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?

Well, this won't let me paste the url, but I googled 'the hunt painting "cabin in the woods"' - follow the results that include a photo of Richard Jenkins on flixist, site has an image link

That looks like Ariana Richards, who played the original girl in Jurassic Park. *quality

So far, 94 and counting…
94. James Levine – Iconic Artistic Director/Composer at the Metropolitan Opera House

Suspended over three allegations of child molestation.

93. Israel Horovitz – Playwright
Nine Allegations of sexual assault.

92. Geoffrey Rush – Oscar-Winner
advertisement

Resigned as the president of the Australian Academy of Cinema and Television Arts following allegations of “inappropriate behavior.”

91. Nick Carter – Former Backstreet Boy
Accused of rape.

90. John Lasseter – Top Disney Executive
Forced leave of absence after numerous accusations of harassment, unwanted kisses, groping.

89. Russell Simmons – Mogul

Multiple accusations of sexual assault.

88. Murray Miller – Girls Writer

Accused of rape.

87. Adam Fields – Producer

Multiple accusations of sexual harassment.

86. John Singleton – Director

Accused of sexual harassment.

85. Jason Mojica – Executive Producer Vice Documentary Films

Suspended over allegations of sexual misconduct.

84. Cameron Mitchell – CAA Agent

Accused of sexual harassment.

83. Sylvester Stallone – Actor, Director

Accused of the sexual assault of a 16 year-old girl.

82. Al Franken – Comedian, U.S. Senator

Groping, misconduct , bullying.

81. Matt Zimmerman – NBC Exec

Fired for sexual misconduct.

80. Andy Henry – Casting Employee

Accused of manipulating auditioning actresses to get undressed.

79. Benny Medina – Producer

Accused of attempted rape.

78. Peter Aalbæk Jensen – Co Founder of Zentropa

Harassment, bullying.

77. Eddie Berganza – Editor DC Comics

Accused of two decades of sexual misconduct.

76. Gary Goddard – Producer

Accused of child molestation.

75. Andrew Kreisberg – TV Producer

Suspended over allegations of misconduct.

75. Richard Dreyfuss – Actor, Activist

Accused of sexual misconduct.

74. George Takei – Actor, Activist

Accused of sexual assault.

73. Ethan Kath – Musician

Accusation of rape.

72. Matthew Weiner – Mad Men Creator

Accused of sexual harassment.

71. Robert Knepper – Actor

Accused of sexual assault.

70. Mariah Carey – Singer, Actress

Accused of sexual harassment.

69. Jeffrey Tambor – Emmy-Winning Actor

Accused of sexual harassment.

68. Ed Westick – Actor

Accused of rape.

67. Alec Baldwin – TV Actor

Bullying and sexist behavior towards women.

66. David Guillod – Co-CEO Primary Wave Entertainment

Alleged sexual assault.

65. Unnamed Director

Alleged sexual harassment.

64. Adam Venit – Powerful Talent Agent

Suspended for allegedly groping Terry Crews.

63. NBCUniversal

Targeted in lawsuit over “inappropriate gender-based, sexual comments”

62. Kirt Webster – CEO Country Music Firm Webster PR

Multiple allegations of sexual harassment, assaulting and drugging a client.

61. Ryan Ly – CAA Agent

Fired over multiple allegations from female staffers, including groping.

60. Erik Horine – ICM Agent

Fired for “inappropriate behavior.”

59. John Grissom – Actor

Accused of molesting Corey Feldman.

58. Danny Masterson – Actor

Four accusations of rape.

57. David Corn – Reporter, Actor

Accusations of sexual touching of female staffers, rape jokes

56. Brett Ratner – Director, Powerhouse Producer Behind RatPac Entertainment

Multiple accusations of sexual assault, harassment.

55. Dustin Hoffman – Oscar-Winning Actor

Accused of sexual misconduct, groping of 17 year-old actress.

54. Jeremy Piven – Emmy Award Winning TV Star

Accused of sexually assaulting an actress.

53. Hamilton Fish – Documentary Film Producer

Suspended over allegations of sexual harassment.

52. Andy Dick – Actor/Comedian

Fired over allegations of sexual harassment, groping.

51. Warner Bros.

Allegations of sexual harassment by former producer.

50. Andrew Kramer – Lionsgate Executive

Resigned due to allegations of sexual harassment.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/How-Richard-Browning-Built-His-Iron-Man-Jetpack-Flight-Suit

How Richard Browning Built His Iron Man Jetpack Flight Suit has been added as a related post - related requested by lucky760.

$40-$60 million more in undisclosed payments to Manafort surfaced last week....but Trump has nothing to do with the Trump for president campaign, does he?....and did I say collusion, or even Trump? Nope, but a guilty conscience hears accusations that never happened.
The Russians today are doing exactly what you do, pretending to be right wing nutjobs on left leaning sites, and lefty snowflakes on right leaning sites, pushing the narrative to all that the other guy is a total nut by making ridiculous, ignorant claims like you do. If you aren't being paid by Putin, you're working for him for free.

Jesus fucking Christ, Bob. Can you be more deluded and ignorant? Once again, your Russian text book of American history is 100% ass backwards.

Southern strategy: In American politics, the southern strategy was a Republican Party electoral strategy to increase political support among white voters in the South by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3] As the Civil Rights Movement and dismantling of Jim Crow laws in the 1950s and 1960s visibly deepened existing racial tensions in much of the Southern United States, Republican politicians such as presidential candidate Richard Nixon and Senator Barry Goldwater developed strategies that successfully contributed to the political realignment of many white, conservative voters in the South to the Republican Party that had traditionally supported the Democratic Party.[4] It also helped push the Republican Party much more to the right.[4]
Not Nixon courting the black vote.

Troll: Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion,[3] often for the troll's amusement.
Definitely you, Dimitri. It's almost time to have lucky investigate your ip address to see if you're in Kiev or Moscow.

If I believed in Karma, then I'd say it's for the hundreds of fish this guy has impaled in the mouth with his fishing hook, and then left to suffocate on the boat. Either way, it's so much needless suffering.

Richard Dawkins seems to think that the lower intelligence a creature the more pain it feels (to keep it safe, since it's unable to reason as effectively). There's no real way to tell how much pain a fish feels, but watching it try to escape as it's being pulled by the mouth is a pretty good indicator. For comparison if someone stuck a hook in a dogs mouth, and then pulled the dog along as it squirmed and writhed in pain, people would lose their minds. A fish is doing the same thing, only minus the yelping.

Richard A. Clarke looks like Bradley Whitford from when he was on the show last week. Confused me for a sec.

I understand where you're coming from, but I stand by my previous posts.

Full disclosure, I never got professionally employed as a programmer / coder / software engineer. However, my Bachelors Degree was in CS, and I have many friends working in the field.

In the show Silicon Valley, Richard Hendriks is working for a large corporate entity but has an idea / personal project that he ends up spinning into a new company. He is trained as a software engineer (CS), NOT with any business or management background (MIS), yet he becomes sort of the de-facto boss / CEO (at least early in the show). He hires a small team to help him develop his product.

Given that scenario, I think the show portrays things very accurately or at least completely plausibly. He's a coder, not a manager. Programmers may understand the importance of formatting and style standards, but at least tend to not have the correct personality type to be comfortable with formally dictating those standards to a team (an activity which would generally be more in line with an MIS background).

Also, his company is small -- just a few other programmers. They are all specializing on different components of the product. So they generally aren't working on each other's code. Standards for function arguments / helper functions / etc. would have to be agreed upon to get their individual components to interact, but that is a separate issue from tabs vs spaces. It would be wise to set a style and naming convention standard and have everyone conform to it, I agree completely. But Richard isn't built for the manager / CEO position, so he either fails to recognize that or doesn't feel comfortable dictating standards to his team.

One more thing to consider is that he (Richard) essentially is the product. He's the keystone piece, the central figure. He's John Carmack, Linus Torvalds, or Steve Wozniak. Even in a very large team / corporate environment, I'd wager that more often than not the style standards that end up getting set tend to fall in line with whatever those key guys want them to be. Don't touch an id Software graphics engine without conforming to Carmack's way, or the Linux kernel without conforming to Torvald's standards. Especially if they are building something new from scratch -- which is again true in the Silicon Valley show scenario.

The show isn't a documentary on how to properly run a startup company in the real Silicon Valley, but it is generally accurate enough that it has a lot of nuances that people with a programming background can pick up on and be entertained by (even people that don't actually work professionally in the field like me). And more important, the general feel of the show can be entertaining even for people that know absolutely nothing about programming.

(**EDIT** hmm, code HTML tag doesn't seem to allow whitespace to show at the beginning of lines, so I'm replacing spaces with _underscores_ in the pseudocode below)

Code uses spaces or tabs to visually distinguish the flow of the program, what code belongs to what functions / loops / whatever.

Here's some C-style "pseudocode" that should get the idea across:

void function fizzbuzz {
__for (i = 1; i <= 100; i++) {
____set print_number to true;
____If i is divisible by 3
______print "Fizz";
______set print_number to false;
____If i is divisible by 5
______print "Buzz";
______set print_number to false;
____If print_number, print i;
____print a newline;
__}
}

The braces { } show the beginning and ending of a "function" (essentially one of potentially many self-contained algorithms in a program) and the beginning and ending of a "for loop" (that will repeat the code inside it some number of times). And the "if" statements will only perform the stuff after them IF the test they perform evaluates to true.

So in that pseudocode, there's sort of 4 tiers or things going on. First is the function (named "fizzbuzz"). Since functions are kind of the most basic structural unit of the code, they are on the far left -- not indented at all. Sorta like Roman Numerals in an outline.

Then, the actual content of that function (the code that makes up its algorithm) is set a consistent amount of space to the right to make it clear that it is contained inside the function. That can be done with *1* tab, or some consistent amount of spaces so that it lines up. The only thing in that tier is the "for loop" and the braces that show its beginning and end.

Then the content of the for loop is set a bit further to the right (with another space or another set number of spaces). All of the "if" statements are at that 3rd tier level, along with a bit more code at the beginning and end. Then, the actual content of the if statements is set one more tier to the right to help distinguish that it will only run IF the conditions are met.

That pseudocode uses spaces for all of the tiering -- 2 spaces per tier. I'm a tab person like the guy Richard in the video, because it seems easier to press tab once per tier than hitting the spacebar 2/3/4 times per tier. But it really is just a personal preference issue, because as he said in the video, by the time the code is compiled (turned into an executable file that the computer can run) the final result will be the same whether the programmer used spaces or tabs.

But like with many things, Silicon Valley really hits the nail on the head here. Programmers tend to be very set in their ways and anal about their style preferences for code. If we have to go through someone else's code that doesn't follow our style conventions exactly, it kinda tends to throw us out of whack. To make an analogy with something less nerdy, consider how annoying it can be when someone borrows your car and you have to adjust the seat / mirrors / radio stations etc. when you get back in.

What do real scientists say?
...the one's he worked with all said Lindzen is totally wrong, and his views are not held by the vast, VAST majority of other scientists that actually work in climatology. He's a political shill now, working for 'conservative think tanks' to deny climate change.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

Note, his graph at the beginning that appears to show no significant rise because as usual they start in late 97-98, a super hot El Nino year (the hottest on record) typically used as a starting point to pretend that temperatures aren't rising as fast as they are. Start at any other time to see how different the results are. This graph contains the hottest 15 years in recorded history over a period of the last 19 years. That's pretty telling by itself.

1)the climate is always changing-but according to natural cycles, we should be in a cooling period, not a warming period.
2)so at least in his mind, everyone agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas that causes warming...that's better than most deniers.
3)"little ice age"-During the period 1645–1715, in the middle of the Little Ice Age, there was a period of low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum. The Spörer Minimum has also been identified with a significant cooling period between 1460 and 1550 (it was not caused by low CO2 levels), and CO2 is produced more in warmer temperatures than cold, so starting shortly after then you can claim the CO2 levels have been rising since well before the industrial revolution...which cherry picked like that may be technically true but is again misleading by starting at an unusually low level following a low level solar period, but the level of that rise has consistently risen since the industrial revolution, and is incredibly higher than any natural mass releases besides rare massive super volcano eruptions that caused mass extinction events.
4) just plain not true, and not agreed on by scientists.
5)What they actually said-
Improve methods to quantify uncertainties of climate projections and scenarios, including development and exploration of long-term ensemble simulations using complex models. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system�s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive and requires the application of new methods of model diagnosis, but such statistical information is essential.

Confident prediction of future weather is not possible, weather predictions are based on statistical probabilities too. Because they aren't perfect doesn't mean they're wrong, useless, or should be ignored until they're 100% right every time. More funding for more study will improve the predictions consistently, but we are intentionally defunding them instead.

Religion channel? As in the religion of climate change denial? That's not what that channel is.
Philosophy channel? What?
Learn channel, only if the viewer looks into his BS elsewhere to learn the truth.
Lies, yep...controversy, yep....politics, yep....conspiracy,OK. His ilk are steeped in those, but you left out money, the driving force for all the deniers controversial, political lies and crazy conspiracy theories. ;-)

Check out Richard Cheese then.

Richard Pleper of HBO once said in an article for Vanity Fair "Our model is building addicts". Which I always thought was a questionable goal since when addicts don't get what they want legitimately they'll resort to stabbing you in the kidneys and taking it anyhow.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/tech/2014/10/richard-plepler-hbo-building-addicts