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.

I wouldn't say the explosion is inexplicable. Pretty easy to explain actually.

A large blob of salt hits the water. Water cools the outside of the salt, and it hardens into a shell. Some water gets in cracks in the shell to hit the molten center of the blob and is instantly converted to steam, the steam is forceful enough it doesn't simply come out through the crack and instead shatters the outside shell of the salt bada-bing, >bang<.
Ahh, I see some people beat me to it.

This is what I get for not reading comments before posting.

This could use some better explanation, and some footage of the first 2 tries where nothing happened. What was different the 3rd time?

Just from observation I'll hazard a guess, it seemed the salt may have trapped some water inside the blob which flashed to steam, causing a small explosion and dispersing the molten salt into the water and super heating a large area of water to steam in an instant, causing the large explosion.

That may be totally wrong, it's just a guess, but something extremely hot causing water to 'explode' is hardly "inexplicable".

We're really going to have a hard time explaining this one away. We knew full well this was a hospital, and inexplicably we bombed it anyway. Even if the claim that someone was shooting from the hospital were true (and it seems it's not) there's absolutely no excuse for bombing it. None.
30 minutes of bombing?!? While being begged to stop bombing a hospital?!? In self defense (I note there's been absolutely zero evidence that there was a single insurgent there, no bodies, no guns)?!? And it went through the 'vetting' process and they still said, 'yep, go ahead and bomb a hospital into dust'?!?
Sweet Zombie Jesus! I actually DO hope everyone involved, from the guy on the ground (if they actually exist) to the general that gave the go ahead, is indicted for war crimes and convicted. If that doesn't happen, we can definitely expect this to happen again, and we can expect repercussions....we won't be so lax and relaxed about things if a major hospital in America blows up, will we?

EDIT: Also consider, this hospital was in what's now Taliban held territory, so we WON'T be rebuilding this, the only hospital in the area.

@newtboy

I don't think I'm much in danger of contradiction in suggesting that you yourself have yet to crack a book of feminist theory or engage with a feminist activist making no more extravagant sex/gender claims that the one you quote from that unimpeachable source, dictionary.com (and when did dictionaries move from being an aid to understanding obscure words to the ultimate arbiters of political thought?).

There is no separating the movement from the ideology; this is an ancient truism. Without the movement, the idea dies. Without the idea, the movement doesn't exist. My unfollowable second paragraph comprises only examples of actual, nasty feminist doctrine which I have encountered in the real world, and could probably even document with a few google searches. I can hardly be blamed that this group is so dissolute, so indiscriminately inclusive of maniacs and criminal fanatics that no single representative feminist can be found, no central text can answer for the whole.

But for the sake of increasingly and inexplicably divisive argument, let's attempt to isolate just that 'small-f' feminism in the definition you give: "feminism: noun: the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men", which I will unconditionally repudiate and abjure, for the following reasons.

i) Let's be boring and start with the name. A name that has rightly attracted much criticism, and which Virginia Woolf - not a feminist, merely a devastatingly intelligent and talented woman - called "a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete".* Anyone can see the defect here, an implicitly sexist term that apparently calls for the advancement of one sex at the expense of - whom? Well, whom do you think? A special politics for women only and exclusionary of those other incidental members of the human species, once allies and comrades and now relegated to the other side of what has become a literally unending antagonism.

You may say, "it's only a name", but how little else your dictionary leaves me to examine. No, were there no other social or intellectual harm in feminism, I would reject it on the ground of its name alone.

ii, sailor) Would that there were a known equivalent for the term 'racialism' that could relate to the cultural fiction of gender. The demand for women's rights necessarily requires that such a category 'women' exists, and is in need of special protection. Well what virtue is there in any woman that exists in no man? What mannish fault that finds no womanly echo? Then how is this distinction maintained except through supernatural thinking?

There are no women; and if there are no women, then there is nothing for feminism to accomplish. You may sign me up at any time for the doctrine of 'anti-sexism' or of 'individualism', but I will spit on anyone who advocates for 'women's rights'.

iii) This has been touched on before, and praise satan for that time saving mercy, but I reject the implicit assumption that there is a natural societal opposition to the principle of sex equality and that those who fail to declare for this, again, historically very recent dogma fall by default into that opposing force.



*The quote is worth taking in its fuller context, written in a time when the word 'feminist' was a slur on those heroes whose suffering and idealism has been so ghoulishly plundered for the tawdry use of @bareboards2 and her cohort:

"What more fitting than to destroy an old word, a vicious and corrupt word that has done much harm in its day and is now obsolete? The word ‘feminist’ is the word indicated. That word, according to the dictionary, means ‘one who champions the rights of women’. Since the only right, the right to earn a living, has been won, the word no longer has a meaning. And a word without a meaning is a dead word, a corrupt word. Let us therefore celebrate this occasion by cremating the corpse. Let us write that word in large black letters on a sheet of foolscap; then solemnly apply a match to the paper. Look, how it burns! What a light dances over the world! Now let us bray the ashes in a mortar with a goose-feather pen, and declare in unison singing together that anyone who uses that word in future is a ring-the-bell-and-run-away-man, a mischief maker, a groper among old bones, the proof of whose defilement is written in a smudge of dirty water upon his face. The smoke has died down; the word is destroyed. Observe, Sir, what has happened as the result of our celebration. The word ‘feminist’ is destroyed; the air is cleared; and in that clearer air what do we see? Men and women working together for the same cause. The cloud has lifted from the past too. What were they working for in the nineteenth century — those queer dead women in their poke bonnets and shawls? The very same cause for which we are working now. ‘Our claim was no claim of women’s rights only;’— it is Josephine Butler who speaks —‘it was larger and deeper; it was a claim for the rights of all — all men and women — to the respect in their persons of the great principles of Justice and Equality and Liberty.’"

and how the Canadian Vancouver police (in this one instance) treats the handicap
http://videosift.com/video/Vancouver-Cop-Inexplicably-Assaults-Handicapped-Woman

I know im being a bit of a hater. sometimes i'm so angry i just can't help it

The framing, the reason for filming, the grabbing of the head in a spot the pottery didn't hit, and just that the pottery seemed to inexplicably fly off the step when the cat walked by. It has too many elements that make it look staged.

Bill Paxton is the most inexplicable actor in Hollywood.

How he managed to leverage his "game over man" character, which to be fair did suit him, into a largely successful career is something all aspiring actors should study. He's not notably handsome. He is entirely lacking in gravitas, and most significantly, his ability to act is at best serviceable.

He seems like a nice, genuine guy though--someone you'd like to hang out with and could be comfortable around in real life. That probably has something to do with it.

Interesting article regarding Ferguson:

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/12/in_defense_of_black_rage_michael_brown_police_and_the_american_dream/

Why are police calling the people of Ferguson animals and yelling at them to “bring it”? Because those officers in their riot gear, with their tear gas and dogs, want a justification for slaughter. But inexplicably in that moment we turn our attention to the rioters, the people with less power, but justifiable anger, and say, “You are the problem.” No. A cop killing an unarmed teenager who had his hands in the air is the problem. Anger is a perfectly reasonable response. So is rage.

Violence is the effect, not the cause of the concentrated poverty that locks that many poor people up together with no conceivable way out and no productive way to channel their rage at having an existence that is adjacent to the American dream. This kind of social mendacity about the way that racism traumatizes black people individually and collectively is a festering sore, an undiagnosed cancer, a raging infection threatening to overtake every organ in our body politic.

There's something bittersweet (no pun intended) about seeing people who are tasting chocolate for the first, and probably last, time in their lives, considering that it probably wouldn't exist without people like them...

Reminds me of living in New Guinea when I was a kid, simple things like lighters were quite literally inexplicable magic to the more remote high land tribes. The pidgin name for helicopter is "mixmaster 'im belong Jesus Christ". It's almost a childlike naivete, and probably explains why they are dirt poor and exploited so that the west can give itself diabetes...

Great sift!

The editor took a huge and inexplicable shit on her explanation, but the steps according to this document are:

Step 1 - Oral Swabs and Smear;
Step 2 – Buccal Specimen;
Step 3 – Trace Evidence;
Step 4 – Clothing;
Step 5 – Underwear;
Step 6 – Debris Collection;
Step 7 – Dried Secretions and/or Bite Marks;
Step 8 – Fingernail Scrapings;
Step 9 – Pulled Head Hairs;
Step 10 – Pubic Hair Combings;
Step 11 – Pulled Pubic Hair;
Step 12 – Perianal and Anal Swabs and Smear;
Step 13 – Vulvar or Penile Swabs and Smear;
Step 14 - Vaginal Swabs and Smear;
Step 15 – Cervical Swabs and Smear

Notwithstanding that you weren't looking for a reply, I ought at least to acknowledge my debt to you for correcting my spelling. It's always gratifying to see the lower orders of humanity display sudden and unlooked-for hints of intelligence - just like watching a monkey light a cigar.

I won't bore you with my inexplicably punctuated "opinions", knowing that "facts" and "rational thought" are always anathema to such as you. Only take my thanks in the spirit of fellowship and understanding with which they are intended.

What is love? Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me, no more.

Pfft. Reality. We can't even prove it's real ∴ stone the apostates!

As Hitch once said. Even if you could prove the existence of a god in the vague deist/pantheist sense you'd still have almost all your work still left to do to prove that your particular invisible skyman, who is inexplicably especially interested in what occurs in your bedroom (pervert imo), is THE ONE.

I'm not sure whether I find the fact it's fake more or less upsetting than the fact it's a bad fake.

Stick viral on there too for the otherwise inexplicable shaving shot.

Popeye
Olive
Brutus
Wimpy
Chris

Popeye's the sole reason these shenanigans even got started. Everyone else is a victim of their own weakness, exposed by Popeye's cavalier existence. Olive Oil is co-dependent and is #2 because she posed the question to the rest of them. They were just minding their own business until she came along (thanks to Popeye). Brutus, an opportunist, took advantage of Olive Oil for selfish, but natural reasons. However he nearly trades spaces with Popeye for #1 for inexplicably wanting to bone Olive. Wimpy's sort of a puss, let's be real. Inaction is the same as action, but at least he didn't get all Brutus with Olive, and only offer conditional help in the form of really garbage sex. Chris, although being named Chris (bad outside this context), beat up Popeye, who's the worst on this list, so Chris is #5 in this scenario.