Judgment (the lack thereof?)

This is a turning point in my understanding. I've recently been studying the concepts of justice and forgiveness in the New Testament, and come to a realization I hadn't before experienced. Further study is due, and I will update this essay as my understanding progresses.

In this I'm also exploring a new perspective: putting a lot more weight on Jesus' words than anyone else's. Obviously the red lettering is added after the fact, but the emphasis may well be due. Traditionally I've weighted it about the same with words of major authors of the NT, but perhaps no longer.

The essence of this study: those partake of the Covenant of Forgiveness with the Messiah are not judged for sin.

The substantiating evidence goes about like this...

1. "Judge not, that you not be judged...Forgive, and you will be forgiven." (Matt 7:1, Luke 6:37 ESV) In other words, if you judge, you will be judged; therefore do not, and you will not. Some of the people I have consulted about this suppose that there are other factors contributing to the judgment one receives, but Jesus' words in this passage do not include such a supposition. In fact, the context supports the notion that one's judgment of other people directly influences the judgment of him/herself. [This passage, in my opinion, substantiates a critical point of the Covenant.] (See also Matt 6:14,15)
   
2. The Messiah also granted us the duty and privilege of exercising forgiveness on a larger scale, and alternatively withholding it - whom we forgive He shall forgive, and whom we do not forgive, He will not forgive (John 20:23; see also point 1).
3. The Covenant of Forgiveness (Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20) grants us forgiveness of our sins. This has two major impacts...
1. If we're forgiven anyway (pending repentance?), then why waste time judging us?
2. As parties to the Covenant, we ought keep up our end of it - in my understanding, that means we also have an obligation to forgive. (The Lord's Prayer, Matt 6:12)
   
4. Jesus welcomed the criminal who hung next to him on the Cross into Paradise "today", without apparently judging him. It's worth noting, in this case, that this criminal was well aware of his error and recognized Jesus' righteousness. (Luke 23:43)
   
5. Rather a curious coincidence:
   
1. "The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son" (John 5:22)
2. "You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me." (John8:15-16)
3. "If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world." (John12:47)

Boiling it down: It's all about forgiveness. We are NOT judged! That's why Jesus died, to establish the Covenant that we might be forgiven, and forgive. Forgiving is an exercise of the power of God! (Matt 9) This is becoming a reality in my spirit.

This change is refreshing for me. My previous perspectives have persistently had undertones of earning my righteousness - that never seems to work. That I will not be judged, that I am already forgiven, in keeping with the Covenant, is freeing indeed.

This is a different perspective than what I'm usually told. It seems Jesus did NOT pay our debt on the Cross... rather He CANCELED it! (Col 2:14) I've looked hard for clear passages, especially Jesus' words, indicating otherwise, but His parables, as well as the epistles, confirm this tangential notion as well. So... No debt. The debt is forgiven (not paid), and you don't need to earn the forgiveness - just keep the Covenant and forgive other people!

Again, this is a work in progress. I'll update it as more becomes clear.

Mobilizing (The Pursuit of Happiness)

This is all the product of the past month and a half or so, spending time with new people, thinking differently:

• I will actively pursue happiness.
• I CAN do whatever I set my mind to do.
  
• Whatever I find that makes me happy (and is ethical) I will do.
  
• I will consider new ways of finding happiness.
• My happiness is a product of my own determination to be happy
• My circumstances WILL NOT dictate my deeper happiness
• So far as I can change my circumstances, I will use them to drive my happiness
• Circumstances which are not under my control are not relevant.
• My happiness will not depend on the decisions of those around me.
• I can change myself
• ... requiring help from time to time
  

Related conclusions:

• Not pursuing happiness results in the oppression of one's own spirit
• People don't survive long without hope
  
• Advising people is utterly useless if they never implement your recommendations
• People who cannot execute a decision are passively deciding to give up their own happiness/success/welfare

I'm implementing these (new) ideas.

First off, I mean to make time to relax. I've found (at a friend's bachelor's party) that responsible/moderate consumption of alcohol is (at least for the time being) a highly effective way of freeing myself, if even for a moment, from a few burdens. I'll watch movies/TV with my full attention, not thinking about work/programming/stress* at the same time.

As soon as I get my school work in order, I'll be spending more time with my wife and several friends -- they are more important to my sanity than I originally understood, and being as cerebral as I am, I tend to isolate myself. That will have to change.

And a few other things. As I recall them, I'll update this post.

There's more to this, on 'higher' levels, relating to social and philosophical observations. It's rather interconnected though, so explanation is somewhat complicated. I've found it hard to express some of the relationships between these ideas (hope, happiness, motivation, etc) for some time now. Hopefully I'll finally write these succinctly soon.

I'm in flux at the moment. Things are getting interesting ;)

Separation of Church and State

First off: I maintain various beliefs in accordance with the foundational teachings of the dominant religion of my culture, on the basis of my experience and (for what it's worth) reason. None the less, I appreciate and principally agree with the idea that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." [wiki]

Until now, I thought the separation was merely a measure to allow/enforce the government's oblivion to religious disagreements (as you'll see in that wiki reference above, it apparently isn't oblivious...), such that it could not force any person or population to participate in any religious activity nor affiliate with any such institution or ideology. That's tolerable and appreciated, since my views differ from many people around me, and we all wish to remain free without raising social tumult about it.

Today it became clear to me that there's more to this than meets the eye -- or at least met mine at first. I do not suffer the delusion that the founders were overtly religious, nor that they were opposed to religion -- to my knowledge they all had Christian upbringing of some sort, but many had become 'deists' [wiki] and diverted in other ways. Thus I submit it's reasonable to believe that since the founders had some consciousness of something spiritual, and since their writings address matters of spiritual significance to (different populations within) society, the writings themselves may also embody an understanding of something spiritual (or at least philosophical).

To summarize the observation and assumptions I incurred today:

• The benefit of society is served by means of exercising morals (utilitarianism)
  
• Church facilitates determination of the people's moral sensibilities (indoctrination?)
• Serves as the "mind" of the people
  
• State facilitates the people's exercise of their moral sensibilities (legislation)
• Serves as the "hand" of the people

The essential problem here is that the "hand" should have no influence on the "mind". This metaphor falls apart though: in an actual person, the mind should have direct control over the hand; in our government, the people are of varying "mind[s]", so the people should act as intermediary between their respective "minds" and the "hand".

The founders established the separation between Church and State in part as a response to their dislike for what they observed in England and other European countries in which the States sponsored and/or enforced Church participation (i.e. "hand" controlling "mind").

To borrow a biblical analogy, the "hand" controlling the "mind" would eventually result in the "blind leading the blind"; society would end up in a downward spiral (kind of like a toilet bowl) trying to resolve its various issues without any standard widely enough accepted to bring succinct consensus.

... In other words, society would replace its thinking cap with a dunce cap, intelligent decisions being replaced by the habit and trend of the whims of unguided "law makers", which at this stage seem to be more motivated by money than morals or utilitarian good.

So. Another reason to appreciate the remnants of our well-structured society, and reason to involve ourselves in our political process, as well as whatever other peaceful means we can find to maintain and promote the general welfare. Let's try not to become so short-sighted as some of our "law makers" and other leadership.