Greene, family value candidate, is getting divorced because her long troubled marriage is “irretrievably broken” according to her husband who she previously admitted she repeatedly cheated on with polygamous sex gurus, gym managers, and certainly others, having long term intimate relationships with her boyfriends while married, not even just single instances of infidelity….because family.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/2349500/marjorie-taylor-greene-husband-divorce/

Who would be able to have sex with that? Er mer gerd! Limp carrot.

You mean the party of debauchery? Treason? Sex trafficking? Vote fraud? Pedophilia? Hebephilia? Secret foreign agents? Infidelity? Insurrection? You mean Republicans?

Right, anything to stop you ethics free, morality free, education free Trumptards led by the least moral person ever to hold office. How does removing all reproductive rights from women accomplish that?

Do you even know what “morals” are? I don’t think so.

Hilariously, Republicans tried to block a bill to help supply babies with formula, because they care so much about babies that they want them to starve to death if it costs $.03 to feed them…but no problem to waste $10 billion in a PR stunt “inspecting” Mexican trucks at the border with zero results.
Edit: They also spent two years screaming about not wearing a mask because they have full body autonomy…the right to spread deadly diseases, and no one has the right to give them a shot to prevent those preventable deaths.
They also leave no exceptions if the woman’s life is endangered by the pregnancy…which would kill both the woman and the zygote.
So much for “pro life”.
Such outrageous hypocrites and liars. The party of irrational hate and fear, immorality and prejudice, thy name is Republican.

Yes, considered that by partisan idiots who couldn't see past their hatred for anything left of Regan....they thought him a dumb country bumpkin too. To the rest of us, he was the last responsible president not interested in using the office for personal gain, one who kept us out of war with Iran, and was cheated out of a second term by the right wing/Regan Iran Contra scandal, which delayed the release of hostages to help Regan win the election.

Read. There's proof of 100 contacts between the campaign and Russia, and an undeniable estimation of their actions which were 100% aimed at electing Trump, because he would divide us even more than Clinton (which is a high bar, to be sure), and be weak on foreign policy.
Edit: for someone trying to deny the efficacy of Russian propaganda, you certainly repeat it a lot.

Look at him go, still building houses by hand. Trump can't walk from one hole to the next tee without getting winded, that's why he drives his cart onto the green.

Nuclear submarine designer....proof of extremely high level intelligence. Commander and tester of same, proof of high level of competence and service to the nation. President bone spurs can't compete in any way.

Wow, Bob. You can't do better? Even you say he's a pedophilic lech at best, and you can name not a single charity he's involved in you know isn't fraudulent? Sad.
That's what you come up with, a joke about his lack of character that's not even a joke because it's true, caught on tape? Sad you see him for the anti humanitarian, misogynistic, infidelity flaunting, charity fraud he is, and still stand with him and smirk. Pathetic Bob. Just pathetic.

Lol.....so you now admit he's Putin's bitch mumbling around Putin's cock that's firmly in his mouth....you just don't care? And you wonder why we think you're a ridiculous Russian troll? Sad.

I'd rather have a reasonably intelligent and rational person who reverses a depression we should have avoided than an infantile blowhard that bankrupted the treasury like he does with so many of his businesses who's under the thumb of our enemies.

Yep, he's blown far more money in 500 days than Obama did in 8 years, golfed way more, fired more of his own people for cause, fired more of his own people without legitimate cause, had infinitely more convictions and charges brought, been immersed in scandal since before taking the oath, plead guilty to massive frauds against students, defrauded multiple charities, and destroyed our international standings (except with dictators who are warming to us)....what you call winning.
If a sex tape of him with his daughter came out, you would congratulate him on winning by fucking a hot blond and dismiss the complaints of infidelity and incest as pure liberal Trump hating, and probably accuse Obama of the same crimes...rationality about Trump is not one of your traits.

Really, delusional much? You were probably just as certain the Republicans were going to take California....where they aren't even on the ballot. I can absolutely argue the point that the midterms look good for democrats and horrible for Republicans, especially since your ilk now calls the majority of them rinos they won't vote for. Time will tell, but right now it sure looks like a blue wave, but maybe not a tsunami.
Thinking Republicans are poised to do well in this election is irrational thinking that ignores the primaries.

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.

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.

Really? Explain why. It's in there, as clear and codified religious law.
If old testament morality and laws were out the window, then everything is permitted because new testament essentially says Jesus made sin obsolete....but he also said clearly that ALL previous religious laws stand and anyone telling you different is an evil liar.

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, 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, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Sure sounds clear to me, wear blended fabrics, get stoned to death as an infidel, refuse to stone them, your an infidel too, now you get stoned.

You need me to tell you why slavery and murder are wrong? I guess so, since your moral guide says they are proper, even required.

Treating others like you would have them treat you, the golden rule....what Jesus told you is the most important rule.
Do you want to be raped, sold into slavery, stoned to death, or even just told constantly that you're immoral, evil, and going to hell? If not, stop doing it, and definitely stop pretending that not what the bible commands of you.
That covers it, and covers why trying to impose your narrow idea of religious morality on others is wrong, according to your own moral code.

Well, then you must find slavery moral, as well as the murder of any non Christians, while those who wear cotton poly blends or eat at red lobster or mow on Sunday are clearly irredeemably immoral.
Those are the moral requirements your God gave you, and which you believe you are judged on.

How many infidels have you stoned to death. If it's zero, you're also totally immoral and going to hell, right?

If not, because Jesus erased your sin, then there is nothing immoral for Christians and abortion and child rape are totally fine?

Bill didn't repeatedly grab pussies against their will, or go on to brag about it...and he was impeached over the consensual sex he did have....and it was a problem for me, such infidelity coming from my president proves he's disloyal...and the cigar thing...WTF?!

Doesn't make him moral by far, but there's a huge difference between cheating on your wife by having consensual (oral) sex and cheating on all of your wives by raping your friends' wives, assaulting numerous co workers, paying porn stars, paying prostitutes, pressuring beauty pageant contestants, and likely raping your own daughter.

Get a grip, he's an admitted abuser, philanderer, and clearly has no respect for women or marriage, and his concept of loyalty goes one way, he's loyal to nothing.

Also whataboutism is akin to no defense at all, and is just plain dumb when your comparisons are 1/10 as bad as what you're trying to distract from.

Oh course he's a massive pot head. He's a Republican with a stick up his ass about something. Invariably, that means he does the thing he demonized (be it drugs, infidelity, homosexuality, etc.).

Again that doesn't jibe with the text, or his exact words "For I tell you truly, 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. 19 So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven"
That also contradicts the theory that his death ended the laws....."until heaven and earth pass away" clearly is a different thing from 'until I, Jesus, pass away'.
This is clear that the letter of the laws, not just the spirit of love, are the focus here, and anyone ignoring a single jot will be judged harshly.
In the old testament, those punishments are for failing to live by the specific, set forth rules as written, not failing to live up to some underlying, contradictory, unwritten, hidden message of love behind them.

That's not what the bible says. It's what 3rd parties have told people it says. It also clearly warns about those people....warns against listening to them, and tells you what happens to them....they are called the least, which I interpret to mean considered unworthy of heaven so are sent elsewhere.
It clearly, unambiguously, undeniably tells believers to murder infidels themselves, personally, with rocks. Any other interpretation ignores clearly written specific and detailed instructions in favor of insane mental gymnastics to think " You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God" somehow, inexplicably means 'love and tolerate them with respect and kindness' and not 'go murder them ASAP'.

Evangelicals have never once lived up to your theory of what they believe, they can't even follow the basic golden rule. The respect they demand for their beliefs is never returned to others, in my experience.
Evangelicals in practice usually take the entirety of the Bible as a message telling them they should go out and force others to love their version of God and the righteous, not all people, and without a hint of humility, and that they must accept the grace of their version of God or else are deserving of hatred and damnation.


Edit: As I read it, Jesus said follow every letter of the old laws, but instructed people that he without sin should cast the first stone (that would have been him, wouldn't it?). The old laws said he who casts no stones is committing a horrendous sin and should themselves be stoned to death. Believers somehow don't see the contradiction, while I see nothing but.

Shinyblury might be better at weighing on some of this now .

I agree, the entire old testament seems at odds with Jesus's teachings....unless you interpret murder of infidels as somehow loving them to death.
With how many different christian churchs there are in every single town having a slightly different view it's hard to give a singular answer. I'd hazard the most common explanation though is that the old school laws basically demonstrated one thing to humanity, every last one of you by rights deserves death. Everybody is, by God's standards, inadequate and the penalty is death.
That's why his statements about the laws still being in full effect don't jibe with his teachings of love and acceptance, and no where does he, or God, or any prophet say his death erases God's laws that I find
Continuing what I think is the most common explanation, Jesus message was that the 'spirit' of the old school laws was to encourage humanity to love god and fellow man without exceptions. Strictly following the letter of the laws was to miss the point entire. Also, the punishment for failing to live up to the standard of universal love for God and fellow man was death, fire, brimstone and all the nasty old testament sentences.

So taking those as axioms you have God's law for humanity was and always had been love for him and each other. God's punishment for failing that measure, even in the least, was and always had been death and eternal damnation.

Again, I can't say all Christians are universally agreed on what to do from that, but I would say that the majority again follow Jesus teachings that the punishment for those that fall short was to be left to God and not to humans. As in, no more going around killing each other for breaking the law in letter or in spirit. Evangelicals are probably also universally agreed that ALL of humanity fails to meet the morality bar and thus was doomed to death until Jesus was killed. Jesus having met the bar of perfection required by the law, was thus payment through his death for the rest of humanity. So Evangelicals for the most part then take the entirety of the Bible as a message telling them they should go out and love God and everyone and in the humility that they are but for the grace of God equally deserving of damnation.

I know re-reading that it reads more like a sermon than anything, but it's also the most concisely I could manage to fit in how I understand most evangelicals to read the bible.

As I've said, it's contradictory.

Jesus's death was hardly the end....there have been innumerable accomplishments since then, so in my mind it can only mean the final apocalypse.

I agree, the entire old testament seems at odds with Jesus's teachings....unless you interpret murder of infidels as somehow loving them to death. That's why his statements about the laws still being in full effect don't jibe with his teachings of love and acceptance, and no where does he, or God, or any prophet say his death erases God's laws that I find, that's pure conjecture and impious wishful thinking on the part of all those self labeled Christians, no?

If you were correct about that interpretation, ALL the old testament is moot and none of the laws/rules are still in effect, no? But no Christian worships that way that I know of....certainly not the WBC types. It's kind of all or nothing, and it's simply not practiced that way. If God hates fags, he also hates oyster eaters and poly blend wearers just the same, no?

Yes, it could be (but I'm not willing to spend time becoming an expert), because I can read and don't have the need to interpret what's clearly contradictory in a way that makes sense. Thou shall not kill is directly opposed to thou shalt kill infidels. Most instructions on how to act are in direct opposition to the golden rule - treat others as you would have them treat you. (For instance, proselytizing is expected, but if someone tries to proselytize to them, the entire community they come from should be erased....see above) Because I can admit that it's often contradictory and advocates things that are clearly evil, like slavery and murder, I don't have to do mental gymnastics to interpret it in some non-contradictory, always loving way.
Edit:read the passages I quoted and interpret them for me in a way not directing Christians to murder all non Christians (or Jews to kill non Jews perhaps, being old testament) please....because I cannot.

And as I've repeated, I have little respect for beliefs, but tolerance and understanding I have in abundance. Tolerance is not acceptance, understanding is not agreement.

Edit: I absolutely admit I hold a different interpretation than many people do of the bible, and other holy books (comparative religion was an enlightening class) for the reasons stated above....I read the texts as written, not through a filter of someone else's interpretation, not with a belief they are infallible or even rational.
Religious texts are like rule books for religions....you don't get to change their meanings or ignore some parts for convenience...religion isn't monopoly. If you do it that way, as most do, you're just playing religion, not practicing it....imo.