The War of the Worlds thing is a myth

Your video, The 99% Is a Myth—Here's How It Really Breaks Down, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

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.

Your video, Cancer Screening Myths, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

What the hell?!?
What about your dad, brother, or son? They've got to fend for themselves?!

Please don't let this be portrayed as a crime only men do to women, I posted a study above that dispels that myth. This is a crime people do to other people nearly equally based on sex, astonishingly. Even if that wasn't the case, that's still no reason to pretend there aren't some male victims and female perpetrators, it's outrageous when you consider the facts instead of mistaken historical cultural assumptions about the sexes.

A Mitt Romney fan, eh? You should probably read this article, which absolutely guts the myth that only half of income earners pay taxes.

As far as the top 1% paying 40% of the taxes, I agree that is atrocious--they are supposed to be paying almost ALL of it! See, when the income tax was introduced with the 16th Amendment, it was primarily meant to be a tax on the rich. The federal tax rate for middle-class people was meant to be around 1-2% whereas the tax rate on the rich was around 7%. You can see the original 1913 tax form here.

Of course, since literally the income tax's inception, the federal government has continuously been shafting the middle classes while reducing the tax burden of the wealthy. It's about as American as apple pie by this point!

The big problem is that the government relies more and more on income tax to fund federal projects. Take a look at the graph in the article I linked to at the start of this comment and note how corporate taxes keep going down while income and payroll taxes keep going up.

It doesn't help at all that most of America's biggest businesses have offshore tax havens where they can avoid paying taxes (think Ireland for Apple, Inc., though that hasn't worked out so well for them thanks to the EU being less corporate cock-sucking than the U.S. government).

So, to solve America's tax deficit problem, the solution is pretty clear--tax rich people more (as was intended), tax corporations more and cut off their tax havens, and maybe give a tax break to the people who actually need and deserve it--the middle and lower classes.

But of course all of that sounds suspiciously like socialism, which as we all know is the devil incarnate and about as un-American as naming your kid Stalin.

1) The resurrection is absolutely not historical. Jesus the man MIGHT be.

There is a lot of scholarly research that says it is historical, especially in the last 80 years or so. There are volumes upon volumes of work, and there are a lot of things that deserve an honest and indepth discussion.

Almost all skeptical scholars affirm that Jesus was a historical person and that His disciples had an experience which convinced them that He was raised from the dead. Many agree that a group of women discovered the empty tomb. The origin of Christianity is something which must be accounted for, historically. You can't just wave your hand over it and say its all nonsense.

2) I know Christianity is a joke religion invented for political control by Constantine. That is a verifiable, historical fact.

On what do you base that conclusion?

3) mythos cannot verify mythos. You say Satan created other religions (many before Chritianity existed) to trick them out of worshiping Yahweh....why isn't that likely true of Christianity?

Because of the person of Jesus Christ, who is verified to be the Messiah from many lines of evidence. Some of these would include the fulfillment of dozens of prophecies, His life and ministry, and His resurrection from the dead.

4) not true. Verified truth can be proven and defended against being twisted with fact and evidence, at least to those willing to examine actual evidence and not rely on only propaganda and myth. God (if he existed) should have more backbone, and a clear, unambiguous word/voice. ( Your position seems to be he's not willing to stand behind his word and prefers most people burn in hell for their God given inability to distinguish which is which.)
How is it different from politicians? They aren't empowered by all powerful, vengeful gods....clearly neither are clergy.

I'm not sure why you think you are holding the keys of facts and evidence in your hand, first of all. Can your worldview account for these things? You would need to establish that before we can talk about what "verified truth" is. What is your worldview, by the way? I am assuming it is scientific materialism. Have you ever looked into whether it is correct or not?

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-scientific-materialism-almost-certainly-false/

5) ...you shall stone them to death.....thou shalt not kill. Not so clear.

I think that is easily explained. The laws you are looking at were civil laws which governed the nation of Israel. Consider that our society has a law against murder, yet we execute criminals. Same concept.

6) only those who believe are saved...so clearly the sin of disbelief is not erased and is worse than all others. If it's not automatic, he didn't die for MY sins or yours, he's trading being saved (from something he told you exists with zero evidence) for belief and obedience.

None of your sins would be erased if you reject Christ. You would be paying not only for unbelief, but for all of the other ones too. Unbelief is like any other sin execept that the consequence of the sin prevents you from receiving forgiveness. It is exactly like expecting your cancer to be cured without taking the cure.

Jesus died for the sins of the world, including mine and yours, but you cannot partake of the atonement unless you receive Him as Lord and Savior.

My evidence is not just what we are discussing. Jesus Christ is alive and He is with me every single day of my life. He comforts me in my distress. He encourages me when I feel stuck. He gives me strength to overcome things I otherwise couldn't. He gives me wisdom for every problem and situation. He gives me love for those I find difficult to love. He fills my heart with generosity when I want to be stringy. He helps me do the right thing when I am going to fall short. This is not abstract, but a living reality in my life that grows more and more. He has utterly changed me and made me into a completely different person just like He said He would.

7) things that only work if you believe are hokum or placebo, things that only exist if you believe enough are pure fantasy.

Without buying your system, I have no sin to repent so I should go straight to heaven and collect my $200.

That's kind of like saying you don't believe in the law so you think you won't be punished when you break it. You have to account for your sin whatever you believe you have any or not. Your conscience, however, tells you that you have done wrong things.

9) You have cancer and some guy tells you God sent a car (he just needs $50 for telling you about it), it's invisible, and will take you to the cure, but you must believe the car exists, and when you die sitting in the freezing street he says it's your fault for not believing enough in God's magic cars. Duh. I'll buy my own plane ticket and get myself there, not wait for ethereal magic cars.

Let's say that you got a sign that the car was legitimate, but you still stubbornly chose not to go. For instance, you had a dream that a green car with a florida license plate drove up to your house, and a middle age woman got out and came up to your door and told you she was sent by God to take you to the cancer cure, and then it really happened. Does that change anything for you?

Mostly the questions are for you, in hope you might see the contradiction and self reinforcing mythos, but your answers do offer insight to your (and other people's) intractable mindsets. Thanks

God had revealed Himself to me, personally, and verified the scripture in my as true. I know that He loves me, personally, and I know that He loves you too. My hearts desire is that you would know that love. That is my mindset, primarily.

1) The resurrection is absolutely not historical. Jesus the man MIGHT be.

2) I know Christianity is a joke religion invented for political control by Constantine. That is a verifiable, historical fact.

3) mythos cannot verify mythos. You say Satan created other religions (many before Chritianity existed) to trick them out of worshiping Yahweh....why isn't that likely true of Christianity?

4) not true. Verified truth can be proven and defended against being twisted with fact and evidence, at least to those willing to examine actual evidence and not rely on only propaganda and myth. God (if he existed) should have more backbone, and a clear, unambiguous word/voice. ( Your position seems to be he's not willing to stand behind his word and prefers most people burn in hell for their God given inability to distinguish which is which.)
How is it different from politicians? They aren't empowered by all powerful, vengeful gods....clearly neither are clergy.

5) ...you shall stone them to death.....thou shalt not kill. Not so clear.

6) only those who believe are saved...so clearly the sin of disbelief is not erased and is worse than all others. If it's not automatic, he didn't die for MY sins or yours, he's trading being saved (from something he told you exists with zero evidence) for belief and obedience.

7) things that only work if you believe are hokum or placebo, things that only exist if you believe enough are pure fantasy.

Without buying your system, I have no sin to repent so I should go straight to heaven and collect my $200.

9) You have cancer and some guy tells you God sent a car (he just needs $50 for telling you about it), it's invisible, and will take you to the cure, but you must believe the car exists, and when you die sitting in the freezing street he says it's your fault for not believing enough in God's magic cars. Duh. I'll buy my own plane ticket and get myself there, not wait for ethereal magic cars.

Mostly the questions are for you, in hope you might see the contradiction and self reinforcing mythos, but your answers do offer insight to your (and other people's) intractable mindsets. Thanks

No, not take Weinstein for example, that is an entirely different case and it undermines your position to use such an obvious straw man.

Society promotes the concept that men are violent, women are not. Any man that uses physical violence on a women is evil and if a woman raises a hand to a man and he strikes her in defense, he would still be the one that had to explain himself. Look at the Duluth model re: domestic violence sometime to see how truly baked in the myth that men are the perps and women are the vics...

https://medium.com/iron-ladies/men-are-still-pigs-the-politicization-of-domestic-violence-2cfa7488c204 (written by a woman for noting)

Particularly salient.

[i]It’s clear to me that despite the fact the Duluth Model has proven to be worthless, programs still adhere to the same principles. Men are still the automatic perpetrators, women are always victims. What’s worse is the men under attack by violent wives have no way of protecting themselves. Their right to self-defense in domestic violence cases has been cancelled.[/i]

I'm all for acknowledging that differences between the sexes is an absolutely real thing, but the long and the short of it is that women are basically allowed to assault men almost without consequences, but in the reverse situation the man would (justifiably) have the book thrown at him. And while men do have the physical advantage (although not always), they are hamstrung by society. The mere threat of a rape accusation (or far worse, the accusation that the husband has been abusing the kids) would silence most men in a heartbeat because they understand that the police, the judge, the social workers will believe the woman first.

Violence is wrong as is giving women a free pass because they rolled vagina in the game of life.

Not so much if you actually read (and comprehend) it, or listened to the authors.
They've said clearly that even using their revised estimates of CO2's effects that to meet a 1.5 degree rise (the tipping point where we loose all ability to mitigate the run away greenhouse effect and start the irreversible march towards mirroring Venus) we have to start decreasing CO2 emissions today and be at zero by 2040. They've also said clearly that anyone misusing their paper to imply climate change is a myth is a liar, a moron, or both, because it says and implies no such thing.

What we are doing is raising the amount we emit while people like you who clearly don't grasp the science argue, ignoring that the effects of warming are already being seen far earlier than predicted....effects like melting methane hydrates that make up the difference in CO2 effects and then some, effects like 3-500 year floods in under 2 years in places, effects like reefs bleaching worldwide.
So much for the climate science denier BS.

Someone needs to get to the bottom of this! Are they are aren't they? I NEED TO KNOW!!

(edit)
Seems it depends on what you call a Daddy Longleg. "There is one "daddy-longlegs" that is a spider, and a couple of thousand species that are not spiders."
http://www.burkemuseum.org/blog/myth-daddy-longlegs-kind-spider