Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MeDroogies who wrote (2876)	5/27/1999 7:18:00 PM
From: Richard Babusek	Respond to of 13056

MeDroogies, < I vaguely remember the "why don't you judge for yourself" story. I might be wrong, but he wanted people to think for themselves, and this was a way of pointing out to them that judging others is inadequate when you have flaws yourself. Typically, Jesus was doing what he did best - make people think long and hard about the judgments they made before they proved themselves hypocritical. As such, I disagree that you could say he couldn't make up his mind. > The two stories are different. He said both “don't judge”, and “Judge for yourself” in separate contexts. My point wasn't that Jesus couldn't make up his mind, but that you can't choose one or the other snippet out of context, then speak with the authority of Jesus as is often done. It seems clear to me that the “don't judge” citation is frequently used in an attempt to make it impossible to successfully rebuke someone without appearing to be going against Holy Scripture. This teaching was specifically against hypocracy as you suggest, and it uses just those terms “You hypocrate, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brothers eye.” (Matt 7,5 NAB). < I don't see why you aren't distressed about laws made by the very men who break them. I am. It is their way of saying they are above the law, and subjugating those of us with little recourse. That is precisely why gov't is so dangerous and in need of being overhauled. > I'm not big on law as a source of greatness, or elevating mankind. My point was that a law should be judged on it's own merits, and could be asinine even if no one had ever broken it, even if it's author had the best of intentions and was a wonderful but mistaken person. So it's not necessary or even desirable to vilify those with goofy ideas, just point out how the ideas are erroneous. Ricardo