But I’m with you on the judgementalism cutting both ways, as well as holier-than-thou-ism. Apologies if I did that in our most recent scrum.

I did cut a whole list of “the laws of the new Pharisees” out because it would have sounded like I was blasting you and others that I wasn’t trying to blast.

When I read or hear ?how can a Christian hang out with those kind of people??, it automatically suggests Pharisaism. Can you see why that would be?

Of course. But I think what is different is the attitude behind the separation. You could also say “When I hear ‘Christians should tithe on their gross, not their net’ it makes me think of Pharisees” because Jesus mentioned the Pharisees’ incredible attention to tithing. That would be a very silly thing to think, because Jesus was criticizing them for their _attitude_, not the fact of tithing. (Although one could be self righteous about tithing I guess… you know what I mean.)

If a person separates from the unregenerate because they are filthy and unclean and he is pure and good and holy and better than them and God loves him because he’s so good; that’s self righteous and Pharisaical and evil. Similarly, if someone hangs out with unregenerate sinners in order to be liked and accepted and because he’s careless; that’s reckless and licentious and evil. There are (arguably, at least) holy approaches to both. It’s very judgmental to ascribe motives either way. Ditto for a whole litany of things.

It’s one thing to argue over an issue. It’s very different to ascribe motives and judge the heart of another.

legal institution of religion is very different from philosophical debate. I can’t see how you would liken the two.

It’s also poor reason to refute an arguement by declaring the subject not to be judged, or that it is very different in the minds of different people.

It’s funny how you debate over attitude, and then cycle back to apply the arguement to the nature of the debate, as if this should prove anything. It’s like constant ‘yes it is’; ‘no it isn’t'; except with the added complexity of false logic and metareasoning.

Ellbur