Talk:Matthew 7:1

Encylopedic writing should not reflect the values, opinions or doctrines of a writer.

"...begins an important discussion about how the true Christian should related (sic) to their fellows." This presumes the speaker Matthew quoted was speaking to a church not formed until many years after his death. He was, as told in the verse cited, speaking to Jews and to others residing in occupied Isreal at that time. The strong point of view of the editor is further evident in the reference to "true Christians." uh --- please don't judge the validity of people's faith when writing Wikipedia articles? The implicit notion of deity and foreknowledge is opinion and doctrine, not neutral encycopledic writing. The personal opinion that the verse is "important" is nothing more than personal opinion.

"It is fairly clear that this final judge mentioned in this verse is God." It is not even a little clear that a final judge is mentioned in the verse. It is a simple cause and effect statement with no implication of agency. Any further insinuation should be attributed to the scholar who advances the idea. Encyclopedias are not the place to represent doctrine as fact.

"As Morris states it is..." This represents "Morris'" view as fact, and hence reveals the point of view of the writer, who is sympathetic to Morris' point of view.

When naming scholars, please refer to their full name, in fairness to readers and to facilitate efficient fact checking by others. Many voices 21:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)