Listen Snowshoes, the impeachment was legit. A child could see what happened here.

Get edumacated.

The Emperor Has No Clothes

"When a leader surrounds himself with “yes” men, it often leads to absurd and embarrassing results. It is far better to surround oneself with honest people who are unafraid to ask questions or to point out deficiencies as they see them."

https://medium.com/@mattimore/parable-the-emperor-has-no-clothes-ace63fef6eb8

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.

Congratulations! Your video, The Broccoli Tree: A Parable, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 9 Badge!

Your video, The Broccoli Tree: A Parable, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

But is it not true that all these sects mostly disagree on which parts of the doctrine(s) to ignore (or which parts to consider parables and morality tales rather than instructions, which amounts to the same thing)?
That is why I would say there are quite few "true Christians" (but probably not none), and likely the same goes for all other religions that contain differing sects/opinions. (EDIT:This made me realize that, while not a 'no true Scotsman' argument, it is a 'no pure Scotsman' argument, which is quite similar)

The fact that portions of the texts can be interpreted differently by different people is proof enough to me that none of them contain the "perfect word of god", because I think it could not be misinterpreted.

Jesus Christ was apparently quite a tolerant bloke. He hung out with the whores, the beggars, the undesirables etc, he told parables about "good" people turning a blind eye to the hurting of their brother while a Samaritan turned out to be the truly good person. He said "Judge not lest ye be judged".

I don't even believe the guy was anything other than an altruistic nutter (if he existed at all) and I know his message better than you, or the douchebag in the video...

Persecution is being tossed in an arena with lions. It's being nailed to a cross. It isn't "co-existing with others and not getting the privilege of being able to make rules on how they live their lives". That's called equality, respect, common decency. You and you're ilk don't know true suffering mate.

Perhaps if you actually emulated the person you claim to worship (you know, the one that is waiting for you in the afterlife with a big fucking stick and an accounting of your years of intolerance) rather than made up your own interpretation, you'd actually be a christian worthy of the name...

And if you want to witness suffering, go minister in Africa for a few years, then get back to us about just how bad it is to be "persecuted"...

Sarzy's review of "Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft" has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Sarzys review of "The Stanley Parable" has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Sarzy's Short Film: M is for Marriage has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Sarzy's Nyan Fresh Prince of Bel-Air has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Fired! has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

TOP TEN REASONS

1) Small pot

2) Small kids that slurp longer pieces

3) Awesome snappy noise and stuff'

4) Me strong like Hulk prove by smashing spaghettis smash smash

5) Visualizing your mean annoying boss's neck while twisting crick crack shatter

6) Teaching child division and/or fractions

7) Having less sophisticated in-law over who would otherwise maul linguini with multiple passes of a knife before eating

8 ) Telling parable of "united we stand divided we fall" to less patriotic younger generation representatives, and needed a prop.

9) Secretly mad at spouse and prepping mysterious "I don't know how all those spaghettini shards on the floor happened but it's your time to sweep here's the broom" petty vengeance

10) Destroying stuff is fun.

The issue then becomes, if we start accepting scientific facts like the big bang and evolution, that moves stories like Adam and Eve, the flood, tower of babel and the like become parables. Which I am fine with, I was fine with that when I was a Christian as that is the most likely scenario, the problem is where do we draw the line at what is parable and what is literal? Why did the creator of the universe make himself known to only one tiny tribe of people in a backwater part of the world some 6,000 years ago, and not to all of humanity around the world, why not have prophets all over? It is either a local deity, like Odin,Athena, Ra and the like, or a racist jerk.

No science will never probably answer what was there before the big bang, time itself didn't exist... That is perhaps the only valid "gap" for a god to fill. We understand how the universe came to be in its present state fairly well, with a few odd issues like dark matter/dark energy to be resolved but those are filling in. Abiogenesis is early enough in the its understanding of life origins to be a small gap, but that is filling, and the process of biological evolution is fully understood and well mapped out.

In the end the problem is that there seems to be no god actively moving on the universe or people's lives. We don't see properly documented limbs growing without science. We don't see a consistent result from praying to only the Christian God compared to praying to some Hinu god to get results (praying itself is slightly better than not, but it doesn't matter to whom is prayed, praying to the flying spaghetti monster is just as effective as praying to Yahweh or Kali). If there is a God, then he is ineffective, and that in the end is a problem for religion... and ultimately what is the point of worshiping a god that only wants people to praise and worship him while giving us nothing in return? Wohoo I believed in God (Yahweh) and now get to spend eternity praising and worshipping him full time with no distractions like work and having fun with the family...basically I get to do the same thing the angels do (and they apparently have a choice in the matter since 1/3rd of them followed Lucifer in praising him over Yahweh)... what's the point of that? To avoid the hell he created for those who chose not to end up being his praise slave 24/7 for eternity? Let me see evidence, let me see him do something for me in my life here and now, then I'll believe.

Point of clarification, I know there is lots of evidence of localized flooding, I'm speaking of a lack of evidence for the Bible's description of a world wide flood.

Also, my understanding of the first five books were that they all come from 4 older documents, which were segmented into the Pentateuch... see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis for more. I haven't followed up with more recent hypothesis regarding the books, but I was under the impression the general idea, even if it isn't the the specific four books originally thought composed the books, with Genesis being a combo of all four, which stretch into 500 BCE. The Noah story itself is combined of the "Jahwist (YHWH) source and the Priestly (Elohim) source", and the Priestly would be after the exile, though the Jahwist would be well before the exile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_flood_narrative and it's link to flood myths overall). I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable of sources, and without taking the time to vet the sources they quote, I'll go with the explanation given for the moment.

Also, I'm into seeing it. I'm sure it will be entertaining. Aronofsky alone makes it worth considering at the very least... Biblical epics (and semi Biblical movies such as Ben-Hur...) can make for great cinema. So count me in... Even when I was a Christian I started doubting the flood story as anything more than a parable or allegory, much like the Creation story, Jonah, Sodom's destruction and the rescue of Lot... and there are some good stories to tell... perhaps some exposure to other myths would be nice, but I think the Abramic stories are more familiar to more Americans and world wide audiences than say trying to make a movie about some Celtic god... or Nordic god (Thor doesn't count...)... most of which they'd butcher in Hollywood anyhow...

*related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Stanley-Parable-Turbo-Button-Reviews-Episode-001

"The Stanley Parable" explained has been added as a related post - related requested by braschlosan on that post.

Sarzys review of "The Stanley Parable" has been added as a related post - related requested by braschlosan.

Your video, "The Stanley Parable" explained, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.