Yes :) that’s right. Keep reporting on class warfare, please.
@lemmy.cafe
Indians 4 Trump always baffled me. I suspect they’re largely red pilled Hindu nationalists that think this new wave of fascism includes them. I guess it really boils down to the enemy (Trump) of their enemy (Muslims) are their friend.
You’re not entirely wrong but I was a complete misfit and the black sheep of my family. I resisted their attempts to conform and homogenize me.
I think I took a lot of inspiration from the stories I had access to from books, tv, film, and video games.
Harry could read so I wonder if he also had access to books with inspiration characters. Also, what was his school life like?
Keep in mind, the amount of conservatives that have shown any regret in the slightest is an extremely small percentage.
The majority of them do not use social media outside of Facebook. They still get their news from Fox and Newsmaxx.
We do not owe them anything. Conservatives who have a conscience need to abandon POLITICAL conservatism. If you want to be socially conservative, go right ahead and do that in the privacy of your own home. But, if you think you’re going to cross the aisle and try to organize with leftists while still holding politically conservative beliefs you wish to eventually see enforced for everyone, then yea, fuck off.
He’s trying to build credibility among younger audiences through the only thing they give a shit about: video games. It’s more anti-propaganda than it is “news”. And, really, most news is some form of propaganda or anti-propaganda.
The Bible already addresses this:
I saw a compilation of clips from various theaters.
-kids were throwing shit all over the place
-people were assaulting staff
-someone set one theater on fire during the screening
Who knows what else has been happening but those were the highlights.
Oof. Where do I begin? You actually incorrectly cited the source of the verse you are quoting, so we’re off to a great start.
First off, you’ve incorrectly cited the verse to Mark 15:21-28 which is about Jesus’ crucifixion instead of Matthew 15:21-28 which you also sneakily removed the last two verse (27, 28) which are necessary to understand the context.
27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
Also, Jesus alludes to his Parable of The Lost Sheep (Matthew 18:10-14, Luke 15:3-7) when he said, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel”. In this context, the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15 is just one of many lost sheep.
In regards to marital divorce in Matthew 19; yea, this one is pretty easy if we take into consideration that social customs have been continuously evolving. The first verse in Matthew 18 begins with Pharisees attempting to catch Jesus in an ideological “gotcha”.
“Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
Jesus responds by saying, “…they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Keep in mind, when the Israelites were autonomous from foreign rule, they imposed the death penalty to those who committed adultery. It wasn’t until Moses that the concept of a divorce certificate was created, eliminating death to adulterers, which was a socially progressive move for that ancient time period. After all, you can’t create the act of divorce without first creating the act of marriage. I’ll continue with Matthew 19:7:
“Why then,” the Pharisees asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”
The hearts of the people during Moses’ time had become hardened, cold, unsympathetic to those who committed adultery and sentenced them to death. The certificate of divorce that Moses proposed allowed for the hearts of people to soften instead of, you know, killing in the name of law.
So, when the Pharisees present this question to Jesus, he doesn’t actually say anything about whether women can or cannot divorce their husband, as you seem to imply. Jesus simply explains the history of the Pharisees’ own religious law back to them. They wanted him to take a definitive side so they could have him arrested for heresy and he didn’t take that bait.
Well, you did incorrectly cite your source and disingenuously remove the last two verses of the passage you were trying to attack.
Adding a tag at the end of your comment that “some Christian is going to tell me I’m quoting out of context or misinterpreting the text” doesn’t dispel you of literally doing those things. Also, I didn’t “handwave” away your argument. I systematically approached each of your points and rebutted them with the correct sources.
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...