100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Will The Rapture rid the Earth of Christianity | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
go look it up cowboy... the burden of proof is not on me, for i do not doubt the words you quote from text, but rather your interpretation of them. but yea, ye doubt me, so the burden of proof lie upon your shoulders son. for do you not claim yourself the expert perception in such matter's? for indeed, you deem your words BACKED BY THE "GOD OF THE COSMOS"? IF YOU WERE THE EXPERT, having just and wise insight, for being given by no merit of your own greater knowing, then you would KNOW WHERE IT WAS WRITTEN YOURSELF. and indeed, if it were not written, THEN THIS YOU WOULD KNOW AS WELL. since you know neither, you show true lacking and insight to be fit to "judge" any other mortal action, AND AS SUCH, I DO AGREE WITH YOU ENTIRELY THAT SUCH BE WISE BELIEF AND COUNSEL FOR YOURSELF. but not for the rest of the "righteous judges", which would be those that seek the solution and creation of common good for ALL AS ONE. for indeed, shall you "judge" all other's action's based merely UPON WHAT YOU "WANT" FOR COWBOY, basing the ENTIRE COURSE OF HUMANITY, upon this? but then, do you post for these reason's? what be your motive in your claims to be the divine interpretor of god? why and how shall you create common good for mankind? what is common good for mankind? for if you cared about the path of the human species, for the good of all, you would stop using "cowboy perception" with the assumption that whomever doth not embrace, agree, endorse, or validate, or show any other point of view, is somehow of lessor intelligence, and has no idea of what they be talking about. your very logic is but to disprove how "all things" cannot be true except for what MATCHES YOUR OWN BELIEF. that is nothing more than playing a blue's clue game, having nothing to do with "learning anything", nor adding ANYTHING more to what self already knows. but indeed, perhaps i should not assume that you come here to learn anything, for the sake of wanting and longing to create solution for where hate now reside. if the cowboy perception were allowed and followed as the course of humanity, all would be living in sheer chaos and misery for the sake of the chaos, but you have not even begun to inspect for this within yourself, but, all the while, claiming to be a judge of "gods word", and a DULY AUTHORIZED SPEAKER OF GOD? how does one believe words are of "god", AND SO DIVINE, THEN CLAIM ITSELF IS NOT TO JUDGE WHAT BE OF THE MAXIMUM GOOD FOR HUMANITY, and then not deem even this THE MOST GOOD, LEST ALL PARTIES DID AGREE? have ye not claimed yourself ONE WITH THE FATHER? if you are one with the father, THAN YOUR WORDS HATH THE SAME DIVINE INSIGHT AND ETERNAL WISDOM AND POWER AS HIS? do you REALLY wish to be accountible for each mortal human life, that you effect with your words, unto a more positive or negative "state of being"? as a "self professed divine interpretor", of the divine meaning of divine words, then each mortal that hear your words, and base ONE IOTA OR THING UPON THEM, you have become accountible for them, and their words and action's you shall be judged for, as per your own divine book, and the divine realm. but, then you would say no such thing be, as mortals do not believe as such, but then you would show you do not know the divine laws of self effect at all, nor live by them, as all in the divine realm hath fully accounted unto themself the total accountability of ALL THAT THEIR OWN WORDS DOTH CREATE AS FOR SELF AND FOR ALL, KNOWING THE PENALTY OF FALSE WITNESS BE DEATH, AS PER YOUR OWN TEXT. ramblin man ====================================== what be your motive in your claims to be the divine interpretor of god? why and how shall you create common good for mankind? what is common good for mankind? for if you cared about the path of the human species, for the good of all, you would stop using "cowboy perception" with the assumption that whomever doth not embrace, agree, endorse, or validate, or show any other point of view, is somehow of lessor intelligence, and has no idea of what they be talking about. ====================================== My motive is to keep people from spreading horrible rumours about God's word. And to show the truth and love that the word tells us. ---------------- I'm not using cowboy perception. I'm using God's word in everything i say. If you see a different way to interpret what i quoted and how i interpreted it, then so be it lets hear it. I'm not saying I completely understand the bible 100% word for word. So i ask you please if i ever quote something and you see it can be translated a different way and or means something other then what i'm saying it does eg., out of context, then i beg of you to please inform me of that while it's being discussed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it seems to solve or define any such matter, one would have to clearly define "sin", but if and how can this be possible, for it was so VERY CLEARLY written, "what be sin for ONE, be not sin for another"? for it as well state, "let him without sin cast the FIRST STONE". did not SAY TO NOT CAST A STONE? so, they "feared jesus", since they thought he was "god", and so "their own guilt", or fear of their own "lacking" being exposed, MADE THEM NOT JUDGE THE PROSTITUTE? and walk away? so, THAT WHICH HATH GUILT, BE AFRAID OF "GOD", OR WHAT REPRESENT "AUTHORITY", SO BE AFRAID TO JUDGE WHAT BE HARMFUL BEHAVIOUR TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING? awh, but the very belief's have come to have having to do with what be actual "caring" about human's or humankind. such has always been the case since the inception of human existence, and why the strong delusion that "to judge" be a "sin", when any free place, or happy place, or place without chaos, could not exist without exercising GOOD JUDGEMENT... even when "jesus" defended a prostitute, a "****ING SINNER", all pun inteded, he made sure not to tell anyone NOT TO JUDGE, but himself DID NOT JUDGE HER, for WHAT BODILY HARM HAD SHE INFLICTED UPON ANOTHER HUMAN, as she was but a believer in MUTUAL CONSENT OF CONSENTING ADULTS, and thus why "jesus" did not condem her... he knew the TRUE VIPER'S, the HATER'S, were the GUILTY, for why was she "guilty", for NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH HER HUSBAND, for who look for anonther, THAT BE GIVEN ALL IT NEED, OR WANT? hum... That be an interesting take on that story. Did not the laws of man declare that both parties be stoned to death? Did they not claim to catch her "in the act"? Why then, did they not bring the man too? Was that man one of them? Did they think Jesus was God? Or merely a heretical rabbi? Did Jesus judge her? Yes he did, and told her to "sin no more".... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it seems to solve or define any such matter, one would have to clearly define "sin", but if and how can this be possible, for it was so VERY CLEARLY written, "what be sin for ONE, be not sin for another"? for it as well state, "let him without sin cast the FIRST STONE". did not SAY TO NOT CAST A STONE? so, they "feared jesus", since they thought he was "god", and so "their own guilt", or fear of their own "lacking" being exposed, MADE THEM NOT JUDGE THE PROSTITUTE? and walk away? so, THAT WHICH HATH GUILT, BE AFRAID OF "GOD", OR WHAT REPRESENT "AUTHORITY", SO BE AFRAID TO JUDGE WHAT BE HARMFUL BEHAVIOUR TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING? awh, but the very belief's have come to have having to do with what be actual "caring" about human's or humankind. such has always been the case since the inception of human existence, and why the strong delusion that "to judge" be a "sin", when any free place, or happy place, or place without chaos, could not exist without exercising GOOD JUDGEMENT... even when "jesus" defended a prostitute, a "****ING SINNER", all pun inteded, he made sure not to tell anyone NOT TO JUDGE, but himself DID NOT JUDGE HER, for WHAT BODILY HARM HAD SHE INFLICTED UPON ANOTHER HUMAN, as she was but a believer in MUTUAL CONSENT OF CONSENTING ADULTS, and thus why "jesus" did not condem her... he knew the TRUE VIPER'S, the HATER'S, were the GUILTY, for why was she "guilty", for NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH HER HUSBAND, for who look for anonther, THAT BE GIVEN ALL IT NEED, OR WANT? hum... That be an interesting take on that story. Did not the laws of man declare that both parties be stoned to death? Did they not claim to catch her "in the act"? Why then, did they not bring the man too? Was that man one of them? Did they think Jesus was God? Or merely a heretical rabbi? Did Jesus judge her? Yes he did, and told her to "sin no more".... That is exactly right.If you would do some research on the stoning issue it is actually quite complex.You had to have at least two witness's.Both the man and the woman would be arrested.Then the two guilty people stood trial in front of the high priests and witness's.If the two people were found guilty both the man and the woman were to be put to death at the hands of the two people who witnessed them(who often objected along with many members of the church).If they were to be executed they were thrown off a large cliff.If they survived the fall the two witness would throw large rocks down at them.Despite this being a law you will only find one instance of a man being stoned in the bible and it is for a Christian in the New testament being stoned by a bunch of Jews for blasphemy.Repentance of sins and forgiveness would save you a death sentence for adultery and other sins which is why you never read stories of people being stoned. In any case the man who brought this woman broke many rules including not bringing the man she was having sex with and not allowing a court trial. Jesus did judge this woman because he said "he who is with out sin may cast the first stone".He did not say she was not guilty.He did not say do not stone or judge this woman.He did not say the stoning law was irrelevant,null,and void.He simply was saying all have sinned(which the penalty is death)and all have been sparred by forgiveness.Like peter said he also said "Sin no more" which is a second conformation that he did judge and acknowledge her adultery. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it seems to solve or define any such matter, one would have to clearly define "sin", but if and how can this be possible, for it was so VERY CLEARLY written, "what be sin for ONE, be not sin for another"? for it as well state, "let him without sin cast the FIRST STONE". did not SAY TO NOT CAST A STONE? so, they "feared jesus", since they thought he was "god", and so "their own guilt", or fear of their own "lacking" being exposed, MADE THEM NOT JUDGE THE PROSTITUTE? and walk away? so, THAT WHICH HATH GUILT, BE AFRAID OF "GOD", OR WHAT REPRESENT "AUTHORITY", SO BE AFRAID TO JUDGE WHAT BE HARMFUL BEHAVIOUR TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING? awh, but the very belief's have come to have having to do with what be actual "caring" about human's or humankind. such has always been the case since the inception of human existence, and why the strong delusion that "to judge" be a "sin", when any free place, or happy place, or place without chaos, could not exist without exercising GOOD JUDGEMENT... even when "jesus" defended a prostitute, a "****ING SINNER", all pun inteded, he made sure not to tell anyone NOT TO JUDGE, but himself DID NOT JUDGE HER, for WHAT BODILY HARM HAD SHE INFLICTED UPON ANOTHER HUMAN, as she was but a believer in MUTUAL CONSENT OF CONSENTING ADULTS, and thus why "jesus" did not condem her... he knew the TRUE VIPER'S, the HATER'S, were the GUILTY, for why was she "guilty", for NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH HER HUSBAND, for who look for anonther, THAT BE GIVEN ALL IT NEED, OR WANT? hum... That be an interesting take on that story. Did not the laws of man declare that both parties be stoned to death? Did they not claim to catch her "in the act"? Why then, did they not bring the man too? Was that man one of them? Did they think Jesus was God? Or merely a heretical rabbi? Did Jesus judge her? Yes he did, and told her to "sin no more".... That is exactly right.If you would do some research on the stoning issue it is actually quite complex.You had to have at least two witness's.Both the man and the woman would be arrested.Then the two guilty people stood trial in front of the high priests and witness's.If the two people were found guilty both the man and the woman were to be put to death at the hands of the two people who witnessed them(who often objected along with many members of the church).If they were to be executed they were thrown off a large cliff.If they survived the fall the two witness would throw large rocks down at them.Despite this being a law you will only find one instance of a man being stoned in the bible and it is for a Christian in the New testament being stoned by a bunch of Jews for blasphemy.Repentance of sins and forgiveness would save you a death sentence for adultery and other sins which is why you never read stories of people being stoned. In any case the man who brought this woman broke many rules including not bringing the man she was having sex with and not allowing a court trial. Jesus did judge this woman because he said "he who is with out sin may cast the first stone".He did not say she was not guilty.He did not say do not stone or judge this woman.He did not say the stoning law was irrelevant,null,and void.He simply was saying all have sinned(which the penalty is death)and all have been sparred by forgiveness.Like peter said he also said "Sin no more" which is a second conformation that he did judge and acknowledge her adultery. I would also like to point out that Jesus himself recognised the "laws of man" and the "doctrines of men". Jesus exposed the hypocrisy of those in "power" and called them out on it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i have been cowboy!
however, you are ONLY using your brain to PROVE YOUR OWN "INTERPRETATION" as POSSIBLE? in case you haven't noticed, i have not disputed one word of your quote's as correct, but have only declared OTHER POSSIBILITIES, using THE BOOK YOU SWEAR YOUR FATE ON, AND THE FATE OF ALL YOU LOVE ON? there is NO POSSIBLE "MOST TRUE" IN THE BOOK, THAT CAN BE DECLARED THE MOST TRUTH, UNLESS IT BE AGREED UPON BY "ALL HUMAN'S", as per the books instruction itself? so, we see that if there be any interpretation, IT MUST BE GRAND ENOUGH, PEACEFUL ENOUGH, GOOD ENOUGH, FOR ALL HUMAN'S TO BE ABLE TO AGREE ON, and cannot create war amoungst people. can such even be true for a book? but the book itself, say's this be the only sign of any truest interpretation. did it not as well, say ANY THAT "KNOW GOD", OR BELIEVE.....that the mortal sign of such, or evidence, would be these believe in "ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE, to those whom are called, according to the perfect purpose and will of "god"? ALL THINGS POSSIBLE. than if one even adhered to JUST THIS ONE STATEMENT, it would have to actively seek to prove HOW IT'S NEIGHBOR'S PERCEPTION COULD BE "POSSIBLE", if it ACTUALLY believed in "ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE"? the "typical professed believer", simply takes this statement one way, that "miracles are possible", and mostly that "good for themself be possible", but to truly believe something, is TO APPLY IT TO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE THAT EXIST? all things possible? APPLIED TO ALL THINGS THAT EXIST? why did it say this? because if one did just this, THEY WOULD BE MORE OPEN MINDED, MORE APT TO SEE THEIR NEIGHBOR'S PERCEPTION JUST AS POSSIBLE AS THEIR OWN? they would not say "no way, the earth aint round"? they would not say, "no way, it dosen't mean that"? they wouldn't say, "no way black people are just as good as white people"? they wouldn't say, "no way we can make an airplane fly in the sky"? they wouldn't say, "no way human's can create peace on earth amoungst all", thus making it first impossible. so not so much fighting if one just believed in 'all things possible'? so a peaceful interpretation, or one that "hath the power to create peace"? so then create more peace if you wanna deem youself a 'son of god'? that means it's possible other's are correct as well. you can be correct, and other's as well, but you must morph the two as one? to look for how BOTH THINGS CAN BE TRUE, THEN YOU JUST GOT A BIGGER TRUTH? there is ONE INTERPRETATION, THAT LEAVES EACH TEXT QUOTE KNOWN BY ALL HUMANS AS CORRECT. THERE IS "ONE TRUTH", SO LARGE, THAT IT CAN FIT ALL BELIEF'S IN THE WORLD INTO IT, AND LEAVE THEM ALL AS TRUE. does it not say, "study to show thyself approved"? SEE IF YOUR TRYING TO PROVE YOURSELF CORRECT, OR TRYING TO CREATE PEACE AMOUNG ALL? if one tries to prove itself KNOWS ALL, it knows less each day? did not the book say, that if ONE DEFINITION OF ANY STATEMENT THEREIN, WAS DECLARED AS MOST TRUTH, AND IT WAS THE WRONG INTERPRETATION, that these would have their name removed from the "book of life"? so how can any mortal insist, and swear themself as the MOST TRUE, most these that swear their allegiance to the "book"? remmiss, so casual and hasty, as to not even try to prove how other possibles meanings, can, or could be true? did it not say the book was "divine prophecy", and that no word within would ever be found to be as not true, WHEN THE TRUE MEANING WAS MADE KNOWN TO "ALL MANKIND"? if the book be indeed prophecy, than prophecy apply in MANY WAYS, not singularly as human's read it? prophecy itself hath EIGHT different meanings possible, for any statement made, for any story told, so then the book even at first, be declared to have AT LEAST EIGHT DIFFERENT POSSIBLE MEANINGS. metophorical meaning, literal meaning, past meaning, present meaning, future meaning? thats FIVE POSSIBLE different meanings, for any statement, so then for the WHOLE BOOK? then, each of these FIVE POSSIBLE'S, CAN BE SWITCHED UP, TO MAKE EIGHT POSSIBLE'S? your supposed to know this stuff, if you DEEM YOUR DEFINTION AS "1000% ACCURATE"? AND, NO TRUEST DEFINING, can dispute ANY OTHER WORD IN THE BOOK ITSELF? THAT WOULD QUITE SOME FEAT? and you believe you have accomplished this, to state your defining as having NO ROOM FOR ERROR? that would be quite the mathematical odds to bet oneself on. so it seems the largest question to be asked, is if selfs interpretation, can create peace, and stop all wars about who is MORE RIGHT, THAT SEPERATE PEOPLE, AND HAVE KILLED MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS. so it seems such a subject be not taken lightly, IF ONE VALUE OTHER HUMAN LIVES, since the defining of words of this book decide war's in due time, not missed, the greatest commandment, "ABOVE ALL love thy neighbor as thyself", so certainly that would be to love them enough, to MAKE THEM MORE IMPORTANT, THAN A BELIEF FOR SELF? is your belief for the sake of CREATING HAPPY FOR "THEM"? FOR HAPPY FOR ALL "YOU" LOVE? it can't be a truth of "god", and be ABOUT YOURSELF, if truth of god be about LOVE FOR ALL? it seems obvious that any human, that actually KNEW GOD, OR WAS BORN AGAIN TO HEAR TELEPATHICALLY FROM GOD, so as it was called, WOULD NOT NEED A BOOK WRITTEN BY OTHER'S SAID TO "KNOW" or hear from god? why doth one need a book anyway, IF ONE CONVERSE WITH THE PROPOSED AUHTOR GOD ITSELF? IF ONE CONVERSE WITH THE "CREATOR GOD ITSELF", as is said to be so for any "vortexed", or "born againer", WHY WOULD IT NEED A BOOK FOR IT'S OWN GUIDELINE OF IT'S OWN BEHAVIOUR? interpretations thus far, take no such things as these into account, and what you asked for from me, in your last post response. ramblin man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it seems to solve or define any such matter, one would have to clearly define "sin", but if and how can this be possible, for it was so VERY CLEARLY written, "what be sin for ONE, be not sin for another"? for it as well state, "let him without sin cast the FIRST STONE". did not SAY TO NOT CAST A STONE? so, they "feared jesus", since they thought he was "god", and so "their own guilt", or fear of their own "lacking" being exposed, MADE THEM NOT JUDGE THE PROSTITUTE? and walk away? so, THAT WHICH HATH GUILT, BE AFRAID OF "GOD", OR WHAT REPRESENT "AUTHORITY", SO BE AFRAID TO JUDGE WHAT BE HARMFUL BEHAVIOUR TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING? awh, but the very belief's have come to have having to do with what be actual "caring" about human's or humankind. such has always been the case since the inception of human existence, and why the strong delusion that "to judge" be a "sin", when any free place, or happy place, or place without chaos, could not exist without exercising GOOD JUDGEMENT... even when "jesus" defended a prostitute, a "****ING SINNER", all pun inteded, he made sure not to tell anyone NOT TO JUDGE, but himself DID NOT JUDGE HER, for WHAT BODILY HARM HAD SHE INFLICTED UPON ANOTHER HUMAN, as she was but a believer in MUTUAL CONSENT OF CONSENTING ADULTS, and thus why "jesus" did not condem her... he knew the TRUE VIPER'S, the HATER'S, were the GUILTY, for why was she "guilty", for NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH HER HUSBAND, for who look for anonther, THAT BE GIVEN ALL IT NEED, OR WANT? hum... That be an interesting take on that story. Did not the laws of man declare that both parties be stoned to death? Did they not claim to catch her "in the act"? Why then, did they not bring the man too? Was that man one of them? Did they think Jesus was God? Or merely a heretical rabbi? Did Jesus judge her? Yes he did, and told her to "sin no more".... it seems that at that moment in time, even if this changed later, they did not believe him to be a "heretical rabbi", or they would not have taken into consideration any of his words? obviously they took his words serious enough to not persue the matter? and, it is not written what he wrote in the sand to her with a stick, and only know that he said aloud, seems to appease them, GO AND SIN NO MORE? for indeed, if he had judged her by the existing law's at that time in civilization, he would have encouraged them to take her before the religious leader's for trial, and not discouraged them with "let he without sin cast the first stone"? he was smart enough to walk the line down the middle, by not breaking any oppressive law, LEST HE ACCEPTED THE CONSEQUENCE FOR HIMSELF, but at the same time, trying to get the people to think about the "proposed good" of the laws they created, and swore allegiance to as "most good"? there is no doubt, that if these that wanted to stone her, had total confidence in themself and in their own judgement and self motive, they would not have allwowed "one man", being far outnumbered, to stand in their way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it seems to solve or define any such matter, one would have to clearly define "sin", but if and how can this be possible, for it was so VERY CLEARLY written, "what be sin for ONE, be not sin for another"? for it as well state, "let him without sin cast the FIRST STONE". did not SAY TO NOT CAST A STONE? so, they "feared jesus", since they thought he was "god", and so "their own guilt", or fear of their own "lacking" being exposed, MADE THEM NOT JUDGE THE PROSTITUTE? and walk away? so, THAT WHICH HATH GUILT, BE AFRAID OF "GOD", OR WHAT REPRESENT "AUTHORITY", SO BE AFRAID TO JUDGE WHAT BE HARMFUL BEHAVIOUR TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING? awh, but the very belief's have come to have having to do with what be actual "caring" about human's or humankind. such has always been the case since the inception of human existence, and why the strong delusion that "to judge" be a "sin", when any free place, or happy place, or place without chaos, could not exist without exercising GOOD JUDGEMENT... even when "jesus" defended a prostitute, a "****ING SINNER", all pun inteded, he made sure not to tell anyone NOT TO JUDGE, but himself DID NOT JUDGE HER, for WHAT BODILY HARM HAD SHE INFLICTED UPON ANOTHER HUMAN, as she was but a believer in MUTUAL CONSENT OF CONSENTING ADULTS, and thus why "jesus" did not condem her... he knew the TRUE VIPER'S, the HATER'S, were the GUILTY, for why was she "guilty", for NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH HER HUSBAND, for who look for anonther, THAT BE GIVEN ALL IT NEED, OR WANT? hum... That be an interesting take on that story. Did not the laws of man declare that both parties be stoned to death? Did they not claim to catch her "in the act"? Why then, did they not bring the man too? Was that man one of them? Did they think Jesus was God? Or merely a heretical rabbi? Did Jesus judge her? Yes he did, and told her to "sin no more".... it seems that at that moment in time, even if this changed later, they did not believe him to be a "heretical rabbi", or they would not have taken into consideration any of his words? obviously they took his words serious enough to not persue the matter? and, it is not written what he wrote in the sand to her with a stick, and only know that he said aloud, seems to appease them, GO AND SIN NO MORE? for indeed, if he had judged her by the existing law's at that time in civilization, he would have encouraged them to take her before the religious leader's for trial, and not discouraged them with "let he without sin cast the first stone"? he was smart enough to walk the line down the middle, by not breaking any oppressive law, LEST HE ACCEPTED THE CONSEQUENCE FOR HIMSELF, but at the same time, trying to get the people to think about the "proposed good" of the laws they created, and swore allegiance to as "most good"? there is no doubt, that if these that wanted to stone her, had total confidence in themself and in their own judgement and self motive, they would not have allwowed "one man", being far outnumbered, to stand in their way. So what we have is 3 differing "interpretations" of what that story means. You say that you question Cowboy's interpretation and not the qouted words. Well, I question your interpretation and am puzzled how you extrapolated that Jesus condoned her adultery when he clearly addresses adultery in other passages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
davidben1
on
Mon 10/18/10 12:20 AM
|
|
it seems to solve or define any such matter, one would have to clearly define "sin", but if and how can this be possible, for it was so VERY CLEARLY written, "what be sin for ONE, be not sin for another"? for it as well state, "let him without sin cast the FIRST STONE". did not SAY TO NOT CAST A STONE? so, they "feared jesus", since they thought he was "god", and so "their own guilt", or fear of their own "lacking" being exposed, MADE THEM NOT JUDGE THE PROSTITUTE? and walk away? so, THAT WHICH HATH GUILT, BE AFRAID OF "GOD", OR WHAT REPRESENT "AUTHORITY", SO BE AFRAID TO JUDGE WHAT BE HARMFUL BEHAVIOUR TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING? awh, but the very belief's have come to have having to do with what be actual "caring" about human's or humankind. such has always been the case since the inception of human existence, and why the strong delusion that "to judge" be a "sin", when any free place, or happy place, or place without chaos, could not exist without exercising GOOD JUDGEMENT... even when "jesus" defended a prostitute, a "****ING SINNER", all pun inteded, he made sure not to tell anyone NOT TO JUDGE, but himself DID NOT JUDGE HER, for WHAT BODILY HARM HAD SHE INFLICTED UPON ANOTHER HUMAN, as she was but a believer in MUTUAL CONSENT OF CONSENTING ADULTS, and thus why "jesus" did not condem her... he knew the TRUE VIPER'S, the HATER'S, were the GUILTY, for why was she "guilty", for NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH HER HUSBAND, for who look for anonther, THAT BE GIVEN ALL IT NEED, OR WANT? hum... That be an interesting take on that story. Did not the laws of man declare that both parties be stoned to death? Did they not claim to catch her "in the act"? Why then, did they not bring the man too? Was that man one of them? Did they think Jesus was God? Or merely a heretical rabbi? Did Jesus judge her? Yes he did, and told her to "sin no more".... it seems that at that moment in time, even if this changed later, they did not believe him to be a "heretical rabbi", or they would not have taken into consideration any of his words? obviously they took his words serious enough to not persue the matter? and, it is not written what he wrote in the sand to her with a stick, and only know that he said aloud, seems to appease them, GO AND SIN NO MORE? for indeed, if he had judged her by the existing law's at that time in civilization, he would have encouraged them to take her before the religious leader's for trial, and not discouraged them with "let he without sin cast the first stone"? he was smart enough to walk the line down the middle, by not breaking any oppressive law, LEST HE ACCEPTED THE CONSEQUENCE FOR HIMSELF, but at the same time, trying to get the people to think about the "proposed good" of the laws they created, and swore allegiance to as "most good"? there is no doubt, that if these that wanted to stone her, had total confidence in themself and in their own judgement and self motive, they would not have allwowed "one man", being far outnumbered, to stand in their way. So what we have is 3 differing "interpretations" of what that story means. You say that you question Cowboy's interpretation and not the qouted words. Well, I question your interpretation and am puzzled how you extrapolated that Jesus condoned her adultery when he clearly addresses adultery in other passages. didn't say he "condoned it", at all? and good, one is supposed to doubt all, or question all, for how else be there for any to learn or find out more? there is MISSING DATA? since he wrote in the sand? so, there can be NO total conclusivity of all that was said? and, there could be more events, that transpired after the direct contact of all involved, that may not have been included in the text, so there is no way to have any conclusivity anyway? the text itself declare that the book in no way contains all the words or works of jesus, so WHICH ONE'S WERE LEFT OUT? any left out in this matter is "an unknown"? there can be no total conclusivity if there be any unknown. all that can be extrapolated, is HE "DID NOT" SEEK WITH ALL DUE DILLIGENCE, OR WITH ANY PERSISTENCE, OR WITH ANY ASSISSTANCE UNTO THEM, BY THE WORDS THAT WERE WRITTEN, TO INSIST, ENCOURAGE, ENTICE, ASSIST WITH, HER STONING. there is actually VERY LITTLE "jesus himself" actually said about "adultery"... when he was asked, about moses granting divorce decree's, he only stated that it was not so in the beginning? that can mean a host of things? it is obvious in all cases he stretched every religous law they had ever known and held to as good, with subtle but overt intent to create more caring for each other as all free moral agents, as he said all human were, always decalring that equal treatment for all was as more important, much more important than creating laws to stifle and oppose any progress of ALL AS EQUAL, which is why the laws were crafted then, for the sake of the 'religious' sector, to maintain a superior or father role over the people, always to ensure themself a "higher footing" than the people. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it seems to solve or define any such matter, one would have to clearly define "sin", but if and how can this be possible, for it was so VERY CLEARLY written, "what be sin for ONE, be not sin for another"? for it as well state, "let him without sin cast the FIRST STONE". did not SAY TO NOT CAST A STONE? so, they "feared jesus", since they thought he was "god", and so "their own guilt", or fear of their own "lacking" being exposed, MADE THEM NOT JUDGE THE PROSTITUTE? and walk away? so, THAT WHICH HATH GUILT, BE AFRAID OF "GOD", OR WHAT REPRESENT "AUTHORITY", SO BE AFRAID TO JUDGE WHAT BE HARMFUL BEHAVIOUR TO ANOTHER HUMAN BEING? awh, but the very belief's have come to have having to do with what be actual "caring" about human's or humankind. such has always been the case since the inception of human existence, and why the strong delusion that "to judge" be a "sin", when any free place, or happy place, or place without chaos, could not exist without exercising GOOD JUDGEMENT... even when "jesus" defended a prostitute, a "****ING SINNER", all pun inteded, he made sure not to tell anyone NOT TO JUDGE, but himself DID NOT JUDGE HER, for WHAT BODILY HARM HAD SHE INFLICTED UPON ANOTHER HUMAN, as she was but a believer in MUTUAL CONSENT OF CONSENTING ADULTS, and thus why "jesus" did not condem her... he knew the TRUE VIPER'S, the HATER'S, were the GUILTY, for why was she "guilty", for NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH HER HUSBAND, for who look for anonther, THAT BE GIVEN ALL IT NEED, OR WANT? hum... That be an interesting take on that story. Did not the laws of man declare that both parties be stoned to death? Did they not claim to catch her "in the act"? Why then, did they not bring the man too? Was that man one of them? Did they think Jesus was God? Or merely a heretical rabbi? Did Jesus judge her? Yes he did, and told her to "sin no more".... it seems that at that moment in time, even if this changed later, they did not believe him to be a "heretical rabbi", or they would not have taken into consideration any of his words? obviously they took his words serious enough to not persue the matter? and, it is not written what he wrote in the sand to her with a stick, and only know that he said aloud, seems to appease them, GO AND SIN NO MORE? for indeed, if he had judged her by the existing law's at that time in civilization, he would have encouraged them to take her before the religious leader's for trial, and not discouraged them with "let he without sin cast the first stone"? he was smart enough to walk the line down the middle, by not breaking any oppressive law, LEST HE ACCEPTED THE CONSEQUENCE FOR HIMSELF, but at the same time, trying to get the people to think about the "proposed good" of the laws they created, and swore allegiance to as "most good"? there is no doubt, that if these that wanted to stone her, had total confidence in themself and in their own judgement and self motive, they would not have allwowed "one man", being far outnumbered, to stand in their way. So what we have is 3 differing "interpretations" of what that story means. You say that you question Cowboy's interpretation and not the qouted words. Well, I question your interpretation and am puzzled how you extrapolated that Jesus condoned her adultery when he clearly addresses adultery in other passages. didn't say he "condoned it", at all? Perhaps I misinterpreted your words when you wrote this: "even when "jesus" defended a prostitute, a "****ING SINNER", all pun inteded, he made sure not to tell anyone NOT TO JUDGE, but himself DID NOT JUDGE HER, for WHAT BODILY HARM HAD SHE INFLICTED UPON ANOTHER HUMAN, as she was but a believer in MUTUAL CONSENT OF CONSENTING ADULTS, and thus why "jesus" did not condem her... he knew the TRUE VIPER'S, the HATER'S, were the GUILTY, for why was she "guilty", for NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH HER HUSBAND, for who look for anonther, THAT BE GIVEN ALL IT NEED, OR WANT?" and good, one is supposed to doubt all, or question all, for how else be there for any to learn or find out more? Odd, the bible says pretty much the same thing.... there is MISSING DATA? since he wrote in the sand? so, there can be NO total conclusivity of all that was said? and, there could be more events, that transpired after the direct contact of all involved, that may not have been included in the text, so there is no way to have any conclusivity anyway? the text itself declare that the book in no way contains all the words or works of jesus, so WHICH ONE'S WERE LEFT OUT? any left out in this matter is "an unknown"? there can be no total conclusivity if there be any unknown. "total conclusivity"? No, but partial, yes. I can conclude from those few words that Jesus did judge her as a sinner, else he would have said something like: "Fear not, you have not sinned", instead of his recorded response. all that can be extrapolated, is HE "DID NOT" SEEK WITH ALL DUE DILLIGENCE, OR WITH ANY PERSISTENCE, OR WITH ANY ASSISSTANCE UNTO THEM, BY THE WORDS THAT WERE WRITTEN, TO INSIST, ENCOURAGE, ENTICE, ASSIST WITH, HER STONING. there is actually VERY LITTLE "jesus himself" actually said about "adultery"... when he was asked, about moses granting divorce decree's, he only stated that it was not so in the beginning? that can mean a host of things? Jesus stated that it was Moses' law, for the people's "hardened hearts". He recognised that it was a man-made law and allowed for divorce only in the case of an adulterous mate, which advocated divorce instead of the death penalty for adultery. (a widow or widower wouldn't need a divorce if their mate was deceased - hint, executed) Jesus also equated simply lusting after another as adultery, he never said it wasn't a sin or excusable. it is obvious in all cases he stretched every religous law they had ever known and held to as good, with subtle but overt intent to create more caring for each other as all free moral agents, as he said all human were, always decalring that equal treatment for all was as more important, much more important than creating laws to stifle and oppose any progress of ALL AS EQUAL, which is why the laws were crafted then, for the sake of the 'religious' sector, to maintain a superior or father role over the people, always to ensure themself a "higher footing" than the people. Every religious law, or every law of man? How many of the ten commandments did Jesus break? Equal treatment for all I agree with. ALL IS EQUAL I do not agree with... If "all is equal" was his teachings, why call anyone a fool or hypocrite? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
peter the pan...
you must think i wish to debate with you, lol... i only spoke those things to cowboy, becasue i care about him, as i know he is sincere, and means well. we can't date! i am setting my affection's aside for the female species! indeed, perhaps you do not know my FORMAL "DECLARED" STANCE ON SUCH MATTER'S WITH WHOM I HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT? **** THE BOOK. SUCK THE BOOK. SHUCK THE BOOK. REAP THE BOOK. SLEEP WITH THE BOOK. VOMIT THE BOOK. perhaps you have missed the man i a cal of my perception. eat eat eat all you like you see, of the tainted spoils of self vaniteeeee, eat eat eat until you drop, until the belly swell and the brain do pop, sip sip sip on the disease, dine dine dine on self divine as you please. the book these words shall smash to a million billion gazillion pieces, leaving not iota in any stomach, but rather in the eye. discard the trash, leave not thyself to waste. probably not. unpiece to pieces |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
peter the pan... you must think i wish to debate with you, lol... i only spoke those things to cowboy, becasue i care about him, as i know he is sincere, and means well. we can't date! i am setting my affection's aside for the female species! indeed, perhaps you do not know my FORMAL "DECLARED" STANCE ON SUCH MATTER'S WITH WHOM I HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT? **** THE BOOK. SUCK THE BOOK. SHUCK THE BOOK. REAP THE BOOK. SLEEP WITH THE BOOK. VOMIT THE BOOK. perhaps you have missed the man i a cal of my perception. eat eat eat all you like you see, of the tainted spoils of self vaniteeeee, eat eat eat until you drop, until the belly swell and the brain do pop, sip sip sip on the disease, dine dine dine on self divine as you please. the book these words shall smash to a million billion gazillion pieces, leaving not iota in any stomach, but rather in the eye. discard the trash, leave not thyself to waste. probably not. unpiece to pieces davidben1, you lost me after "means well"... However, if the "WHOM I HAVE NO CONCERN ABOUT?" means me and whom wasn't supposed to be "which", then "all as one" is just empty rhetoric, no? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol...
all as one? you live for all as one? wow! what an incredible amazing person you are. i bow before you just now oh lord of the all as one, and request mercy to be allowed passage into the peter the pan's house of one for himself, to knock down each wall, and rebuild a castle, fit for the kingdom of ONE. blessed mercies upon thy humble servant myself oh perter the pan. it's not the "others" you live for is it, but rather all for one in the pan peter kingdom? before there be ALL AS ONE, those of one must strip down naked as born, and proceed thru the little tight eye of the needle, thru the wee tiny tight spot in the middle of the 8, for the brain sqeeze into infinity, and none proceed here, until every last iota of every jot and tittle ever heard afore be discarded and blasphemed. **** jesus! understand that one? good luck with that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OH, BTW, THIS BE MY RHETORIC, SPECIAL AND JUST FOR YOU!
tis a free gift! send no payment, as all none profit! those that play words games, to stroke their fine feathered caps, there be no compassion nor part with. hail to the rhetoric of the damned! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol... all as one? you live for all as one? wow! what an incredible amazing person you are. i bow before you just now oh lord of the all as one, and request mercy to be allowed passage into the peter the pan's house of one for himself, to knock down each wall, and rebuild a castle, fit for the kingdom of ONE. blessed mercies upon thy humble servant myself oh perter the pan. it's not the "others" you live for is it, but rather all for one in the pan peter kingdom? before there be ALL AS ONE, those of one must strip down naked as born, and proceed thru the little tight eye of the needle, thru the wee tiny tight spot in the middle of the 8, for the brain sqeeze into infinity, and none proceed here, until every last iota of every jot and tittle ever heard afore be discarded and blasphemed. **** jesus! understand that one? good luck with that. LOL!, but you said you were setting your "affection's aside for the female species".... Do you not see that I turn the vain's mirror towards themselves, yet they do not see? Well, obviously not I suppose.... "those that play words games, to stroke their fine feathered caps, there be no compassion nor part with." So, do you own a mirror??? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but the mirror's i all hath broke, shattered to a gamillion pieces...
what o what o what shall men of haman do. dunno. yes i do! sing sad songs thru a flattered fetted flute. omg! who woulda thought. so much learning so much hear, so many grand wonderful things to bear, created into existence as words strike the air, as the words flow forth and erase every hair. thought i lost ya after the "means well"? lol... oh, but the divine hath descended upon the throne, and the scepter hath been extended, and all the mirror's covered in red dirt, matching glowing red skies, that ascend upon the mighty that hath no might. a curse be the greatest affection in the days of end. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but the mirror's i all hath broke, shattered to a gamillion pieces... what o what o what shall men of haman do. dunno. yes i do! sing sad songs thru a flattered fetted flute. omg! who woulda thought. so much learning so much hear, so many grand wonderful things to bear, created into existence as words strike the air, as the words flow forth and erase every hair. thought i lost ya after the "means well"? lol... oh, but the divine hath descended upon the throne, and the scepter hath been extended, and all the mirror's covered in red dirt, matching glowing red skies, that ascend upon the mighty that hath no might. a curse be the greatest affection in the days of end. "what o what o what shall men of haman do." Simply put, fail.... (you're just about there...) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh goodie oh goodie!
you mean i really am ALMOST THERE! wow! that is so ****ing cool! i always wanted to almost get there. i was sad for you for the failure to come, but now not so, since you have cheered my eternal spirit, with the promise of imminent failure! hip hip horray! hail to the devil as queen, satan rule now and take your fill, ride on the wings of sorrow, and gather up your curse and tale. NOT! yes! no! YEA. not one iota of these words shall ever fail, in this realm or any realm, in any cosmos or in any world, for their purpose hath already now been created, (oh so exciting) these words born from the root of all hell, from the darkest depths of eruliaf, then risen thru the fire of lions by the queen of judah. step into the lair and never leave, devoured by the queen all proud devout every comfort, whilst the herald bring forth the call, and roll up the scroll, up to down and down to up one and all, while the party bells ring and fill every hall. and. an. a. . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh goodie oh goodie! you mean i really am ALMOST THERE! wow! that is so ****ing cool! i always wanted to almost get there. i was sad for you for the failure to come, but now not so, since you have cheered my eternal spirit, with the promise of imminent failure! hip hip horray! hail to the devil as queen, satan rule now and take your fill, ride on the wings of sorrow, and gather up your curse and tale. NOT! yes! no! YEA. not one iota of these words shall ever fail, in this realm or any realm, in any cosmos or in any world, for their purpose hath already now been created, (oh so exciting) these words born from the root of all hell, from the darkest depths of eruliaf, then risen thru the fire of lions by the queen of judah. step into the lair and never leave, devoured by the queen all proud devout every comfort, whilst the herald bring forth the call, and roll up the scroll, up to down and down to up one and all, while the party bells ring and fill every hall. and. an. a. . Perhaps a coherent sentence would garner the response you so desire... Nay, I proclaim. There be nothing, no words nor gestures that will provoke me to clouded thought. And what be the commision of these words? To bring joy? Or sorrow? Or fear? What about disdain or hate? Lo, if these word's lot be to bring laughter and cheer, then they have not failed but greatly excelled in their work. I shall come and go as I please, for no man bonds me to that which I do not desire. T'was a quaint little abode, but lacking in hospitality. That is not to say I won't gleefully return, even if just to hear the bells or simply pull your strings. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=================================== it only tells how someone that is sinning shouldn't be judging others that sin which is why the term "hypocrite" was used =================================== Yes it says people that sin should not judge others. But it also says we ALL have sinned and fall short in the glory of God. John 7:24 ...Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. here's a passage where Jesus gives advice about how to judge ...so are you sure Jesus said that it's a sin to judge? Judge with a RIGHTEOUS judgement. To make a righteous judgement would only come from someone that is pure and doesn't sin. For if you judged someone while you're sinning yourself, you would be a hypocrite as Jesus pointed out. Cowboy...righteous judgement in those biblical days would refer to making a fair or just judgement ... Yes, very true. But how could it be fair or righteous if you judge this person to be a heathen for stealing an apple when you just got done stealing an orange? oh that's easy to explain...you simple do not judge that apple stealing person as if they has stole two apples ...you judge that person fairly for the crime that they committed which was the theft of one apple Still wouldn't be fair, for you would be judging this person and condemning them for stealing the apple, but yet nothing happened to you for stealing the orange. That is why we aren't to judge others, for we ALL sin and fall short in the glory of God. it is fair...the person was treated in accordance with the crime they committed ...this is what is meant by righteous judgement ......and this is why if you go around preaching that Jesus said that it's a sin to judge...you are not being a righteous person ...because Jesus claim no such thing so Cowboy....become righteous and just admit that you were wrong....repent christian heathen....look all I'm trying to do is keep you out of the lake of fire because so far you are on the yahweh to hell You didn't listen to what was said in the example. It wouldn't be a fair judgement because i was judging someone for stealing the apple saying it was wrong, but yet i was stealing the orange. How can i say stealing is wrong while i'm doing it myself? How is that righteous? you may had to steal the orange because someone stole your apple and you had nothing to eat...there are many reasons why people steal...but what Jesus was trying to teach was once you get caught then you must pay the consequences but that the consequences should be of a righteous judgment..this is why you are spreading false testimony and committing blasphemy when you claim that Jesus said the to judge is a sin ....when Jesus never made such a claim |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
=================================== it only tells how someone that is sinning shouldn't be judging others that sin which is why the term "hypocrite" was used =================================== Yes it says people that sin should not judge others. But it also says we ALL have sinned and fall short in the glory of God. John 7:24 ...Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. here's a passage where Jesus gives advice about how to judge ...so are you sure Jesus said that it's a sin to judge? Judge with a RIGHTEOUS judgement. To make a righteous judgement would only come from someone that is pure and doesn't sin. For if you judged someone while you're sinning yourself, you would be a hypocrite as Jesus pointed out. Cowboy...righteous judgement in those biblical days would refer to making a fair or just judgement ... Yes, very true. But how could it be fair or righteous if you judge this person to be a heathen for stealing an apple when you just got done stealing an orange? oh that's easy to explain...you simple do not judge that apple stealing person as if they has stole two apples ...you judge that person fairly for the crime that they committed which was the theft of one apple Still wouldn't be fair, for you would be judging this person and condemning them for stealing the apple, but yet nothing happened to you for stealing the orange. That is why we aren't to judge others, for we ALL sin and fall short in the glory of God. it is fair...the person was treated in accordance with the crime they committed ...this is what is meant by righteous judgement ......and this is why if you go around preaching that Jesus said that it's a sin to judge...you are not being a righteous person ...because Jesus claim no such thing so Cowboy....become righteous and just admit that you were wrong....repent christian heathen....look all I'm trying to do is keep you out of the lake of fire because so far you are on the yahweh to hell You didn't listen to what was said in the example. It wouldn't be a fair judgement because i was judging someone for stealing the apple saying it was wrong, but yet i was stealing the orange. How can i say stealing is wrong while i'm doing it myself? How is that righteous? you may had to steal the orange because someone stole your apple and you had nothing to eat...there are many reasons why people steal...but what Jesus was trying to teach was once you get caught then you must pay the consequences but that the consequences should be of a righteous judgment..this is why you are spreading false testimony and committing blasphemy when you claim that Jesus said the to judge is a sin ....when Jesus never made such a claim No now you're spreading false testimony. Even if someone stole my apple I never HAD to steal the orange. Two wrongs don't make a right as the saying goes. Stealing something is NEVER justified, right, correct, or moral in any way. You always get caught and always will pay the consequence, our father sees everything. You can not hide your actions from our father. And i've posted a lot of verses showing Jesus told us not to judge, for we are to judge with a righteous heart, but yet we can't for EVERYONE falls short in the glory of God therefore showing some form of immoral aspect about you, thus making you not righteous enough to make judgement on another person. |
|
|
|
|
