Why do people judge others so harshly?

[vera_dicere]

I have seen people decide they hate somone just because they believe something the other does not. It is shocking sometimes and hard to read.

Welcome to the human condition.

There is a fine line between judgement and charitable correction. A lot of peopel get emotional over things or they’re just “like that” and cross that line. Shame really. But we all have our sins.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Welcome to the human condition.

There is a fine line between judgement and charitable correction. A lot of peopel get emotional over things or they’re just “like that” and cross that line. Shame really. But we all have our sins.

One thing I’ve noticed is that people really do not want to be wrong. About anything. But if we are in search of Truth and we are mistaken about something it should be easy to admit being wrong. I once saw two friends of mine almost come to blows over a disagreement about part of the ending to a Twilight Zone episode! I honestly think they would have started punching each other if I hadn’t stepped in and said that it didn’t matter at all, so please drop it. In their defense, they did. But the one who had the mistaken notion of that silly little bit of the ending of the episode probably believed he was right for the rest of his life (he has passed on).

I have problems with this myself and am working on it. I’ll gladly admit that I’m wrong but at the same time I feel that I have been insulted and I get angry - at myself and at the person who has corrected me.

And that is one reason why being harsh with other people is wrong; at least when it doesn’t involve something that is acutely life-threatening (like smacking a child who has run out into the street to get a ball, without looking to see if it is safe).

There is one person I know who is very close to me and when she corrects me I know she is not trying to offend me and still I get a little angry sometimes. If she told me that I was stupid for believing something that is wrong I would get very angry. And to be honest, if she told me that she was scolding me because she loved me and had decided that I had committed a sin or was not going to make it to Heaven I would most likely smack her (figuratively speaking). Hard. And that would be understandable, but still wrong. We’re supposed to show charity and even more importantly, we are supposed to *be *charitable in more than our actions but in our thoughts. Always, in all circumstances. And we are supposed to forgive. Immediately.

Jesus got angry. A lot. But He was still charitable. He doesn’t have the capacity to be uncharitable because it would go against His very Being and He wouldn’t be God. His actions may not have appeared to be charitable but they were.

 

[Uriah_Betrayed]

Jesus got angry. A lot. But He was still charitable. He doesn’t have the capacity to be uncharitable because it would go against His very Being and He wouldn’t be God. His actions may not have appeared to be charitable but they were.

Of course charity for God means he can take your life away without warning and you have no right to complain about it. I seem to remember Jesus destroying the money counters tables and flogging the people that turned the Temple in to a marketplace.

This thread has honestly confused me and made me see Catholics as being limp-wet noodles where their spines are suppose to be. Do we keep quiet about the abortionist, or the anti-theist athiest?! Do we say nothing because “Hey I’m sure we’re just as bad as the killer or the Christ-hater”.

In my lasping faith I’ve found no comfort in Jesus’ seemingly contradictory manner. On one hand he calls us to “Love our enemy” to the point of letting them steal and do harm too you expect us mere mortals to smile as they harm us. Then elsewhere he says “I bring not peace but the sword” which personally I’d prefer over letting the people who hate you step all over your beliefs and do what they wish too you.

 

[Rainaldo]

This thread has honestly confused me and made me see Catholics as being limp-wet noodles where their spines are suppose to be.

Part of the problem is that there are so many people who think that being “nice” is the highest moral value.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Of course charity for God means he can take your life away without warning and you have no right to complain about it. I seem to remember Jesus destroying the money counters tables and flogging the people that turned the Temple in to a marketplace.

They aren’t our lives. We belong to God and He can do what He wants with us. Fortunately He is perfectly loving and perfectly merciful. Why do you think you have no right to complain about it? I’m confused about this statement because we don’t know what goes on after death. I researched the Bible accounts of the temple incident:

And Jesus went into the temple of God and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple and overthrew the tables of the money changers and the chairs of them that sold doves.

[Matthew 21:12, Douay-Rheims]

And they came to Jerusalem. And when he was entered into the temple, he began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple: and over threw the tables of the moneychangers and the chairs of them that sold doves.

[Mark 11:15, Douay-Rheims]

I checked every online Bible I could find and none said anything about Jesus flogging anyone. Jesus was the one that was flogged.

Jesus knocked the tables over and berated the money changers and also those who sold the doves. He said they had turned His Father’s house into a den of thieves. But at that same time he cured the sick and the lame! Jesus also said that we should not throw stones unless we are sinless. Jesus was and is sinless. It was His right as God to do what He did.

This thread has honestly confused me and made me see Catholics as being limp-wet noodles where their spines are suppose to be. Do we keep quiet about the abortionist, or the anti-theist athiest?! Do we say nothing because “Hey I’m sure we’re just as bad as the killer or the Christ-hater”.

No. We don’t keep quiet. We point out to them that they are wrong but isn’t it best to do it in a way that is not judgmental? And by judgmental I mean judging the person. Judging actions is a whole other story. Look at someone like Abby Johnson. One of the actions of one of the pro-lifers who stood outside of the PP clinic was to give Abby flowers on her birthday. That touched Abby somewhere. It helped to make her realize that pro-lifers are not bad or stupid or uncaring. It was an act of great kindness that probably made more difference than the pro-lifer who gave the gift even thought it would have. Then there was the “pro-lifer” who killed Dr. Tiller. There are supporters for the killer on CAF. But it was wrong.

The OP mentioned using logic and I liked that. I’ve been on a lot of abortion threads and I’ve found that getting angry (which I do when it comes to abortion) doesn’t help. But I don’t keep quiet. I try to point out the lack of logic in every point a pro-abortion activist (I don’t know if that’s the best term to use but I refuse to call them “pro-choice”) makes. If I get angry and post in anger what does that say about me? That I don’t have a good come-back? That I can’t defend my position so I’m resorting to ad hominems? If I do that it can rightly be pointed out that my position is illogical and *that *will be read by all the lurkers and set the cause back.

If a pro-abortion activist makes a statement that is incorrect I should be able to state why it is incorrect. If he says “Well, sperm are just as much alive as embryos” I can ask him what happens to spermatozoa that don’t penetrate an ovum and what happens to an embryo that is allowed to live. I don’t need to resort to ad hominems.

I saw a film where a group of pro-lifers was simply standing on the sidewalk near an abortion clinic and a woman kept staring at them with a furious look on her face and then she suddenly ran up and slugged one of them and then ran off. She was extremely angry. The reaction of the person who was slugged was basically to shrug his shoulders. He didn’t go after her. He didn’t try to hit her back. He didn’t even call the police. He took her abuse with dignity. I was impressed. If he had run after her, cursing at her and hitting her when he caught up with her I would have understood his anger but I would not have liked his actions. And that video would have gone viral and I can just imagine the comments people would make about how pro-lifers are all hypocrites who obviously don’t care about other people.

It’s the same with anti-theist atheists although I don’t worry about them so much because there is no such thing as a dead atheist.

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

In my lasping faith I’ve found no comfort in Jesus’ seemingly contradictory manner. On one hand he calls us to “Love our enemy” to the point of letting them steal and do harm too you expect us mere mortals to smile as they harm us. Then elsewhere he says “I bring not peace but the sword” which personally I’d prefer over letting the people who hate you step all over your beliefs and do what they wish too you.

I’d like to respond to this part later because it deserves an answer and to be honest, I’m really tired. I wrote two replies but neither seemed to show what I want to say. I’m far from being a Bible scholar. I haven’t even read it all. I haven’t read most of it. But I don’t think it says anywhere that Jesus said it’s OK for people to harm us or steal from us. We should love everyone. We don’t have to love what they do. Forgiveness of their actions is not for their good but for ours. If we don’t forgive others for their transgressions against us God won’t forgive our transgressions against Him (as in the Our Father: Forgive us our trespasses *as *we forgive those who trespass against us. Somewhere in the Bible it says that every last action will be accounted for. Every farthing owed will be paid. Nobody gets away with anything - God is perfectly just.

I’m sorry that this isn’t a very good response. I am really very tired. I have faith problems, too. I’m sorry that you are having them.

 

[Curious_Seed]

I have seen people decide they hate somone just because they believe something the other does not. It is shocking sometimes and hard to read.

The courts must judge, schools must judge, families must judge, and God judges.

To judge is necessary.

You state that you know of people who hate others because those others hold different beliefs.

Well, to hate someone because he likes apples and you oranges is one thing; but, to not understand hatred of someone who has put a bullet in your brother’s forehead is quite another.

Or is your understanding of Scripture that it should always be an apples and oranges viewpoint.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Of course charity for God means he can take your life away without warning and you have no right to complain about it. I seem to remember Jesus destroying the money counters tables and flogging the people that turned the Temple in to a marketplace.

I found the reference to “flogging.” Sorry - my google search didn’t work before because the word “flogging” isn’t used in the passage. Here it is:

And when he had made, as it were, a scourge of little cords, he drove them all out of the temple, the sheep also and the oxen, and the money of the changers he poured out, and the tables he overthrew.
And to them that sold doves he said: Take these things hence, and make not the house of my Father a house of traffic.

[John 2:15-16, Douay-Rheims]

Nowhere in any translation I saw did it say that Jesus actually flogged anyone. He may have and the Bible may be silent on this. However, it’s obvious that He did use a scourge as a weapon of intimidation as the very least.

Jesus could see into the hearts of those who were ripping people off in the temple. They had defiled His Father’s House. He drove them out and He was right to do so. But He is God and could see things in a way that we can’t. It’s not like He suddenly lost control and went berserk. He was charitable. He had to be because God is always loving (it’s part of His very nature) and that is what charity is - love. He acted in love, with information that we could not have had and that the people watching could not have had.

In my lasping faith I’ve found no comfort in Jesus’ seemingly contradictory manner. On one hand he calls us to “Love our enemy” to the point of letting them steal and do harm too you expect us mere mortals to smile as they harm us. Then elsewhere he says “I bring not peace but the sword” which personally I’d prefer over letting the people who hate you step all over your beliefs and do what they wish too you.

If you provide this passage I’ll be glad to respond to it. Evidently I’m not very good at searching online. I noticed that you’ve posted your concerns in another thread. I hope you read what I’ve written and respond to it and to the response in the other thread. We *are *supposed to love our enemies! What does it say if we only love our friends? I don’t think it says anywhere that it’s OK to let people steal from us and do harm to us.

This morning I talked to a friend and asked her about “turning the other cheek.” And she pointed out something I had never noticed. It’s not just about turning the other cheek. The cheek that is hit first is the right cheek. That means that the person who strikes the blow is using his left hand, unless he’s left-handed, which is rare. It’s a glancing blow. It does not cause the pain and damage that hitting with the right hand would.

If someone hits me on the right cheek and I turn the other cheek to him I am saying "OK. Now if you *really *want to hurt me you can do so. Hit me with your right hand.

This actually happened to me many times. I was slapped very hard on my left cheek - so hard and so often that it damaged my jaw. I’ve had two surgeries and am in chronic pain with TMJD. The person who smacked me so hard, so many times, was my Mom. Should I have hit her back? Should I have spit in her face or cursed her? What she did was wrong. If I had hit her or spat at her or cursed her I would have been wrong, too. Two wrongs never make a right. The best course of action, in my case, was to try to accept what she did with dignity.

I think that if someone walks up to someone else and spits in his face and the person who is standing there with spittle on his face just stands there, dignified and does not slug the other person or spit in his face he is showing great dignity and strength. It can’t be easy to stand there when someone has done something so cruel. It takes more strength to stand there and not react in anger and not slug the other person than to go ahead and end up in a brawl.

But the Church teaches that we are allowed to kill in self-defense. We don’t have to accept behaviors that are so hurtful to us. We are allowed to protect ourselves and our familes and other people.

I pray that you are given what you need and that you have a joyous Easter. There are times when I have no faith at all. I think I know where you’re coming from.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Uh, Uriah_Betrayed, I responded to you but I haven’t seen a response to me. Did you read what I wrote?

 

[Marybeloved]

What I’ve personally experienced is that there are many people of all sorts who appear to lack any ability to debate anything objectively, in a detached manner without making it into personal thing. Then you’ll see them pretend that others are being “judgmental”. (OP, I’m not talking about you, please don’t take this to be an attack on you).

I mean, some persons, if you say for example, that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong (for example), they will immediately take that as an act of hatred- well, it’s just a statement of truth that the Church has made many, many times.

If the debate is about beliefs, lets say as an example, between sola scriptura vs sacred tradition (just an example) they will debate civilly and dispassionately UNTIL you reach the point when they are in a corner debate-wise and have no more points to counter the other person’s, then they turn nasty and personal and start accusing the other of judgement.

I find it very annoying , petty, childish and immature. It betrays the fact that we are not alwys interested in truth- just ideology. Just to defend certain positions already taken, and not to do it with reason, facts and truth, but with a mean spirit. If I have no more points against a position that I oppose in a debate, what I should do is to leave the debate- Not to start attacking the people whose points I cannot answer.

Sometimes I think it’s just a conflict of different personality types more than anything else, really. Say the poster sw85 for example. He speaks directly, concisely, to the point- He just applies logic without emotion- To me this is just detached converse in debate. He has said nothing I’ve seen that’s false or mean- Just detached statements of what he sees as truth.

I guess I’m just confused about what people really mean when they say “judgment”. Does it mean you should not state truths as you see them if those truths will paint certain behaviors or beliefs that others hold as wrong or even evil? Jesus called the Pharisees “white-washed tombs” that look good on the outside and inside are full of rot and dead bodies. Blessed John the Baptists called them “You brood of vipers!”… Seriously are these two in need of a lesson or two on Christian charity? Speaking the truth is not judgmentalism or pride- You can do it with pride and that will be wrong, but never can we say that speaking the truth is bad just because others consciences feel pricked when it is spoken. Unless someone reveals things about others that they have no right to reveal, or gossip, or mislead with half-truths or a manner that misleads without directly telling lies, or gets personal- In short, if a person avoids employing polemics, grown ups can disagree and do so clearly and directly without being “judgmental” or hypocritical.

 

[Rainaldo]

What I’ve personally experienced…

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I guess I’m just confused about what people really mean when they say “judgment”. Does it mean you should not state truths as you see them if those truths will paint certain behaviors or beliefs that others hold as wrong or even evil?

Mary, I think we are called to live and to speak the Truth without compromise. But here’s the issue: when it comes to admonishing a brother or sister, how do we do it in a way that they will hear and receive the admonishment with the same charity with which it is given? It’s easy to notice when a brother or sister sins, and it’s relatively easy to quote the catechism at them and say some version of, “Consider yourself lovingly admonished.” But to think that that passes for Christian admonition is ludicrous–you can be pretty sure that 4 times out of 5, this sort of “admonition” will be met either with dismissal or incredulity or scorn. Why? Because most people so admonished will be unable discern any charity in a generic pronouncement of sinfulness. Yet this sort of admonition is widely practiced.

Why is it so widely practiced? Because it doesn’t take much effort to tell a brother or sister that they’re wrong and leave it at that. It’s easy to badger a brother or sister about their sin and call it loving insistence. It’s easy to shout at a brother or sister or beat them over the head with doctrine and insist that you’re practicing “tough love”. But what takes more effort is finding a way to admonish a brother or sister such that they actually hear you in charity, empowering them through the help and support which we know is supposed to characterize Christian community together to overcome the sin and live a more virtuous life. It’s easy to tell someone they’re failing. It’s harder, but much more worthwhile, to bear one another’s burdens in charity

But it’s not only harder because it takes more effort–it’s harder because our inclination, thanks to original sin, is to believe that we can convince our sinning brothers and sisters of their sinful ways if we can just be suitably vehement about it; if we can be angry enough, maybe they’ll change; if we can just force them or shame them into admiting how wrong they are, things will be okay. But these sorts of tactics have less to do with fraternal correction and more to do with convincing others (and ourselves) of how right we ourselves are over against the wrongness of our brothers and sisters. Our righteousness will ultimately come to depend on their wrongness. The sad thing is that this “over against” quality actually constitutes sin because it is based not in grace and charity, not in building up the body of Christ, but in separation of the body into “us” and “them” which represents a kind of violence–an appropriation of the tools of death (division, force, shame, vehemence) in order to accomplish our goals.

To sum up: simply because one is admonishing a brother or sister with kindness and compassion does not mean one is compromising the truth. Likewise, admonishing a brother or sister through generic moralizing does not mean one is living the call to true Christian fraternal correction. In the same way, admonishing a brother or sister by force contributes more to the building up of our sense of our own righteousness and precious little to the building up of our brothers and sisters and the kingdom of God’s grace in the world.

Ultimately, we should be quick to admonish ourselves and receive admonishment from others and quick, too, to offer support and compassion to others when we see them fall. I think that if we let such shows of compassion and support be the form of our admonition of others, our brothers and sisters will hear us more clearly and respond more enthusiastically to our correction. The truth will be proclaimed in word and deed, God will be praised, and, by grace, we will have helped a brother or sister find their way back into the Body of Christ.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

The Lord is risen indeed! Alleluia!

 

[Marybeloved]

Grace & Peace!Mary, I think we are called to live and to speak the Truth without compromise. But here’s the issue: when it comes to admonishing a brother or sister, how do we do it in a way that they will hear and receive the admonishment with the same charity with which it is given? It’s easy to notice when a brother or sister sins, and it’s relatively easy to quote the catechism at them and say some version of, “Consider yourself lovingly admonished.” But to think that that passes for Christian admonition is ludicrous–you can be pretty sure that 4 times out of 5, this sort of “admonition” will be met either with dismissal or incredulity or scorn. Why? Because most people so admonished will be unable discern any charity in a generic pronouncement of sinfulness. Yet this sort of admonition is widely practiced.

Deo,

I’m not talking about correcting an individual. I don’t imagine that people who set out to correct a person debate it the way Apologetics is done/debated at CAF or other such fora. Here we are usually mainly talking about Church teachings, and objective truths, not about certain people. If I start a thread on the Church teaching on sexuality, should I not state the teaching of the church simply because there are some people who may not feel comfortable reading it who engage in those things? I can’t imagine setting out to use CAF to admonish any particular person. What happens when I feel I need to do that is to PM or to do it in person. These forums are about setting out and defending Catholic teachings- If someone is here and is unwilling to hear ideas that challenge their own beliefs/assumptions, I think that would be very odd. Truth must be set out for the sake of all those who come here to read and find out what the church teaching is. Anyway, perhaps I only see things this way because of my legal background.

I’ve spoken my piece- Peace!