> Don't judge people. There is really no way to say "group X is bad," if only because, as Issachar explained earlier, bad is subjective. And, just as bad is subjective, extreme is subjective as well. So to say extremism is bad says, as we've discovered in this thread, something completely different to Issachar than it means to you. I suppose it sounds rather like my moral is "don't ever say anything," but it's not. My moral is simply this: don't be set in one view of a situation to the extent that you consider all of the alternatives to be bad or whatever, because there is *always* another side to the issue.
>

Well, much as I hate to disagree with myself (if you don't understand why arguing with Darien might be the same as arguing with myself, don't worry about it), I should really address these points.

1) "Don't judge people. There is really no way to say "group X is bad..."
"Judge not" is a Biblical statement, and I believe it. But it properly means, "don't place an ultimate condemnation on people," because that right of ultimate judgment belongs to God alone. Americans today misunderstand the command to mean "don't suppose you can understand whether a person's action is right or wrong." But that's *not* a Biblical interpretation, since Scripture definitely expects the believer to discern right and wrong both in her own life and in the lives of others. Discerning good and bad is different from passing judgment on a person.

2) "as Issachar explained earlier, bad is subjective. And, just as bad is subjective, extreme is subjective as well. So to say extremism is bad says, as we've discovered in this thread, something completely different to Issachar than it means to you."
I can see how my post might have given the impression that I think that "bad is subjective." However, it would be better said that "bad is relative" -- and it is specifically relative to God's person and will. That, in effect, makes "bad" a pretty rigidly defined standard, and about as close to being "objective" as you can get. Good and bad may mean something particular to me, but that's not because I have the prerogative to define them myself. I have only the prerogative to accept them on God's terms or reject them on same, and at peril of my life.

3) "My moral is simply this: don't be set in one view of a situation to the extent that you consider all of the alternatives to be bad or whatever, because there is *always* another side to the issue."
Yet as an extremist, I am absolutely planted in one view, and I *do* see all of the alternatives to be bad. There are indeed other sides to the issue, but they are the wrong sides. This is not to say that in any given situation, I understand perfectly what the right thing is to do. I say only that *God* knows what the right thing to do is, and my responsibility is to come to know God more deeply and personally, in consequence of which my own understanding will more closely match God's.

If you met me, you wouldn't think of me as a hard-nosed, rigid, Bible-pounding moralist. I dislike friction and avoid serious disagreements with people when possible. I also make an effort to understand why a person does something that seems wrong, and I know that the morass of motives and concerns and personal wounds in which we live seem hopeless to straighten out. It's much simpler to go with the doctrine of subjective right and wrong, because the complexity of our lives seems to preclude adopting any system more rigid than that. But that's simply not an option for me, or anyone else who seriously believes in a God who has revealed himself to the world the way the God of the Bible has done. I can be gentle and understanding towards people who do wrong, but I can't pretend that what they do is not wrong. That's the best way I know how to explain it.

Iss