Monday 18 January 2021

"Non-judgmentalism" - an anti-Christian ideal; but one where atheistic-leftism joins with Western "oneness" spiritualities

Mainstream modern atheist-leftist discourse has tried (all-too successfully!) to impose non-judgmentalism on Christians - largely by 'proof-texting' with Bible passages, removed from their 'supernaturalist' and salvific context. 

But the truth is that "non-judgmentalism" is a profoundly non-Christian notion; instead it is an anti-Christian - indeed Antichrist - idea, which will first subvert any attempt to lead a Christian life - then ultimately invert Christian values to lead to the ex-Christian actively taking the side of Satan. 

Christians not only can but must judge - as does everybody, all the time - even/ especially those who affect to advocate non-judgmentalism. 

In particular, we must choose either to affiliate-with God, the Good and divine creation and the values of truth, beauty and virtue --- or else (as of 2021, and things having-come to a point) we will (whether passively and unconsciously - or by conscious choice) find-ourselves on the (dominant and pervasive) demonic side, which opposes all of these. 

A neglected aspect of the need for judgment is that those Westerners who advocate an 'Eastern' spirituality of non-judgmental 'oneness' (mostly selectively derived-from Buddhism or Hinduism) have converged-with and joined the mainstream materialistic left-atheists. 

The convergence is not simply due to the intrinsic dishonesty of making the judgment that judgment is wrong - then denying that a judgment has-been made; but is a very fundamental problem deriving from the detachment of an Easter 'spiritual philosophy' from that taken-for granted context of a traditional Eastern way-of-life - within-which all actual Eastern religions (such as Buddhism and Hinduism) have operated. 

This is how it works: Having extracted the ideal of oneness from its real life context of pervasive traditional morality - the advocate must deny anything and everything that discerns (discriminates). In the modern world, this cashes-out as lumping-together every-thing as one-thing; and (most crucial) opposing all who try to detach them-selves from that one-thing

Since all serious Christians must detach themselves - spiritually - from that unifying evil which is The System; oneness philosophy always (sooner or later - but nowadays typically sooner) reserves special contempt and condescension for Christianity (any serious form of which, oneness demonizes as 'fundamentalist'). 

In particular Christians are demonized for the sin (but they deny sin!) of being judgmental - for example when Christians recognize the existence evil in the world, and identify those persons who are serving the evil agenda. 

What this means is that - as of 2021, when major church leaders have apparently all joined or support the Satanic Establishment - the serious Christianity of individual persons is all but alone in its opposition to the operation of evil in the world...

Because (pretty much, in The West) only Christians will discern, identity, name, expose and oppose evil. Almost everyone else - whether atheist or Western-Eastern-spiritual - prohibits the discerning judgment that is necessary to know and reject the operations of Satan. 


a_probst said...


"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?"

--comes across more as an exhortation to self-scrutiny, honesty, and against hypocrisy, not as an injunction to abandon standards. Judgement is not what is being judged here.

Bruce Charlton said...

@ap - Also, however that passage may be interpreted, it is just one section of the least reliable, most distorted Gospel - which is anyway full of examples of judgment by Jesus and others being cited with approval.

I have often said, there is no valid way of building-up Christianity by reading the Bible/ New Testament/ Gospels/ Fourth Gospel - as if it was an instruction manual of bullet-point procedures.

Bruce Charlton said...

@FX - I have no interest in publishing your comments until you show the slightest indication of having read and understood my posts; and be addressing their arguments.

Kristor said...

Exactly. This is why the indifferentism praught and practiced by the Freemasons is anathema to the Catholic Church. I was confused by the Church's antagonism toward Freemasonry for many years, because it seemed to me that if a man believed in God - as Freemasons must aver that they do - then even if he did not yet believe in anything else, at least he was to that extent on the path toward the True Religion.

On indifferentism, devotion to Moloch is just as good in every way - is good enough to get you started up the social ladder of the Club - as devotion to YHWH. So, obviously, indifferentism is advantageous to Moloch. And a member of the indifferentist Club who thinks himself a devotee of YHWH is in fact a servant of Moloch, in virtue of his associations (and dues, of whatever sort).

What is true of indifferentism on strictly theological matters applies equally to indifferentism respecting any other topic. Either you are on the side of Truth (and so of Beauty and of Justice) in every department of life (whatever your failings thereat), or you are on the side of Confusion, noise, disorder, chaos, disaster.

Judge not lest ye be judged is not an injunction to avoid judgement per se, but rather to avoid hypocrisy.

Adil said...

Postmodernism has denied all objectivity to the human senses but thereby subconsciously conceded all objectivity to technology. I guess human judgement is just in the way if we can make ethical questions a technical issue. I don't even think our society has realized the degree to which we have submitted to the computers. Ahriman today is our God in the same unreflective way nature was a God for the ancient pagans. If you deny the moral integrity of the human subject or "I", it will fall unconscious and won't be able to provide a counter-balance to the dehumanizing forces of technology.

Avalon John said...

This has been an ongoing discussion between my wife and me for the greater part of 10 years. Judging is more than ever vital if we are to separate, as much as is possible, from the system that has been corrupted to evil. I can't wait to have her read this!

Avro G said...

"A neglected aspect of the need for judgment is that those Westerners who advocate an 'Eastern' spirituality of non-judgmental 'oneness' (mostly selectively derived-from Buddhism or Hinduism) have converged-with and joined the mainstream materialistic left-atheists…Having extracted the ideal of oneness from its real life context of pervasive traditional morality…"

Westerners seeking spiritual guidance "Where there aren't no Ten Commandments…" are mostly trying to wriggle out from God's moral standard, the same standard which Buddhism or Hinduism tend to honor in their native settings. This accounts for the louche ambiance one encounters in many Western outposts of Eastern religions.

Kurt said...

In order to practice non-judgmentalism consistently one must be completely indifferent. As you pointed out to condemn persons for making judgments is itself a judgment so non-judgmentalism is self defeating. What we learn is that non-judgmentalism means making the wrong judgments (in this case judgments made according to what is True and Good).

Chent said...

Eastern religions are self-contradictory. Their metaphysics is nihilistic while their ethics follows the natural law.

If reality is an illusion, why should we strive to do good?

Having said that, Eastern religions are forces for the good in EASTERN COUNTRIES.

What we have in the West, though, is not real Buddhism, is not real Daoism and so on. It's relativist Westerners playing a game of make-believe, pretending, larping.

Their only religion is liberalism, the Enlightenment religion. Since this is very dry, they sugarcoat it by pretending follow Eastern religions.

While they do is to follow some Eastern practices, which they decontextualize and adapt to Western countries, without stop being liberals (that is, followers of the religion of selfishness) in anything else and anything that matters.The same thing with neo-pagans, or trekkies.

Their mwtaphysics is nihilistic and their ethics is nihilistic. No contradiction here: they are consistently selfish

Bruce Charlton said...

Thanks for comments.

It really is amazing how people fail to see through what they themselves are doing (rhetorically) with this one! But then again - maybe it isn't amazing - since that is normal, mainstream, psychopathy.

Sean fowler said...

It wouldn’t be much of a game of football without a referee and a rule book.

Adil said...


Football refereeing is s good analogy of what has happened to society as large. Gone are the days when the referee was the highest personal authority on the pitch. Nowadays, we have a committee of referees using VAR (video assistant refereeing). This technology was introduced to minimize the margin of error in decision-making, but it has instead replaced the referees' own judgement with the camera as the highest point of reference. This means referees have essentially become bureaucrats enforcing blind rules rather than judges who are responsible for maintaining order. Players are not allowed to show emotions against the referee - who is now supposed to be an impersonal bureaucrat - they will be given yellow cards. Again, the underlying assumptions for using this technology is that the camera will give us full objectivity and 'justice', while the human person and his faulty senses can't be "trusted". Watching this "justice" unfolding on the pitch is often amusing, since the game has become a parody.

Bruce Charlton said...

Interesting football analogies. A further development is that life is not really a game, nor can good living be conceptualized as rules.

Instead Real Life is meant to be closely analogous to loving families - which function best without fixed rules, and where different individuals have different expectations as appropriate to their nature.

I don't at all mean relativism, but that legal-bureaucratic procedure cannot be primary in loving relationships.

Sean fowler said...

@ Bruce. No quite. Please don’t imagine that I’m a proponent of fixed bureaucratic procedure, but I am of the opinion that there are when all is said and done, spiritual “laws”, as much as there are physical ones and that in order to conduct ourselves in accordance with divine nature or gods will, then we are required to follow certain rules. Furthermore I would suggest that as active participants in creation we have a responsibility to blow the whistle and shout foul in the face of transgression. I would most definitely agree that suspending judgement in the face of wickedness is playing into the hands evil. Our Orwellian masters have gone to great pains to redefine the word discriminate, in order to prevent us from exercising discernment thereby suspending judgement, the goal of which is to remove our capability of defending ourselves against transgression. We are no longer allowed to discriminate between good and evil, because that’s discrimination. It’s all part of the drive for equality. Equality between good and evil.

Alex said...

I'm not sure whether this is helpful, but I always found this "Judge not, that ye be not judged" discussion among Enlish speakers somewhat strange, since "to judge" is such an obiously
overloaded word.

For comparison, there is actually a verb "urteilen" in German that corresponds closely to "judge", in that it can be applied in a context of a court of law, as well as for a call of
discernment about anything. However, in the Matthew verse the Luther translation uses the word "richten" instead, which generally means "to sencence", i.e. to determine the suitable punishment. (Sometimes, in a figurative sense, it can also mean to execute a sentence.) So in the German version the passage reads as "Sentence not, that ye not be sentenced." In a non-literal way I think this is more of an exhortation against a fixation with idle musings about the suitable punishment which other people might deserve, rather than a categorical prohibition of any kind of moral discernment.