That is a lie. Mathew 5:17-20

Yes. Jesus used the word “fulfilled”. But then in the same breath he’s saying “The law will not pass away”. and then- again literally in the next sentence, he says “whoever teaches others to not follow the law will be the least in heaven.,” And then wraps up saying “Hey, if you’re not more strict than the scribes and the pharisees… you’re not going to heaven.”

Luke says similar in 16:14-17:

if you take the scriptures as truth, Jesus is literally saying that the Law will remain.

Personally, I don’t take the scriptures as truth, and I doubt very much that what’s attributed to him were actually said. At best a historical jesus was a jewish mystic running a faith healing racket. a fraud. a sham. Paul is the one who taught that the law was now irrelevant, and most of the things attributed to jesus saying it… well… those were written after Paul. Further, none of the gospels are eye-witness accounts, were written anonymously, and some fifty years or more after the events they purport to descibe.

there are exactly zero reasons to believe they’re accurate.

I mean, you can use a magneto hydrodynamic generator to replace the bits normally spin up by steam.

But, eh, it’s less efficient than a rankine cycle.

Yeah. Better check that code for back doors.

So goodbye Yellowstone.

Episode 22 wasn’t a real episode. Some loser made a deep fake fan fiction!

That was Paul. Who was totally a heretic.

The verse I linked is Jesus explicitly stating he absolutely did not come to abolish the previous law. In fact, he made the law stricter (or wanted to.)

The stuff about “you’ve heard it said… don’t murder… but anger is just as bad, etc. it doesn’t help that a fair amount of the gospels were later inserts to retcon things to be more palatable to a broader audience.

Like gentiles we’re unlikely to convert if they had to give up pork and snip the tip, etc. Jesus was pretty clear about that, too.

that’s part of the problem with screwing around with all the timey-whimey stuff.

At the end of the day, it changes nothing. Like the year of hell arc in Voyager, with the krennim. the other species. all of that was just filler.

I’m just gonna say it. When writing things, you should never fuck with time. There are very good shows that do a good job of it, without it becoming the answer to everything.

Star Trek is not one of those shows. (Dr. who, comes to mind.)

Still over all enjoyed enterprise.

Which new show am I hating on?

(Also I liked enterprise. Just skip the last episode with Ryker apparently being Chef.)(discovery. Not so much.)

They’re not really being repressed though. Keep in mind, as nuns, they were technically employed by the church.

The church was (and still is,) faced with several problems- the aging building (a castle built in 1877), dwindling numbers of nuns (which means not enough people to care for the grounds or provide the kind of work that allows the nuns as a whole to do whatever kind of work they’re doing (a school, in this case.)

From the article, the church closed the nunnery down, and offered the three existing nuns the right to live there as long as their health was still good.

That declined, so they moved them to a care home.

The nuns didn’t like that so they ran away (sister act vibes, ngl.) and got some previous students to help and broke back in. Then, they began a social media campaign to pressure the church to let it go.

The church caved and said “fine”- they’re now taking the much more expensive option of live-in help, but on the condition they knock off the campaign that they feel makes them look bad.

It doesn’t seem terribly unreasonable, except in the whole “your employer controls your entire life”, but that was something that they more or less agreed to when they became nuns.

The reality seems like, maybe the church doesn’t care so much about dwindling numbers of nuns (and monks,) since this is actually a wonderful recruitment campaign… or could be. If Provost DipShit didn’t have a stick up his but.

You can cherry pick anyone. I bet hitler said one or two things that weren’t totally awful. Same for Trump, Mao, Stalin, Putin… musk.

You can cherry pick, yes. But that means your understanding doesn’t comport with reality.

“Some” of the gospels? Try “all.” None of the gospels were written by the people they were named for. The rest of what you said is word salad and, it sounds like what you’re saying is that words don’t mean words.

The reality is we don’t know if these are even his words- the earliest gospel was written 50 years after his death, does not mention a virgin birth, does not mention anything before his ministry at all…. And doesn’t really mention any of the prophecies that Jesus “fulfilled”

Mathew was written next., at around the first century ce. It was written specifically to address that last bit about Mark not fulfilling prophecy. And fails miserably.

Luke was just as bad as Mathew. None of the “prophecies” they mention were ever meant to be about Jesus, and Ike half were never actually meant to be prophecy in the first place. (Like the psalm of David they use to say him being pierced which said nothing of being pierced and was just a poem about David being surrounded and abused by enemies.)

There’s zero reason with that kind of known mistakes (or out and out lies,).

Exactly.

She used a shitty source (and probably nothing else.)

Even if you say psychology is a wishy-washy science, it’s still science. The teacher failed her for not providing empirical evidence based on proper studies. The student is going to have a hard time of it, if her only response is to scream persecution. (And yes, that’s exactly what’s going on here.)

“Freedom of speech” is bullshit. She got to say what she wanted, and now she gets to get the grade she deserves.

Also, they were pushing ads for ICE recruitment.

FTA:

A psychology student at the University of Oklahoma says the failing grade she received on an essay where she cited the Bible was a violation of her right to free speech. Her instructors said she failed to use empirical evidence and called parts of her essay offensive.

In her essay, which was in response to an article about how people are perceived based on societal expectations of gender, junior Samantha Fulnecky wrote that traditional gender roles should not be considered stereotypes, according to an earlier Oklahoman report. She cited the Bible to support her stance that eliminating gender in society would be “detrimental” because that would put people “farther from God’s original plan for humans.”

It’s psychology, not religious studies. She got a failing grade because she said thing and used a shitty source to back it up. Psychology is not religious studies.

Bro had an epic Turkey Day.

"answer me, these questions three… "

I’m agnostic, but I think what Jesus taught was actually pretty cool.

So… just to clarify.

Did you know Jesus taught obedience to the Law of Moses (and the commands of the prophets.)? His actual teachings- as recorded in the 4 gospels- are actually pretty horrific, when you understand that he absolutely was teaching adherence to the “old law”. (in point of fact he adresses this directly in Matthew5:17-20)

The law of moses is horrific compared today’s standards. I mean, it allows men to sell their daughters to be a sex slave… rape is basically a property crime, and if a guy rapes an un-betrothed virgin… he owes the father some money and then the woman in question is forced to marry her rapist. And then there’s the explicit endorsement of slavery, the whole thing about stoning women who didn’t bleed on their wedding night (I say it this way, because it was known long before Jesus that most women didn’t actually bleed the first time they had sex… and that commandment was given directly by god, presumably.)

Like… in my limited experience, the people who talk about the teachings of jesus… only take some things, and ignore all of the horrifically objectionable shit. Like. Slavery would have been something that jesus would have encountered on a daily basis… and his father most like;y owned several. (he probably wasn’t a furniture maker- rather he was a builder… likely building houses and other buildings like bridges, etc. It’s also likely that jesus didn’t grow up poor.)

Need to snack on the crunchy chicks to get the evil modifier up. There’s a door with loot, after all.

It’s okay, because you can get even more loot by donating to a temple; and everyone forgets it.

True.

Pretty sure this is “political memes”, and I’m pretty sure memes are supposed to be self contained.

We shouldn’t have to give Trump add revenue to understand it.