A hypothetical situation? Judging? Good sense?

[Winken]

Since we were discussing "judging" others:
A man who is a convicted of molesting a child was paroled and took up residence
in a middle class neighborhood.
Residents learned of his background was were extremely upset that the molester
was living near children.
Is this "judging" or is this good sense?
After some posts I will reveal what, if anything, happened.
Let me add that a convicted child molester was interviewed some years ago
on a t-v talk show and he said men who molest children NEVER stop if the
opportunity presents itself to repeat the offense.
Thoughts?

We all judge the words and deeds of others 24/7. How? By our own words, thoughts and deeds. We measure theirs by our own. That is, of course, worldly judging. We look to a worldly repertoire for guidance.

None of us has the authority to Spiritually "judge" another person. That's being done by a much higher power than our own. Our mission is to witness / testify to the Amazing Grace of God through the sacrifice of our Savior, Jesus, leaning on the everlasting presence of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is ever interceding, for each of us pleading.

 

[Far Side Of the Moon]

I think a better word to use is discern. I dont think its right to not give this guy a second chance...eapecially if he has repented ans turned away..but given his past, I certainly wouldn't let my kids around him if I had any

 

[Far Side Of the Moon]

Don't let your mind get carried away with how terrible he is. But keep a close eye on your child

Yes very realistic...to put a child in harms way is neglect on the parent's part.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I think it may well be a good idea and a good thing to do to help him get back into civilian life. He probably needs a job, for instance. But probably not in a day care facility.

Without Christ in his life for real, his chances of getting away from his prior obsessions and weaknesses are between slim and none. But even so, 'stoning' is probably not on the menu.

 

[FoundInGrace]

We had one at my church, the men were supposed to be keeping an eye on him but he still managed to touch me around the waist without being seen often, it was revolting and it was very difficult to go to church because he made me uncomfortable. And if he did that with me I dread to think about what he was getting away with with younger girls. They need very strong boundaries put in place for them. I think he may have found another church with new girls as he no longer goes to my church. I am glad he's not at ours but I hope he isn't endangering others.

 

[paul becke]

Let me add that a convicted child molester was interviewed some years ago
on a t-v talk show and he said men who molest children NEVER stop if the
opportunity presents itself to repeat the offense.
Thoughts?

Certainly, it's difficult to imagine how it could be otherwise, since, as Jesus' own words indicate, it plumbs a depth of moral ugliness - and it is a matter of moral ugliness, probably even the ultimate offence against moral beauty.

In the Law of Moses is the commandment that a kid must not be seethed in its mother's ilk. That surely can only be a proscription, a ban, arising from the ugliness of so defacing that very special, egregious beauty of a mother's love for her children, such a particular bond with them, that we speak of 'the milk of human kindness'. Of course, the kid was already dead, and it seems doubtful that, for all that special maternal instinct, it would have been a matter of unkindness or cruelty to the mother.

So this sense of moral/spiritual beauty, and its hideous counterpart, moral/spiritual ugliness, must be primordial, not merely among Christians and Jews, but an absolutely defining characteristic of basic, decent, human nature of every race, religion and non-religion. Psychopaths... another story. : in fact, defined as an incurable character disorder.

 

[paul becke]

Jesus put himself in the place of all sinners, it's fine if you cannot, I'm not Jesus and neither are you.

Even those guilty of the unforgivable sin, because it is an eternal sin, blaspheming against the Holy Spirit ? Jesus took their blame upon himself, but that doesn't mean that they were capable of being forgiven, of accepting his forgiveness, despite bitter regrets as Judas had felt. Solzenitsin observed in one of his books, that when a person plumbs below a certain depth of cruel wickedness, the probability in reality of their being open to conversion by God's grace is just notional : in practical terms, vanishingly small, non-existent.

Did you not notice that Jesus didn't sound as if he was grieving over Judas' heartless treachery, but rather, felt very bitter that he had preferred the darkness of evil, despite having witnessed the extraordinary self-sacrificing three years of his ministry of supreme compassion from close up.
Likewise, his contemptuous anger at Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, for their absolute refusal to draw obvious conclusions from the many miracles he had performed among them.

Can you think of a more ugly sin than abusing a child ? It doesn't seem as if God can, as Jesus, himself, stated that their angels are always looking on the face of God, and to despise them would be decidedly more unfortunate than to be thrown into the sea with a millstone round your neck.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Can you think of a more ugly sin than abusing a child ? It doesn't seem as if God can, as Jesus, himself, stated that their angels are always looking on the face of God, and to despise them would be decidedly more unfortunate than to be thrown into the sea with a millstone round your neck.

Humans - especially those in what used to be known as 'Western Civilization' - think abusing a child is at or near the bottom of the barrel. However, that doesn't hold for all of humanity now, and certainly doesn't hold for all of humanity in history.

This quoted statement has an underlying assumption - probably unconscious - that God evaluates such things exactly as the writer or speaker does. I think that's a bit over-reaching.

The implied scriptural reference is incorrect. Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2 all three have the same warning and mention of 'millstone'. However, the warning is about '...causing one of these little ones to sin...', not causing them harm. The KJV uses the word 'offend', which means what the above rendering means. (It doesn't mean to say something mean about their mother or clothing.)

Yes, I'll agree abusing a child is a seriously hideous matter. But claiming God considers it the very worst thing is stretching a bit and assuming a lot.

 

[paul becke]

Humans - especially those in what used to be known as 'Western Civilization' - think abusing a child is at or near the bottom of the barrel. However, that doesn't hold for all of humanity now, and certainly doesn't hold for all of humanity in history.

This quoted statement has an underlying assumption - probably unconscious - that God evaluates such things exactly as the writer or speaker does. I think that's a bit over-reaching.

The implied scriptural reference is incorrect. Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42 and Luke 17:2 all three have the same warning and mention of 'millstone'. However, the warning is about '...causing one of these little ones to sin...', not causing them harm. The KJV uses the word 'offend', which means what the above rendering means. (It doesn't mean to say something mean about their mother or clothing.)

Yes, I'll agree abusing a child is a seriously hideous matter. But claiming God considers it the very worst thing is stretching a bit and assuming a lot.

Well, I'm surprised you see your sense of morality, beauty and goodness, as being divorced from the enlightenment you receive from the Holy Spirit, from your formation by your Christian faith, from God's take on them, in such a primordially ugly matter. You sound more like an atheist who wants to make up his own subjective moral canons of right and wrong. You don't appear to see a connection between the Christendom of old, God and his believers - not least, yourself. How is that ?

I'm curious about the way you your words in my mouth and make vague assertions. I did not express it in the way you indicate, as though I were telling God how to think, preferring to put it in the form of a question. One perhaps you might like to answer, since you consider it possible, if presumptuous, to be very specific. What does God consider the very worst thing ?



As regards you first point, I believe you are right. I seem to remember reading about some tribe engaging in paedophelia. But my main point remains.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Well, I'm surprised you see your sense of morality, beauty and goodness, as being divorced from the enlightenment you receive from the Holy Spirit, from your formation by your Christian faith, from God's take on them, in such a primordially ugly matter.

My sense of morality and so forth is divorced from the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit by observing someone speaking on behalf of God in a presumptive manner?

You sound more like an atheist who wants to make up his own subjective moral canons of right and wrong.

I sound like an atheist who want to make up my own subjective morality because I see someone deciding on behalf of God without thinking fully?

You don't appear to see a connection between the Christendom of old, God and his believers - not least, yourself. How is that ?

Please don't expect me to explain your inability to see my connections. I suggest your inability to understand my surrender to God's sovereign thought is linked to your presupposition you know how and what God is thinking and intends. See if you can consider that.

I'm curious about the way you your words in my mouth and make vague assertions. I did not express it in the way you indicate, as though I were telling God how to think, preferring to put it in the form of a question.

I put NOTHING in your mouth, I saw what you wrote and took you at your word. I didn't intend to be vague, I thought I was quite forthright.

Nor did I ever say or imply you were telling God how to think; rather that you had made a probably unconscious assumption you know what God is thinking. Which allowed you to make the statements you did.

By the way, your phrasing is quite complex: Were you putting your statement in the form of a question or were you claiming I did?

One perhaps you might like to answer, since you consider it possible, if presumptuous, to be very specific. What does God consider the very worst thing ?

Since I thought it presumptuous for you - or anyone - to decide such matters for God, I will not do so myself. I have done such things in the past, recognized my error, repented of it and trust God to decide His own decisions.

As regards you first point, I believe you are right. I seem to remember reading about some tribe engaging in paedophelia.

Very good. You will also remember numerous mentions in the Old Testament regarding "passing children through the fire" and sacrificing children to idols.

But my main point remains.

Your 'main point' was God sees child abuse as the "ugliest sin".

Does this mean you are maintaining your thought processes and valuations are identical to God's? If so, my remarks about presupposition and presumption remain. I notice you didn't attempt to refute the erroneous quotation of Jesus.

 

[jeager016]

Judging. Hummmmmmm??????????????
Where I came from, in the depths of the well of human deprivation of
any kind of moral conduct I saw many forms of child abuse.
I still suffer p.t.s.d. from my experiences.
Two children of about 8 to 10, brothers, were made to hold forearms
together while "daddy" laid a lit cigarette between the forearms.
The boy that flinched first got a beating and bad beating.
The boy that didn't flinch was given..............................a beer!
Future mucked up adults no doubt.
I called Children's Protective Services to examine the boys and they
were taken from "mommy and daddy" on the spot.
The "mommy and daddy" hated me for that.
Do members think I gave a phatt ratts pattot about the parents.
Yes they were charged and jailed.
It's hard not to judge people like that as the vermin they are.
There is more but I can't go on as it makes me soul sick.
I'm still trying to heal my psychological wounds.
I no longer drink a 5th a day.
I don't drink alcohol at all any longer.
A.A. don'cha know? and GOD! With out a Divine Power addiction
is too great for us.
Now I help other addicts to recover through God's infinite grace.

 

[Received]

@paul becke, great Steinbeck quote. He's one of my favorite novelists.

 

[Stillicidia]

It's not a good way to pass the time to talk with someone who doesn't know what he's talking about at all (meaning me).

What are you saying?

I speak of what a revelator Kat Kerr speaks of. She can convey it better than me, and it should be for her to convey this.

 

[Tull]

If you were this person, how would you like to be treated?

That depends on the person,if they have not repented of their child molesting then they would want people to give them access to their children so they could molest them,wanting to be treated with good will because you have good intentions is one thing,wanting to be trusted so you can continue to victimize is another.....good will and trust is earned through behavior,no one is entitled to it.

 

[Inkfingers]

If you were this person, how would you like to be treated?

If I were this person I would want disarmed and careless prey that I can predate at will (that being the mindset of a child abuser).