Christ said those without sin cast the first stone. He said that because He hates all the people in the crowd, or because He loved them? He said that because Judgment, and Assessment amplifies ideally, people always correct injustice on their own, or because people, even good people, need to be challenged not to jump to judgment that delivers insufficiently based on limited data, based on desire to only factor in useful to self?
Combating Injustice Matters, saying it is always easy as human, flawed not flawless to call out injustice with ideal Love, ideal Golden Rule in, ideal useful to others over self seems unwise. Discounting liability is reinforced, turned up as wise, repeated countless times in our Society, yet we don’t always consider the implications, whether we want to always live in a World that discounts liability as an ideal system. Punish all people that discount liability would likely punish self, people we care deeply about in not fully appreciated ways – people taught wrong corrected over punished with malice is a system I would believe Christ would invest in, is a system I believe our Society, including The Church has High Potential for getting wrong at times.
Sometimes stopping messing with tempts less dramatically. Proportionality and correct assessment is seen as a nice to have at times, gives way to practicality over theory. It is important to reinforce society should not throw stones based on limited data, obfuscated data, relevance limiting that factor out relevant data. Punishment will have correct responses, correct levels, and will be assessed on ideal truth, relevant data is not always true. Punishment might lead to injustice in need of punishment of its own. Punishment is a system that amplifies with less-than-ideal clarity, thus many times wiser to divest from in advance.
People, Society continually reinforced to dismiss liability, will turn up liability in ideal ways at ideal times in ideal levels? Who is liable and who is not liable factors into capacity to establish High Ground, lead the charge on Moral Clarity – who’s experts, opinions, and relevant data will be seen as relevant and who’s will not.
Deferred judgment, Unknowns factor into reduced proximity at times. I don’t have details, iffier than I would like might lead to deferring assessment to another day, choosing another path that involves less iffy situations. Don’t judge, Don’t punish has potential to leave things up in the air at times, that is not all fee, not all stones free. Stay away because situation, potential for risk is unknown leads to inability to support sufficiently? It is both understandable and has high potential for amplifying less than ideally for all. People leave things to God might get upsold to ideal reduced judgment ideal support amped. All the People in the crowd hugged the person they wanted to stone because they realized they were not all sin free? Not stoned beats stoned, should not be equated to ideal support. No accusations are more valuable than people fully appreciate.
Everyone thinking each other Fine Up Standing Citizens might be the Not True, More True route not fully appreciated. Truth attempted to be ideally turned up does not always lead to Truth ideally turned up, thus is divested from in advance for good reason – claim attempting to turn up truth will turn up zero relevance limiting? Not attempting to turn up truth might actually equate to more truth. Truth that is dependent on direction of words chosen should be set to ideal Truth? When one has potential to talk about own sins or other sins, for a length of time, say a day, a week, a month, or a year which would they choose? Direction of Truth chosen profits some more than others likely not always pondered.
Hypothetical
ManA, and ManB
ManA = Preacher
ManB = Citizen
Imagine ManB is listening to a sermon from ManA about how people should not steal, how stealing is wrong, how those that can’t be trusted with a little can’t be trust with allot. ManB earlier that week walked off someone’s property with a penny lodged in his shoe, he knew it wasn’t his, yet going back to the property would take work (imagine non null value associated with rocks on people’s properties, costs for landscaping, a little, trusted with a little).
ManB thinks ManA’s sermon is nickel and diming him, reminding him of his inability to be trusted with a little. ManB also knows ManA committed adultery in the past. ManB knows ManA is deliberately choosing direction of Truth and which sins to highlight and which sins not to highlight.
ManB goes to the store and tries to make a purchase after Church and money has been stolen from his account. ManA had heard about a fraud scheme that was stealing from people in town and trying to help reduce the problem. ManB deliberately chose direction of what to think was more important.
ManA and ManB both choose directions of words and truth, not always ideally not always not ideally
Claim what leads to better establishes ideal truth, ideal less people hurt? People like to factor in data they have, not data they do not have, might have potential not to have
A sermon on Adultery would have been hurtful, discouraging to ManA and wouldn’t have saved ManB being robbed. How should ManC who doesn’t want adultery committed think? Direction is chosen, relevance is limited based on useful less hurtful and discouraging at times.
Now imagine yourself in the shoes of ManA, ManB, and ManC.
Imagine yourself as ManD, sitting in Jail based upon previous direction of truth chosen.
Directional Truth, not ideal truth not ideal relevance set or raised, people that don’t establish ideal truth (liars) need to be punished, simple as that? Lies matter, less lies can be very profitable to society, setting a person to liar based on less-than-ideal truth is not really the way I would wish to be treated. I feel like it amplifies ideally in combination? No. Level of truth not set and gauged properly, hard to gauge properly factors into limited truth.
If someone tells me the sky is green, are they lying? Think better of others or jump to conclusions based on reduced time costs? No potential for color blind? Truth might be relative at times, sky is not green to me does not equate to person speaking is a liar. There is no guarantee I will have knowledge of all possibilities (like color blindness) – claim ideal capacity to comprehend truth? I see it a different way sometimes set to wrong when might should be entertained at times – negate all times, humanity sometimes sins and chooses direction of truth.
“Once a liar always a liar”, reworded as “Once a direction of truth chooser always a direction of truth chooser”? Set to always not really Golden Rule.
Hypotheticals allow setting of examples based upon what could happen, not upon what has happened. WriterE has potential to learn from own hypotheticals, something potentially not always taught to be fully valued when teaching writing and communication.
My wrongs on display has high potential for putting other’s wrongs on display is likely not always pondered before people throw stones. Imagine a new group and PartyA cares about PartyB yet when PartyA calls out PartyC, PartyC calls out PartyB. Less stones thrown is valuable, less accusations factors into less stones thrown. Life is less than all gossip out, equating to accusations not always turned up based on ideal truth. Then factor in on top perception and comprehension amplify far less than ideally.
Hypotheticals might resonate hurt or bring up old memories that hurt. That is not what I meant this as, talking about don’t judge don’t throw stones matters yet could be hurtful in ways not intended. Stopping future problems is not always ideal less judgment of past problems – oh they judged and assessed harshly in the past? Does not equate it is ok to throw stones at them. Iterating, Reiterating, Reinforcing the past is not ideal moving forward, appreciation for learning changes things in valuable ways in. Christ thought the crowd would learn, otherwise might have chosen a different course of action.
Seeing as I can’t deliver Miracles like Christ, I would think less accusations up front might be valuable to a human that is not God. Crowd to never picked up the stones? ”I was there they did it” are words that have potential to amp based on insufficient truth, insufficient comprehension replaced with silence is a direction of truth, a direction of truth that might be wiser is likely wiser to take many times. Silence saves other from self feels like ideal hero’s journey? A crowd more enabled with limited truth does not always lead to requirement to establish ideal truth. SinA perceived might lead to SinB delivered, thus SinA might not should always be perceived. See No Evil has potential to lead to less accusations, less accusations that deliver injustice based on less-than-ideal comprehension, less-than-ideal requirement to factor in All (not just some) relevant details.
Golden rule sounds simple yet is more complicated in practice. People are taught to be truthful, people aren’t always taught how crowds will respond, people are taught to think better of others, including others in crowds, the combination with sinful nature of man has potential to amplify less-than-ideally. What leads to best results might not equate to ideal truth, say Society as a whole reinforces ideal truth? Best results profit some more than others ManD might think.
Grace of God delivers a better hand has potential for feeling of earned, deserved, built upon ideal truth, built upon ideal injustice reduced. As if zero luck, as if one only trained themselves. Owe nothing, deserve everything, could have never been in their shoes? There but for the Grace of God go I never said? People that prove self to be unreasonable might not always be reasoned with. I could have been in their shoes, I could have made worse decisions in their shoes thought, known?
Extreme stances as a bargaining chip for making deals amplifies perception, comprehension, and truth ideally? Golden rule do you want something to bargain with? Greater levels inspired to pull back potentially in by design many times. Taking an extreme position is a bit of a silent reminder judgment and accusations is less than ideal – people on the defensive might choose accusations more wisely. On the defensive for defiler of truth might make others less likely to call out inadequacies in one’s own delivery and direction of truth chosen? Lets both agree each other is Fine Upstanding Citizens that might at times choose the direction of Truth? ”People that prove self to be unreasonable might not always be reasoned with.” WriterE just quoted himself, is that even legal?
Attaching one’s self to Distinctly Useful, Distinctly Different in the Hypothetical factors into truth, factors in categorize and classify. WriterE is distinctly different, couldn’t be ManA, ManB, ManC, or ManD? I state this not because it is ideal for me, WriterE, but to reinforce that writers of hypotheticals and examples have a stake in the game likely not always pondered.
Pursuit of unique and interesting might be set to ideal truth established when at times writing is meant to charm, reason, inspire. ManA, ManB, ManC, and ManD do not exist, they are meant as part of the hypothetical, using WriterE to represent self convolutes that point a bit. Men and Women that could be like ManA, ManB, ManC, ManD, and WriterE could exist, might be lead to think exist to reinforce things like reducing oppression. Truth perceived incorrectly that factors in in useful ways is not always, is not always required to be ideally clarified. If ManD was real, oppressed, would that equate to more action against injustice?
Hypotheticals have potential to convolute level of threat, ability to gauge a threat, real problem or not real problem in non-ideal ways – not always easy to unhear, to unthink hypotheticals, factors them out as zero truth ideal planning. That said I think hypotheticals are valuable, especially for showing thought patterns, inspiring better problem solving.
Hypothetical about a car getting a flat might lead to someone purchasing tow service or a jack and spare tire. Hypotheticals factor into preparation and lack of preparation. Hypotheticals address the reality problems happen, knowing how to solve them in advance is useful, reduces time costs. God might have thought through all possibilities does not always equate to humans have access to His knowledge pool in times of trouble – it would be nice if God could be queried like a database yet doesn’t seem to work that way for me. The situations God has allowed throughout history (Wars and Genocide) equate to hypotheticals, preparation, and problem solving in advance (like how to amplify Peace) seems highly valuable.
If CountryA and CountryB get mad at each other, how will CountryC build bridges, reestablish communications, prevent CountryA and CountryB from attacking CountryC? Supercomputers and AI replace those variables with all countries in the World, then give a 10-minute summary? Brute force algorithm combinational Peacemaking? All possibilities, combinations pondered in a simple case might be valuable. Rated on most likely to occur and least likely to occur? Since when is Antartica going to go to war with anyone? Have the 10-minute report remade and rebroadcast every 4 hours?
My Tech Blog 