for her attire, he has judged her.
A second example was of a woman in a British pub who was staring at Greg to the point where he was feeling uncomfortable about it. Noticing and discerning would put Greg in a position to realize that something odd or even evil may be going on, but identifying the individual with the evil is to judge her and miss the true enemy: the spiritual forces that she is in bondage to (if indeed she is involved with something evil and not a parlor game). We need to be discerning people (Heb. 5:14), but it is NEVER in competition with our command to love others. All others. Discernment separates things, not people. It is an assessment of the impact of something or of a personal preference. It may be expressed in the form, “this feels like, or, this affects others…” It is an expression of what we can know, that is, how something impacts something else. Discernment is compatible with love. Judgment separates people from each other by drawing conclusions about them. Judgments often take this form, “you are…” These statements about someone’s “inner person” are beyond our ability to know, let alone judge. Judging in this way is not compatible with love.
Why the HELL didn't Doc do a little more work and put a WHOLE CHAPTER about this in the book??? In "Repenting of Religion" he only MENTIONS this concept in one section of the book...and that only barely. He could have slam dunked this, using all the concepts I discussed earlier.
Wow...
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 2/10/2005 12:17:15 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 2/10/2005 1:27 PM (GMT -6) | | In referring to "status quo judgment not love Christianity," Selah, do you not see how absurd and innacurate a caricature you have constructed? You have essentially said that most all (status quo) Christians operate from a "judgment, not love" paradigm, and in doing so, have JUDGED them.
I think Meph's points about discernment are crucial to the discussion. I also don't think it is true scripturally speaking that Christians must never judge in the sense of discernment. Indeed, Hebrews EXHORTS us to learn to distinguish/judge between good and evil.
In all this, I am definitely not arguing FOR judgmentalism. I don't find the radical polarization Boyd makes between the two concepts to be either biblically or logically tenable.
Blessings to all those who have judged me, 
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
| 28 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:10 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|