Condemnation

[Quahom1]

I like Cyperpi. He/she seems to have a dry sense of humour like moi. Course, I've been wrong before...

May I ask why you don't drink or eat pork? Is it for religious reasons or because you don't like them?

Salaam

They're just ugly!

I don't eat pork because I believe G-d said it wasn't a good idea and prohibited at least some people (I think me also) from eating it. I'm a vegetarian because...

1. I believe G-d intended us to be that way.
2. "Seeing that all creatures fear death, cause harm to come to none" (my paraphrase)
3. I don't care much for the taste of meat. I've been known to eat a steak once a year, maybe.

but that's just me...

Best Regards,
Mark

The reason pork was not to be eaten was because man was not knowledgable enough to cook it to the point of removing triginosis, among other things. See, man was already violating God's law by consuming red meat with blood still in it. We still do (I like my steak so rare it still moos).

Because porcines (pigs) are foraging animals, they eat more than vegetation, so there was the probability that what was in the pig was not good for human sustanance (or longevity), if eaten raw or undercooked.

What is ignored is that there were many other animals not to be eaten for the same reasons (ducks, wild fowl, snake, bear, any animal with cloven hooves, crustatcians...). All for the sake of lack of knowledge on how to prepare for food.

As far as the human body and the consumption of meat is concerned, we are designed to digest meat (to a degree). We need the fatty acids and protein that meat provides (but not alot of it). Can't get it from vegetables or even bipodals or nuts.

Our system is omnivorous in design (with a strong bent towards vegetation). What is absolutely not good for us is too much cereals. Last thing we need is starch to convert to more sugars...

So, in reality we could do with less fermented drinks (alcohol is converted into sugar). Note, I didn't say do away with it completely, just not too much. However, I have to wonder. Muslims are told not to take fermented drink of the vine or grain...but what about potato, or honey? Nothing in the Islamic bylaws against that.

Anyway, Peter was told in a dream, all of this (the message was two fold). Anything can be eaten (in moderation), and no person is like unclean animals...not to be associated with...since there are no "unclean" animals or people...only "unclean" attitudes...

Unfortunately, few have learned the lesson, even today.

v/r

Joshua

 

[Prober]

What is ignored is that there were many other animals not to be eaten for the same reasons (ducks, wild fowl, snake, bear, any animal with cloven hooves, crustatcians...).

I don't ignore it. I don't eat any of those either.

As far as the human body and the consumption of meat is concerned, we are designed to digest meat (to a degree). We need the fatty acids and protein that meat provides (but not alot of it). Can't get it from vegetables or even bipodals or nuts.

Our system is omnivorous in design (with a strong bent towards vegetation). What is absolutely not good for us is too much cereals. Last thing we need is starch to convert to more sugars...

I completely disagree.

I believe we're designed to be frugivorous. (imo) There's plenty of fatty acid and protein in seeds and nuts. I see absolutely no need for meat.

But hey, that's what works for me. I wouldn't judge anyone else.

Anyway, Peter was told in a dream, all of this (the message was two fold). Anything can be eaten (in moderation), and no person is like unclean animals...not to be associated with...since there are no "unclean" animals or people...only "unclean" attitudes...

Unfortunately, few have learned the lesson, even today.

v/r

Joshua

I completely agree. We're not to call what G-d made (people and animals) "unclean". My diet works for me and others are welcome to theirs as well. I wouldn't judge someone based upon their diet.

It's what comes out of a man that makes him "unclean".

All the good thoughts!

Mark

 

[Snoopy]

Not that this is significant either, but I just realized that Mr. Kotter's name is spelled with a "K". But maybe there is some meaning to the way I spelled it, because the nearest town to where I spotted the large swine in the woods is (drumroll, please) East Cotter, Arkansas. (And no, it was not wearing a red jersey or a football helmet.)

Also, I wonder what percentage of my posts have actually been spent correcting myself, and out of that percentage, how many times did I really need to do that?

Anyway, your regular program should return momentarily. Thanks for indulging me.

are you confusing this thread with the completely useless one??!!

s.

 

[InLove]

Which completely useless one?

 

[Snoopy]

Which completely useless one?

*sigh*

 

[juantoo3]

*sigh*

There there, Snoop...every thing is gonna be alright.

 

[Snoopy]

*sniffle* thanks *sniffle* don't know.... if I've got the.... strength... to go on.... any more...*sniffle*

 

[InLove]

Thespian.

 

[juantoo3]

What does orientation have to do with this?

 

[InLove]

Yes, you are right, dear Juan. I shouldn't point fingers. After all, it does take one to know one.

 

[cyberpi]

I find a big difference between judgment and condemnation and when I went looking for verification in the gospels for what I believed I found them in the Greek and Latin. A number of verses in the gospels read completely different. In the KJV the following verses are translated differently:

judge -> sue, law: Matthew 5:40
judge -> condemn, condemned: John 3:17, John 3:18
judgment -> damnation: Matthew 23:23, Mark 6:11, John 5:29
judgment -> condemnation: John 3:19, John 5:24
krima and krisis merged into one word: judgment... loss of differentiation between the two and the following:
judgment(krima) -> damnation: Matthew 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47
judgment(krima) -> condemnation, condemned: Luke 23:40, Luke 24:20
condemn -> damned: Mark 16:16

Young's translation, which Earl had pointed out a few weeks ago:
krima and krisis merged into one word: judgment
condemn -> sentenced: John 8:10, John 8:11

Outside of the gospels, Paul's words are so fragmented and distorted in the translations that I don't bother with them, but Young seems to do better. It would be interesting to read Paul's letters someday for what they were in Latin and try to figure out what he really meant. The NIV: the translation was made in the last century and it further adds and removes... an increase in entropy.

Anyhow I made this thread in part to help reinforce the definition of condemnation as I see it. I suggest that no matter what a person says it reflects them and their judgment. But when words or people are removed or deleted... I suggest that is the true condemnation.

 

[juantoo3]

Yes, you are right, dear Juan. I shouldn't point fingers. After all, it does take one to know one.

Hmmm, not quite sure how to take that...

Not really worried, because I'm about as disoriented as they come.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

I find a big difference between judgment and condemnation and when I went looking for verification in the gospels for what I believed I found them in the Greek and Latin. A number of verses in the gospels read completely different. In the KJV the following verses are translated differently:

judge -> sue, law: Matthew 5:40
judge -> condemn, condemned: John 3:17, John 3:18
judgment -> damnation: Matthew 23:23, Mark 6:11, John 5:29
judgment -> condemnation: John 3:19, John 5:24
krima and krisis merged into one word: judgment... loss of differentiation between the two and the following:
judgment(krima) -> damnation: Matthew 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47
judgment(krima) -> condemnation, condemned: Luke 23:40, Luke 24:20
condemn -> damned: Mark 16:16

Young's translation, which Earl had pointed out a few weeks ago:
krima and krisis merged into one word: judgment
condemn -> sentenced: John 8:10, John 8:11

Outside of the gospels, Paul's words are so fragmented and distorted in the translations that I don't bother with them, but Young seems to do better. It would be interesting to read Paul's letters someday for what they were in Latin and try to figure out what he really meant. The NIV: the translation was made in the last century and it further adds and removes... an increase in entropy.

Anyhow I made this thread in part to help reinforce the definition of condemnation as I see it. I suggest that no matter what a person says it reflects them and their judgment. But when words or people are removed or deleted... I suggest that is the true condemnation.

It has taken me a while to begin to see what you have been attempting to say, but I believe the light is beginning to break through.

I struggle with this via a different set of preferred semantics, but the underlying issue appears to remain the same.

 

[cyberpi]

NIV:

Judge, judging (krino)
-> sue Matthew 5:40
-> condemn, condemned John 3:17, John 3:18, John 7:51, John 12:48, John 16:11
-> pass judgment John 8:15

Judgment (krisis)
-> condemned Matthew 23:33, John 5:24, John 5:29
-> justice Matthew 12:18, Matthew 12:20, Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42
-> sin Mark 3:29
-> verdict John 3:19
-> decisions John 8:16
gone: Mark 6:11

Judgment (krima)
judgment John 9:39
-> punished Matthew 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47
-> sentence, sentenced Luke 23:40, Luke 24:20
worded out: Matthew 7:2

I should add that in KJV, Youngs, NIV, the greek 'diskastes' is also translated as 'Judge' in Luke 12:14 to eliminate a contrast in words.

So from the Greek word 'krisis', the NIV scribes believe that 'judgment', 'condemned', 'justice', 'sin', 'verdict', and a 'decision' are all really the same thing anyway. Or maybe they think they can divine words into new definitions. Poetic license?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

So then, there is a difference between "judging" a person as condemned by their words or actions as opposed to critically evaluating a position in determining a wise course of action to guide oneself?

 

[cyberpi]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

So then, there is a difference between "judging" a person as condemned by their words or actions as opposed to critically evaluating a position in determining a wise course of action to guide oneself?

Not as I see or read it. It is intersting to consider the dimension of time. I submit that:

Judging is of the past
Condemning is of a future.

When a person plans the future, it is really a judgment of the past.
When a person tries to condemn something (destroy) of the past, it is really a potential future that gets condemned.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

Not as I see or read it. It is intersting to consider the dimension of time. I submit that:

Judging is of the past
Condemning is of a future.

When a person plans the future, it is really a judgment of the past.
When a person tries to condemn something (destroy) of the past, it is really a potential future that gets condemned.

Perhaps I am not following as well as I thought...

Is there no recourse for wisdom?

 

[cyberpi]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

Perhaps I am not following as well as I thought...

Is there no recourse for wisdom?

I'm not sure what you mean by recourse. "Wisdom is justified of her children." (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:35)

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, cyberpi!

So then, there is a difference between "judging" a person as condemned by their words or actions as opposed to critically evaluating a position in determining a wise course of action to guide oneself?

Not as I see or read it. It is intersting to consider the dimension of time. I submit that:

Judging is of the past
Condemning is of a future.

When a person plans the future, it is really a judgment of the past.
When a person tries to condemn something (destroy) of the past, it is really a potential future that gets condemned.

I'm not sure what you mean by recourse. "Wisdom is justified of her children." (Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:35)

I could of course quote extensively from Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, however for brevity I will repeat my initial synopsis:
Critically evaluating a position in determining a wise course of action to guide oneself.

BTW, this was my concession to your earlier position about judging others of necessity. Am I to understand you have reconsidered?

 

[Saltmeister]

Judgment . . . making a decision.

If it's a decision that is about what will happen to a person (ie. what they deserve), it may consider the past and may involve condemning someone.

Condemnation . . . labelling (or "tagging") a person as "cursed," an "abomination" or deserving pain, suffering and punishment.