andyburke

I find it positive to think about these writers, inspired to try to create something scientific and exciting but lacking the education themselves to do it justice, but then inspiring generations to learn and explore, who then return having learned enough to spot the problems.

I hope Star Trek can use science, and the generations of fans now inspired, to keep pushing these stories further because it feels like our collective need for Star Trek's vision is as deep as ever.

I understand, that's why I was trying to translate their statement into reality-based words. I thought you were defending their position based on your response.

But .. they don't mail the pills randomly. A person in the state where it is outlawed is requesting something from a state where it is not.

I don't see how the CA doctors are in any way colonizing anything.

The California Catholic Conference opposed the law, arguing the state is "engaging in ideological colonization against states and citizens that do not want abortion."

Are ... are they trying to say CA doctors are mailing abortion pills to people who didn't ask for them? What does this statement mean? Maybe what they meant was something like: "We do not believe women have a basic right to control their body, whether those women are Catholic or not, and that control should rest with the government of the state they reside in."

Since it seems we are covering personal opinions, I think this is like all pride: sometimes it can be good and sometimes it can be toxic, often depending on who the person feeling prideful is.

I made no value judgement on this. I just pointed out this is common and it is surprising if someone doesn't understand it.

You may not agree with it, but you understand it exists and that it is often tied to how someone is raised.

You seem very confident in a lot of what is written in a very old translation of a hodpdge of work.

You are drawing a conclusion I do not from the same text.

It seems odd to me that a divinely inspired work could be so confusing or open to interpretation.

And given so very many passages where Jesus calls for love, why do you spend so much time justifying your interpretation that says Jesus hated a particular group?

There may be food for thought here for both of us.

I'd be interested if you could share the original text, what you've shared is a translation. I don't read Sanskrit or Aramaic so I am not sure I'd be super useful, but I imagine other people might be able to help.

It isn't my holy book. I read enough as a child to figure out it wasn't a divinely inspired work.

I don't condone it, but when will businesses realize reforming the police is good for them and will stop shit like this? Not to mention maybe less time spent on drugs and more time spent on theft would be welcome?

Not sure why businesses aren't pushing the cops to get their shit squared and stop killing so many people.

Thank you for citing the passages, but I similarly to the other commenter disagree that he is saying he hates them rather than their actions.

The word hate isn't in there. I might call a gang a "brood of vipers" but that wouldn't mean I necessarily hated them.

Lastly, and for what it's worth, I'm not clear if the "Seven Woes on the Teachers of the Law and the Pharisees" are meant to be quotes of Jesus or if they are Matthew.

Still, thank you for sharing something specific and not just hand waving.

Cite the whole passages, friend. If you're going to argue your point, bring the receipts and let people discuss. You're making the claims...