I used that one because at least some interpretations say that the point why Jesus didn't condemn her was that there weren't any impartial witnesses to her sin. The people who brought her to him were trying to trap him. So perhaps it wasn't so much about forgiving her sin as it was the lack of that kind of proof for her sin which would have stood in a court of mere humans because the only witnesses present (at the court) were biased.
So, if you combine that with that part of the sermon on the mount: “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye” (Matthew 7:1–3, NLT)
I don't know, perhaps avoid jumping to conclusion based on what you see on MSM, social media, and so on? How much do we really know of any of those people? Sure, some like the Clintons seem to have so many incidences in their past that they can't be innocents or even close to it in any way or form, but with people like Swift what we see is mostly Taylor Swift, the trademark, not so much Taylor Swift, the person. Maybe they are alike, or maybe Taylor Swift, the person, is somebody who is mostly just doing what her handlers tell her to do, and her public character is more of an act played by an actress than it is the real her. There doesn't seem to be all that much actual proof pointing towards either direction. If her public persona is an act recommended, or pushed, on her she certainly is guilty of at least greed, but would that make her evil?
I used that one because at least some interpretations say that the point why Jesus didn't condemn her was that there weren't any impartial witnesses to her sin. The people who brought her to him were trying to trap him. So perhaps it wasn't so much about forgiving her sin as it was the lack of that kind of proof for her sin which would have stood in a court of mere humans because the only witnesses were biased.
So, if you combine that with that part of the sermon on the mount: “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye” (Matthew 7:1–3, NLT)
I don't know, perhaps avoid jumping to conclusion based on what you see on MSM, social media, and so on? How much do we really know of any of those people? Sure, some like the Clintons seem to have so many incidences in their past that they can't be innocents or even close to it in any way or form, but with people like Swift what we see is mostly Taylor Swift, the trademark, not so much Taylor Swift, the person. Maybe they are alike, or maybe Taylor Swift, the person, is somebody who is mostly just doing what her handlers tell her to do, and her public character is more of an act played by an actress than it is the real her. There doesn't seem to be all that much actual proof pointing towards either direction. If her public persona is an act recommended, or pushed, on her she certainly is guilty of at least greed, but would that make her evil?
I used that one because at least some interpretations say that the point why Jesus didn't condemn her was that there weren't any impartial witnesses to her sin. The people who brought her to him were trying to trap him. So perhaps it wasn't so much about forgiving her sin as it was the lack of that kind of proof for her sin which would have stood in a court of mere humans because the only witnesses were biased.
So, if you combine that with the sermon on the mount: “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye” (Matthew 7:1–3, NLT)
I don't know, perhaps avoid jumping to conclusion based on what you see on MSM, social media, and so on? How much do we really know of any of those people? Sure, some like the Clintons seem to have so many incidences in their past that they can't be innocents or even close to it in any way or form, but with people like Swift what we see is mostly Taylor Swift, the trademark, not so much Taylor Swift, the person. Maybe they are alike, or maybe Taylor Swift, the person, is somebody who is mostly just doing what her handlers tell her to do, and her public character is more of an act played by an actress than it is the real her. There doesn't seem to be all that much actual proof pointing towards either direction. If her public persona is an act recommended, or pushed, on her she certainly is guilty of at least greed, but would that make her evil?
I used that one because at least some interpretations say that the point why Jesus didn't condemn her was that there weren't any impartial witnesses to her sin. The people who brought her to him were trying to trap him. So perhaps it wasn't so much about forgiving her sin as it was the lack of that kind of proof for her sin which would have stood in a court of mere humans because the only witnesses were biased.
So, if you combine that with the sermon on the mount: “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye” (Matthew 7:1–3, NLT)
I don't know, perhaps avoid jumping to conclusion based on what you see on MSM, social media, and so on? How much do we really know of any of those people? Sure, some like the Clintons seem to have so many incidences in their past that they can't be innocents or even close to it in any way or form, but with people like Swift what see is mostly Taylor Swift, the trademark, not so much Taylor Swift, the person. Maybe they are alike, or maybe Taylor Swift, the person, is somebody who is mostly just doing what her handlers tell her to do, and her public character is more of an act played by an actress than it is the real her. There doesn't seem to be all that much actual proof pointing towards either direction. If her public persona is an act recommended, or pushed, on her she certainly is guilty of at least greed, but would that make her evil?