Oh. I mean I think it’s a provocative mischaracterization of Iran’s motivations ie I don’t think Iran kills Israelis for the fun of it. It also seems like an endorsement of killing jews.

I know that dissecting a joke kills it but this one seems DOA.

I don’t get it

Ah, I think it’s being able to lift itself with its rear flippers that indicates it’s a sea lion

That’s a sea lion right? It can lift itself up on its flippers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t2IkfuWTJ8

Hand filled…

Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Each individually the only god, but distinct from each other.

F=G, S=G, Hs=G

F+S+Hs=G

∴

G=0 or G=∞ depending on what seems more reasonable to you.

Because nobody likes you when you’re 23,

And are still more amused by T.V. shows

My dad always corrects me to: you never get more than you pay for.

I’m very sympathetic, but if they believe you are a digital identity thief/extortionist they would have cut power to stop a

shred

from destroying the evidence of your hacking.

I get that posting that information is a way to draw attention to the vulnerability of people to have their identities stolen, and so in that sense might be defensible as free speech. It must have been very scary. I expect the police will say their priority was to secure evidence prior to arresting you and explaining what was going on.

I hope you are safe and can continue to advocate for freedom.

Yes but I think socks were inherently a luxury item. I believe most people used footwraps if anything at all.

If I had a million dollars

We wouldn’t have to eat Kraft Dinner…

But we still would eat Kraft Dinner, we’d just eat more!

-BNL

Omg the winding rotor moves as you spin the animation around!

My family is from Quebec’s Eastern Townships, which used to have a much larger English-speaking population…

…But doesn’t anymore because of institutionalised cultural superiority.

Power switch

Sweet!

Yeah I would probably say what OP meant was a distance between having a theory something is controlled by Jews vs controlled by The Jews.

But honestly fell like even pointing out the first one of borderline anti Semitic, like when is that relevant except for anti Semitism?

I have taught myself the skill of making very good alcohol, which can be used medicinally, and for barter.

It occurs to me that coffee/caffeine will also be highly valuable for barter in any scenario involving disruption of supply chains. I should put some with my emergency kit.

The Bible isn’t a legal document, this was regarding a law …

This is very confusing, I didn’t call it a legal document, I cited a law within it.

… for an ancient nation that doesn’t exist anymore that was built on compromises with people who have hard hearts.

This is not a compelling rationalization, like at all. It doesn’t land. The bible says lots of things are unacceptable, and enslaving people is not one of those things. It just isn’t.

Christianity saw slavery for 1500 years and said “meh”

You have a misconception here that Christianity was popular for the first 1500 years.

No I don’t. I mean Christianity didn’t seem to have a problem with slavery.

The abolitionist movement was primarily driven by Christians.

… And primarily opposed by Christians. Yes Christianity piety was important to abolitionists, but slave owners received communion. Slave owners justified slavery’s continuation by arguing that they were a saving the souls of the slaves, and they taught their slaves Christianity. Confederate general Stonewall Jackson was profoundly religious.

In the USA, slavery was essentially ended by the Great Awakening which was a time marked by mass conversion to Christianity among the peasantry.

It was ended (in America) by the American civil war. The civil war was caused by slavery, or more specifically southern fears of abolition due to shifting balance of demographics and economic power.

When the bible said it’s okay to beat your slaves so severely that they die, as long as you they survive a few days before they die, it was wrong for me to characterise that as murder, I was hasty. But the bible clearly says that slavery is legitimate when the enslaved weren’t treated the same as the free by the law. The fact that they’re both made in God’s image was clearly not relevant.

No, because any moral guide can be misused if you randomly take verses out of context.

I don’t think I’m taking these verses out of context, the context was that slavery was common and Christianity didn’t really have a problem with that, you’re the one applying a modern morality and reading into the text things that the author didn’t mean. Your position is “it wouldn’t matter if the bible was more clearly opposed to slavery” and I think that’s delusional.

if you had a scholar say “Christianity help ended slavery and here’s why”, wouldn’t you just accuse them of trying to defend the reputation of Christianity?

No I wouldn’t, I would consider their argument. I’m not dogmatically committed to believing Christianity is bad. Are you dogmatically committed to believing Christianity is good?

Christianity did help end slavery, but it also defended it. Christianity saw slavery for 1500 years and said “meh”, and then for almost 400 years Christians argued with each other about whether it was okay or not, and now you say Christianity was against slavery the whole time, and you’re wrong.

Enough for what? Enough for it to take 1500 years for Christians to realize that beating people to death for insolence is wrong

No. I’m only referring to enslavement here.

Yeah I thought it was obvious I was referring to a subset of the behaviours of enslavers.

Exodus 20:13

You shall not murder.

The bible is pretty clear that it isn’t murder to kill your own slave

You can misuse anything in the Bible to advocate for anything.

Doesn’t that strike you as an argument against the utility of the bible as a moral guide? Don’t you think it would be better if it was harder to use the bible to defend slave ownership? Like if it took a clearer stance against slavery. If instead of saying “treat your slaves justly and fairly” if it said “the truly righteous free their slaves and trust in the lord to provide, those that hold slaves will not inherit the kingdom of heaven” wouldn’t that have hastened the end of slavery within Christendom?

“Impartial scholars” there is no such thing.

Sure, but there are ways that scholars can try to diminish their bias, and it isn’t through legally binding faith commitments.