Member Tennessee Tuxedo? (With Don Adams)
Tooter the Turtle with Mr Wizard the Lizard?
Aesop and son?
Commander McBragg?
Underdog?
I know you recall Speed Racer, my hero.

I loved those old classics.

Aesop may be a myth, not a real person but a compilation of other storytellers and fabelists. It's not clear either way apparently.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesop
I believe it's likely a man named Jesus existed, largely as described, I just discount all the supernatural and religious stuff. Minus that, I agree with his basic teachings as I understand them.

What makes Aesop's fables objectively good imo is (as I remember them, it's been decades) they aren't self serving or selfish lessons, they are altruistic and civic minded lessons mostly, explaining how doing right for others is beneficial to all, including ones self in the long term even when not in the short term. To be sure, they aren't all about morality, but those that were (as I recall them) were good lessons all.

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.

The reason for the Heaven and Earth part is to reaffirm what He said in the previous verse, which is that He didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill the law. He is saying the law cannot be destroyed. The reason He was strongly reaffirming that is because that is exactly what the Pharisees accused Him of doing.

As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

lol

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

The law is not everything, but the context of that statement is that He is fulfilling the law. The "all" then is all that which is written for Him to fulfill. An example that ties in would be in Luke 4:21

Also, a main piece you are skipping over is where Jesus said He didn't come to destroy the law but fulfill it. That tells you the meaning of what He is talking about. He is definitely saying that the law can be fulfilled, and it can be fulfilled by Him. This is the meaning of the text, that He had come to fulfill it and would (and did) fulfill it.

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

He didn't oppose Gods law, He brought something into the situation that had never been there before, which is grace. Since He is the Lord, He can do that. That is exactly what He came to earth to do, which is to bring forgiveness and salvation by faith through grace.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?

I would venture to guess that the majority of the citizens of Israel had never killed anyone except perhaps if they were in the army. You make it sound like they were a bunch of barbarians running around and bashing peoples heads in. The reality is, everyone knew the law and knew the penalty of certain things was death. It probably would have been relatively rare that people were caught violating laws that led to the death penalty. Jesus followed the law perfectly but it doesn't mean He killed anyone. The only example we have in scripture of that situation is when He showed grace.

".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

It would have been right for Him to stone someone who broke the law but the person would be judged by the priests before that could happen. I just doubt that it ever did happen and nothing is mentioned about it in scripture.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

Jesus is not a myth, first of all. Even Richard Dawkins believes He was a real person. I enjoyed Aesops fables; my grandfather gave me a book of them as a child (I wish I could find it now). I haven't looked them over in awhile so I can't say what I do or don't agree with. The question is, how are they objectively good? By that I don't mean, something that appeals to you personally. What I mean is, what makes them transcendent above mere human opinion?

That's an insane interpretation imo. There's no reason for the 'till heaven and earth pass' part at all then except to confuse the meaning, which would be crazy.
As to pigs flying meaning 'never' you forget, in 2009....swine flu. ;-)

I put them together because they are written together. You conflate fulfilling the law with "everything being fulfilled" for some reason, when it seems clear to me they are very different things. The Law is not "everything", right?

Right then, Jesus opposed God's law, hardly moral by any religious standard. That Law was still in effect while he lived under any interpretation, something he reiterated in the passage.

You've ignored my question, or contorted around it. The Law during his life required killing infidels, either he followed it and murdered or not. If not, how is defying God and telling others to follow along not immoral, especially considering the passage where he said that's not OK for ANYONE?
".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"
Edit: it seems you give him a 'do as I say, not as I do, I am bound by no law or rules because I am God so infallible' pass, which doesn't seem like him as he's usually described in the least (teaching by example), and goes against any interpretation of Mathew:18 since he definitely hadn't fulfilled "everything" yet.

I thought I answered, but I'll try again. As I recall, the stories, fables, and parables attributed to Aesop did a great job of not only listing and describing good morals and ethics, but explaining the why of them without resorting to supernatural whim as an explanation. Imo, a much better, clearer job than Jesus and the bible with it's cryptically described, contradictory, changing morals and ethics usually without any explanation. Granted, the man may be just another myth.

You're not reading the verse correctly

Maybe this will help..here is 3/4ths of the verse:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law,

Jesus is saying here that nothing in the law will be altered until Heaven and Earth pass away..which is basically a way of saying it won't ever happen. Its the same as saying that something won't happen until pigs fly. Now comes the exception:

till all be fulfilled

Jesus is saying here that the law can be done away with when all is fulfilled. You are putting the fulfillment together with Heaven and Earth passing away for some reason. It doesn't say Heaven and Earth passing away is when the law will be fulfilled, does it? He just said in the previous verse that He came to fulfill it!

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil

So if the law can't pass away until all is fulfilled, and He fulfilled it, that means He can establish a New Covenant, which He did. God told us this would happen in the Old Testament:

Jeremiah 31:31-32

31"Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD.

The bible tells us that Jesus followed the law perfectly. It doesn't mean that He killed anyone. When the Pharisees brought a women caught in Adultery and told Him to stone her..He confronted them with their sins and then forgave the woman. Jesus is the Lord and can forgive sins.

Now that I've answered your questions, could you answer mine?

Why do you think Aesop can bear the weight of objective morality?

I didn't breeze over it, just pointed out that's not all it said. I addressed the labyrinthine decryption.
However, you breeze over the part that contradicts you that I went in depth on...."till earth passes". Heaven must pass, earth must pass, AND all must be fulfilled, not OR. That didn't happen. Law on. Ignore that at your peril, or do mental gymnastics to convince yourself that doesn't mean till earth passes, I think it's all nonsense so not my problem.

But...you said Jesus was perfectly moral, so he must have followed the Law, so how many heathens did Jesus stone? Even by your measure, he was obligated to murder infidels until he died or he would be immoral, so how many murders did Jesus perform?

I think that of Aesop because he did it. One need not be perfectly moral to recognize morality, imo.

You're right, it is 100 percent clear:

Matthew 5:17-18

17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

In verse 17 Jesus says He has come to fulfill the law. In verse 18 He says nothing shall pass from the law until it is fulfilled. So, if Jesus came to fulfill the law, the only reason we would have to follow the Old Covenant law is if He failed to fulfill it. He came to fulfill it and fulfill it He did by living a perfect life and satisfying all of its requirements. He became the sacrifice for all sin, which is why the sacrificial system was done away with and the veil in the temple was torn asunder. God did away with that system and now everything is through His Son. This is why Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father except through Him. This is also why He said on the cross "it is finished".

Now this doesn't mean that there aren't any commands for us to follow. However, we follow them under the New Covenant and we are justified by our faith rather than our obedience. This is called the law of Christ.

I went pretty in depth with my answer so it's a little bit disappointing to see you breezed right over it. If you study that more closely you'll understand the particulars of the hows and whys.

Why do you think Aesop can bear the weight of objective morality?

That's certainly not how I read....
".....until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven," that is clearly not meaning "until I die and resurrect, then you can just forget those laws and go by some new ones to be determined later."
I don't know about heaven, but earth has definitely not yet passed away. That means you jumped the gun on abandoning the Law, and are now considered the least in heaven as you've told others to do so as well. It's 100% clear, no mental gymnastics or labyrinthian decryption needed to understand it.

Your second answer is hard to follow....he didn't say 'treat others as I would', it's 'as you would have them treat you'. Because most people fail to live up to it has no bearing on the instruction, neither does our moral imperfection. I would have them try to treat me fairly, honestly, and civilly, so I try to do the same, and not because Jesus said to, but because that's the best way to get others to treat me that way.

To answer your question...Aesop.

If you're going to bring rationality and logic into the laws of religions, we can get nowhere.
I agree, logically the laws make no sense, but neither does an invisible sky daddy who's all love, and wrath, infallible but infinitely confusing, all knowing but constantly testing us anyway with torturous tests, capable of the impossible daily but never performs in public, etc. Being irrational when thought through doesn't invalidate it, by the rules of religion. It just means you don't comprehend the mysterious plan that will, miraculously, make it work in the future. Claiming logic demands you interpret the words to mean nearly the opposite of their clear meaning is akin to claiming to know the mind of God, or to know better than God...neither is allowed.

It clearly said different:
"until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished"
NOT "until I die". Earth sure still exists, (not sure about heaven, but it said "and") so every letter of the law is in effect, and anyone teaching different is thought of as "the least" in heaven. I found that indisputable by reading it, it was pretty clear on that to me.

Edit: It's like you're saying they read the words of God, think them through and see they lead to disaster, so say "God didn't mean what he said, he just wants to make us think". I disagree with the contention that that interpretation makes sense....and if it did I would suggest that Aesop is a much better teacher.

Glad to see appreciation for MF Doom. The Sift has 0 appreciation for hip-hop, I have no idea of why, a little bit of racism, hatred for mainstream, too many dorks, too many burning man types? I don't know.

I mean you look at the hits for some of these artists and it's beyond hundreds of millions of hits if not a billion in some cases. Innovators like MF Doom, Dr. Octagon & Big L never got anywhere close to that sort of popularity.

The new Aesop Rock that came out this month is fucking awesome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZVlSqjjkic as well as the new Death Grips; open your minds.

Yeah, the republicans had nothing to do with the schism in our country.....ROTFLMFAHS!!!!!! Sometimes you really give me a good laugh.
Crime is down. As a cop, you should know that...why am I not surprised you have it backwards?
Nice try with the college level word, but oeuvre means the complete or singular works of a single writer or painter, and has absolutely nothing to do with values or teaching them (unless you're talking about the oeuvre of Aesop, but I seriously doubt you are, even if you know who he was, which I also doubt based on previous comments.)

That there was a man named Jesus with a small 'religious' following (Koresh had more followers at his death) executed by Romans...probably not a myth.
That he was born from a virgin that god screwed while she was firmly engaged (Joseph shoulda been quicker getting a ring on it, I guess?), preformed 'miracles', died by choice, or 'for us' (rather than 'was murdered by the state for doing religion wrong'), waked on water (unless it was frozen, then I can too) healed sick, disabled, and blind (but never ever an amputee, what's up with that, Jebus?), was an articulate friendly vegetarian zombie in his later days, and all the other magic stuff attributed to him....that's all the myth part...and is totally unnecessary to impart the good lessons he tried to teach, like inclusion, acceptance,tolerance of, and love for even those who looked or thought differently...or the golden rule...treat others as you would have them treat you...but those are the lessons remembered the least by his fans (and he has very few actual followers).
I prefer Aesop.

I have done that before, I only used one or one and a half circles though before I dossed the Gas can. That guy panicked and didn't think, although when you have fire doing something like it did in the video.. you usually panic a bit.

Lesson from that event was similar to an Aesop fable " always connect an unlit fire with a gas trail FROM the unlit fire, not the lit fire to unlit fire "

@SDGundamX, Yes, she would of course be happier in a great career.

The tools to do that shouldn't be restricted to a small minority. We should want her to become an intellectual and grow over time in a challenging career.
>> ^SDGundamX:

Right.
Clearly she should be more like you--surfing the Internet and making judgmental pronouncements about people's lives based on what you've seen of them in a three-minute news clip. That'll be immensely "useful to humankind."
>> ^Velocity5:
@Trancecoach @Asmo @Gallowflak
"Not every pursuit needs to have some great utility."
We're really just talking about Disney's The Grasshopper and the Ants, based on Aesop's ancient parable.
She doesn't realize that in merely 10 years at her highschool reunion, as their youthful charm will have started to fade, the people who strove to build awesome, challenging careers will be the ones who have grown the most personally and intellectually.
Encouraging people to do "whatever they want" lays waste to what could have been great lives. Encourage them instead to build lives that are useful to humankind, in which they grow more and more every year.

>> ^Velocity5:

@Trancecoach @Asmo @Gallowflak
"Not every pursuit needs to have some great utility."

We're really just talking about Disney's The Grasshopper and the Ants, based on Aesop's ancient parable.
She doesn't realize that in merely 10 years at her highschool reunion, as their youthful charm will have started to fade, the people who strove to build awesome, challenging careers will be the ones who have grown the most personally and intellectually.
Encouraging people to do "whatever they want" lays waste to what could have been great lives. Encourage them instead to build lives that are useful to humankind, in which they grow more and more every year.


I think what we're dealing with here is hand spring envy...