When you accuse someone of being judgmental, you’re doing the same thing.
Practice at all times compassion for those you disagree with. Try to understand their reasoning, which is different from yours. Perhaps they have had life experiences that you have not had.
Never distort what they are saying in order to make it sound more outrageous. That’s a form of lying. Deal with what they are actually saying, not a parody of it.
With a contentious issue, the goal is to persuade those on the other side. Judging and denouncing does not persuade. No one was ever humiliated into changing their opinion.
We live in a paradoxical time when condemnation and judging is severely condemned and judged. It seems like an effective way to stay on the right side of correct opinion is to identify people saying the wrong things, and denounce them. This is not love.
For your own sake, compel yourself to love your opponents (they are not your enemies; we have only one Enemy). Compel yourself to love, for your soul’s sake.
Thank You for Your Response
God’s Word instructs us to judge our own hearts with His Word: 1 Corinthians 11: 28-34. When we judge our own hearts, with God’s Word, we allow Christ to sit on the throne of our hearts, and we are
in fellowship with Christ and His Word.
Amen and amen.
So how then does a legally appointed ‘judge’ in a court room make a ‘loving’ decision. He has to weigh up all the evidence in front of him. God is yes a God of love, but God is also a God of mercy and truth. How do you square the fact that ‘falsehood’ and being a ‘false’ witness is incompatible with being a ‘true’ witness? The ‘trust’ shall set you free. We are all sinners and have freewill to either love or hate. The choice is our own personal choice. We are told to ‘obey all earthly authority’ as ‘authority’ only comes ultimately from God the only true and living one to whom we all must ultimately bow in reverence and fear.
I agree that there is truth and falsehood, and we have a God of Truth; it is the evil one who is the father of lies. A judge has been chosen and elected to listen to both sides and then declare what he believes the truth is. That’s legitimate. When we have division in society, we try to persuade the other side of the truth. Like, as a pro-life advocate, I use many arguments to show the truth of the personhood of the unborn child. There’s truth there.
Just wondering if you meant “With a contentious issue, the goal is to (NOT?) persuade those on the other side.” Can you let me know if this is correct or not?
No, I meant the goal is *to* persuade those on the other side. To use conversation, hear both sides, and make your best case. Otherwise, there is no conclusion to this kind of division. One side has to eventually persuade the other side, and then a majority opinion settles in.
it’s too good for me anyway.