Nah, that makes them barbarians, which is defined as "people who talk funny".

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?

Is there additional background to this?

To me, three cops says regular "visit", but the application of a battering ram kinda screams "we expect violence/resistence". Over here, three cops would sit on the house until a locksmith arrives, not bust the door like barbarians. Or there would be a dozen of them, masked, guns drawn and at the ready.

Barbarians...

Good luck in your quest for supreme enlightenment. For only the enlightened may consume condensed light. Until then you're stuck eating and drinking barbarian substances with the rest of us heathens, you unenlightened bastard.

The very definition of collateral damage is unintentional destruction/injury. The warplane doesn't go out of it's way to cause it. The goal of the warplane is a valid one, but unfortunate things can still happen.

People are absolutely better or worse beings, based on their actions or inaction. Don't sell yourself short - you're a better person for quitting smoking.
However you didn't quite smoking so you could go up to smokers and pride over them. You did it for yourself or your loved ones.

It's the same for any other choice that means less harm or improvement to someone else life. People who do that are better people.

You're really comparing the chemical reactions of plants vs the thought driven actions of animals? And you wonder why people with that attitude are called barbarians? Please tell me you can tell the difference, and you're just being stubborn.

I've never seen a plant scream and writhe in pain to try to make it stop. I've never seen a plant look depressed, or cower away because of bad memories.
You couldn't be more wrong about the way animals react to pain: Even when animals hear another animal in agony, they will stop doing the thing which they think is causing it. There have been studies where even pigeons will stop pressing a button that gives them food, and even starve themselves when they know that button also causes pain to another animal.

I grew up on a farm too, and the animals were never abused, but they were killed. There is a big difference between how the farm animals behave and how animals in a sanctuary behave - they run around like pets.

Part of me wants Clinton vs Drumpf for the pure entertainment value. Just imagine all the skeletons buried in that chest of emails on HRC's server and how Drumpf would slap her silly with it.

But then I remember that Drumpf openly advocates in favour of torture and war crimes, which should disqualify his ass from holding any public office. At the same time, the Syrian refugees down the street from here are a keen reminder that HRC has been a major proponent of bombing brown people, and I don't believe for a second that she wouldn't sign off on waterboarding without hesitation.

So, nevermind #makedonalddrumpfagain and #whichhillary -- you've got yourselves some genuine barbarians running for the office of bomber in chief.

Aside from annexing your lands and turning them into leisure worlds for retired Legionnaires, they also brought central heating, exotic goods, plumbing, roads, law, order, popular clothing styles -- but only for the wealthy -- and at the cost of maybe raping your children to teach your village a lesson to obey Roman rule.

Generations later hardly anyone even remembers and you're now part of the empire. And when you're invaded by other "barbarians" your ancestors will protect their Roman culture as if it were always theirs to enjoy. Fight the other barbarians for us, you barbarian!!

You almost get the feeling they defined the entire future of western civilization. Every nasty bit; confusingly superior customs that are required otherwise you become a slave -- and maybe you'll become a slave anyway, even if you follow the rules. After all, once a bitch, always a bitch and so an entire legion slowly blots out your cultural and genetic existence.

Yay, Roman Empire!

Damn right. The perverting of the benefit system in the UK into an inquisitorial instrument to demean and punish the poorest members of society, to the degree that it routinely denies their only meagre source of income for months at a time and on the slightest pretext, is a national disgrace. It speaks of a total, sadistic contempt on the part of our nation's elite for the vulnerable; in many case those who its own practices have impoverished.

This is the mentality of the bully. The barbarian lust to brutalise anyone who falls into your power, and all the while tell them that your abuse is better than they deserve.

When I got to the party
They gave me a 40
And I must have been thirsty
'Cuz I drank it so quickly

When I got to the bedroom
There was somebody waiting
And it isn't my fault
That the barbarian raped me

When I went to get tested
I brought along my best friend
Melissa Mahoney
who had once been molested
And she knew how to get there
She knew all the nurses
They were all really friendly
But the test came up positive

(Chorus)
Uh-oh
I've seen better days
But I don't care
Oh I just sent a letter in the mail

When I got my abortion
I brought along my boyfriend
We got there an hour
Before the appointment
And outside the building
Were all these annoying fundamentalist Christians
We tried to ignore them

(Chorus)
Uh-oh
I've had better days
But I don't care
Oasis got my letter in the mail

(Up-Beat Break)

When vacation was over
The word was all over
That I was a crack whore
Melissa had told them
And do now we're not talking
Except we have tickets to see 'Blue in October'
And I think we're still going

(Chorus)
Uh-Oh
I've seen better days
But I don't care
Oh I just got a letter in the mail
Oasis and a photograph
It's autographed and everything
Melissa's gonna wet herself I swear

Fuck you, Philip. In the future you are DONE. I'm going rogue and joining the raiders. While you're checking your email to see if there's an ineffective faggot that'll blow you while your wife is auto-driving in her black cock mobile, I'll be riding alongside of you on a jet propelled tricycle with a carboard cut out of a society car, just like yours.

Except it's not, Philip. It's NOT just like yours, Philip. It's really a cyberpunk barbarian motorized tricycle with a series of harpoons and tazers that I send flying at your smart car, connected to barbed wire and chains, that I use to ensnare my prize. And you, Philip. You're my bitch. My little Tatum.

Show the people what happens to future idiots who forget how to drive. That's right, their wife doesn't care because she's already taken care of and your ass is probably used on a constant basis by dirty disease ridden scavs. After the raiders have had the ol ultra violence on ya, real savage like.

If ever there was a time when we needed the great "Hitch" it is surely now!
A time when crazed barbarians are trying to drag us back from enlightenment into medieval, theocratic subservience. He would be telling all who would listen that we ignore this clear and present danger at our peril, and that trying to placate with logical discourse those whose intent is clear, will end in our downfall.

I've heard reports from several men who had sex before and after and said there was zero difference in sensation.

I circumcised my boys but not at all because of aesthetics, nor to "look like me", and especially not for any kind of religious reason.

We weren't dead-set against leaving them un-cut. In fact, we initially figured we'd just let them be natural.

One reason we decided to go ahead with it is we heard about lots of uncircumcised men have issues that require them to have it done later in life (e.g., phimosis, etc.), but the bigger reason was recent (at that time) studies showed strong evidence that circumcised men are at substantially lower risk for serious life-threatening diseases such as HIV and penile cancer (that results from HPV).

>> Yep, it's fucking barbaric. It is genital mutilation of children, period.

Talk about misinformation from a bunch of barbarians.

It's more barbaric to be completely close-minded, backward-thinking, and ignorant as to why there might possibly exist valid reasons to provide your children an almost 100% chance to avoid a plethora of penis-related problems and life-threatening diseases for their entire life in exchange for what's really a very minor procedure when done soon after birth.

The reasons against it? "It's fucking barbaric." Because... why again? "It just is," I'm sure is the best possible response.

The reasons in favor of it? Don't be so glib. Read the research.

Science Daily from Jan 2010:

Other epidemiological studies have shown that male circumcision is associated with significant reductions in HIV acquisition in men.

The strongest evidence for a cause-and-effect relationship between circumcision and HIV risk reduction came from three randomized-control trials in sub-Saharan Africa, where the circumcision rate is relatively low and the HIV infection rate is relatively high. All three demonstrated a more than 40 percent reduction in HIV acquisition among circumcised men.

The largest of these three studies -- in Rakai, Uganda -- was led by Dr. Ronald H. Gray, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and the scientific paper's senior author. Dr. Gray's group collected penile swabs from all of the circumcision trial study participants, which provided the data for the new TGen-Johns Hopkins study.

The new study found that circumcision -- the removal of the foreskin, or prepuce, from the penis -- eliminates an area of mucous membrane and dramatically changes the penile bacterial ecosystem. Significantly, TGen's analysis of more than 40 types of bacteria, using a 16S rRNA gene-based pyrosequencing approach, suggests that the introduction of more oxygen following circumcision decreases the presence of anaerobic (non-oxygen) bacteria and increases the amount of aerobic (oxygen-required) bacteria.

HPV can also cause cancer of the penis in men. HPV infection is found in about half of all penile cancers. It’s more common in men with HIV and those who have sex with other men.

There is no approved screening test to find early signs of penile cancer. Because almost all penile cancers start under the foreskin of the penis, they may be noticed early in the course of the disease.

...

The 2 main risk factors for genital HPV infection in men are having many sex partners and not being circumcised.

The risk of being infected with HPV is strongly linked to having many sex partners.

Men who are circumcised (have had the foreskin of the penis removed) have a lower chance of getting and staying infected with HPV. Men who have not been circumcised are more likely to be infected with HPV and pass it on to their partners.

Is it wrong that I think of Conan the Barbarian every time I hear Crimea?