gop_jeff said:I'm assuming that you are referring to Jesus' words:
"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you."
Maybe you aren't familiar with these words of Christ: "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment." (John 7:24)
We are not to judge in the sense that we should never call people unfit to be Christians. But we are certainly supposed to judge what actions are godly, according to the standard God has given us (the Bible) and what actions are not.
Really? Where in our Constitution am I mandated to listen to anyone? Freedom of speech does not mean a guaranteed audience. And I would really appreciate if you can fine the Scripture passage that states "Thou shall not ignore people." Thanks.
You can look at this post to see my typical usage (and explanation) of the word "liberal." 18th century liberalism and 20th century liberalism share little in common except a name.
1.What about the sawdust stuff? You think you don't have sawdust in your eyes. We all do. That was Jesus' platform for promoting tolerance. So now you want to take one scripture that could be interpreted as being directed specifically to the Jews (who held Moses' law) and allow moral judging by all?? Quite a difference between the status of you or me and those people Jesus was talking to at that specific moment.
2.I don't mean as a specific mandate or law. What are you a lawyer. The U.S. is all about public discourse and debate. It would be unAmerican (my opinion obviously) to not engage a person, as you are providing me, in that debate and public discourse. Of course, you can ignore anyone if you want. Similar with Christianity. I think you can surely think of scripture that directs Christians to counsel the ungodly.......
3.Why not call it what it is then, those "socs" or "socialists"? The philosophy of liberalism is still used to provide people the ability to access their rights. On one end is libertarian, you know all about that. On the other end is not socialism. That is a different doctrine. Wanting a few social safety nets to protect people from hardships is not socialist, it's smart. Because it protects us all as a group, believe it or not.