I believe you are right for the old testament commandments, but it does seem like cherry picking to say the early restrictions should only apply to the Israelites, and later verses that would expand the scope in letters from Paul shouldn’t be accepted.
When you say intentional, do you mean it’s interpreted that way as part of an agenda? Why would someone do this? Other versions of the verse make similar purity claims as well. From the surrounding verses, it sounds to me like Jesus is saying what you eat does not matter in the context of morals/sin rather than it being symbolic of people with different practices.
For the unclean foods bit, Jesus may have retconned that with Mark 7:19.
Gay sex is disparaged in various verses, some of which come from Old Testament divine commandments. It’s not just in letters.
It’s less clear about abortion but throughout the Bible fetuses are generally considered to have distinct personhood from their mothers. That tends to imply certain rights.
Christians tend to pick and choose which parts of their word of God are actually infallible and which parts don’t apply anymore. There’s no reason to think God changed His mind on gay sex, tattoos, or wearing garments of mixed materials, because there was no justification for banning them in the first place. If a Christian is a true believer, they should be satisfied with “God said it, so it must be true”.
That’s the problem with relying on an external authority for morality. When it tells you to do something you don’t like, you have to either change your behavior accordingly or realize that you actually don’t trust it as an authority. Christians being by and large massive hypocrites, they tend to do the latter without admitting to it. Because if they did admit it, they wouldn’t be Christians anymore.
It’s pretty rare to find someone who genuinely takes it all on faith, that stealing cookies from the cookie jar indeed warrants eternal punishment. For everyone else, if they were honest with themselves, they would admit that if you only follow the rules you agree with, they were never actually rules for you.
Budgets are useful tools, but they really should be temporary. If you have a major change in income or expenses, it can warrant monitoring for a while. But once you’ve reached a point of financial stability, you will know what you can afford already. Setting up auto pay on regular bills, putting balance alerts on your accounts, and just acting your wage makes it pretty easy.
But honestly, what you can afford is just a hard cap on what you should be spending. You should be living below your means already so you can build up investments to retire on. Then unexpected expenses are easily handled by scratching something off your emergency fund. And windfalls mean you can reach your financial independence goals that much faster. Until then, you don’t have to live as if you’re destitute, but just be frugal.
Seriously, the amount of people living paycheck to paycheck is horrifying. If you are one of them, you should be alarmed. Things aren’t going to get cheaper, and wages are going to struggle to keep up. And at a certain point, you won’t be able to work. So you have to remember that your future self is a dependent for your current self.
If you haven’t planned much, here’s a helpful priority pipeline for how to work towards financial security. I stole it from one of the finance subreddits. It assumes you’re in the US for the tax-privileged efficiency stuff, but the gist is just keep putting your money in the most important/efficient buckets until they’re full, then move on to the next.
I’m not gaslighting. There’s a way to do it that’s permanent, but if you do it wrong it will revert. I’m speaking from personal experience.
I have had them disabled for years. You have to go through the registry. It’s cumbersome but it doesn’t take long and is permanent.
I think this is the right explanation, assuming the story is true. Dry noodles expand when put in hot water, and I would think that includes gastric acids in the human body. The boy started having symptoms in half an hour and died soon after. That’s too fast for something like food poisoning, and they didn’t find anything wrong with the noodles being sold. So it sounds like pressure buildup from them expanding inside him caused damage.
OP, I would be careful not to eat too much at once, and eat slowly. The boy ate three packets at once. Maybe eat some other stuff with it so the noodles can’t build up a large mass of just noodles.
It’s annoying that people are downvoting you just for asking an honest question. I think the anti-ai sentiment is strong enough that in many communities, people just oppose it in any context. The arguments I usually see against using ai are:
All are real concerns, but I agree that making memes should be an effectively harmless use of it even if you otherwise oppose it. 1 and 3 aren’t really applicable to your average meme. 2 could apply depending on how you measure it, but most of the cost of ai is from training, not generation. For someone using the tool and not developing it, that training is a sunk cost they are not responsible for. I’ve seen estimates that you can generate about 9 images with the energy it takes to fully charge a phone. I think that’s more than worth it if you share it with a few other people to enjoy.
I second this. I am in a similar position as OP and now I donate to a fund through GiveWell (which is used by many people engaged in EA) directly since the start of this year. If you want your money to do the most good, look into them. They research and audit all kinds of charities and publish their findings on their site.
It’s not racist. People accuse others of that term too flippantly. It is ignorant though.
Language changes a great deal over time, and slurs are no exception. What is a completely inoffensive label at some point can be a slur later on. What is a mild insult in one area can be much more severe somewhere else. Sometimes what was a slur can be reclaimed and become acceptable, even positive. But that can also depend on who is saying it and other contextual details. I don’t know anything about “k!wifarms” but I wouldn’t assume malicious intent without more information.
That example looks much like the No True Scotsman fallacy, since a word is redefined later to exclude what would be exceptions to their claim based on an added qualification. Person A also made Person B get the evidence to refute their claim rather than fulfilling the burden of proof themselves. I know it’s not a formal debate or anything, but even so, bad faith arguments are just rude. Just own the mistake and say “you’re right, I was only thinking of first world countries/liberal democracies/developed nations/whatever”.
As others have said, I would get it written down somewhere asap. In the future, you could ask to have an email sent to you to confirm the date, time, location, interviewers, and any other details like who to contact with questions/rescheduling. Plus they might also share hints like dress code, projected length, and expected types of questions that can help you prepare but might look bad if you explicitly asked for them.
If I was a recruiter, I wouldn’t think less of you for asking for confirmation. Rather, it makes you seem professional and prudent to want to avoid mix-ups like what you just experienced, that you have a legitimate interest in the position, and that you value your interviewers’ time as well as your own. Even if you have a sharp memory, this sort of thing can easily happen just from someone mishearing or misspeaking on the phone.
Good luck with the job hunt. You get better at it with experience, but even then, it’s mostly a numbers game. Don’t let a rejection get you down, every new application is a fresh start with more experience.
The problem is that then you need the government’s permission to procreate. There’s always the valid concern that the government would prevent you from having children to remove some undesirable trait from the population and justify it as being a danger to a child. I know you described basic competency skills, but there would always exist a very credible threat of it being politicized.
In fact, this already happens for things like queer couples being rejected for adopting children or the Uyghur population being quietly genocided in China. And Eugenics was historically practiced such that criminals would be sterilized as part of their punishment.
It’s worth pointing out that governments already intervene with unqualified parents by removing the child from the household. Shifting the burden of proof from the government needing to show neglect to parents needing to prove themselves worthy is a dangerous amount of authority to cede to a centralized, corruptible power.
Also, it’s not clear how you handle unlicensed parents. People are going to have unsafe sex no matter how illegal you make it. Would you push for preemptively sterilizing everyone and trusting it can be reversed after a license is acquired? Forcing abortions? Confiscating the child after birth?
When you give blood, often the “wrong” answer will just have them ask a followup after you submit the questionnaire. Like there is one asking if you had recently visited any of a list of countries of concern. I selected that I had because of a trip to Mexico, but I was still able to give blood that day because when they later asked which region, the one I had visited was considered safe.
I expect if you had been bitten by a mosquito in a place where that isn’t a significant concern and developed no symptoms other than the itch, you would probably be approved to donate. Receiving plasma is less dangerous than receiving blood so I would be surprised if the safety evaluation is more strict.
Riot actually has short stories, comics, and a few books on the lore of the world. It doesn’t show up in the game beyond voice lines, but some of the broad strokes of the Arcane story had been all but confirmed for years. Legends of Runeterra is also a card game set in the same world that expanded on things by letting champions talk to more minor characters (other cards in that case). And they are working on an mmo that will probably dive into the lore much more.
Club Penguin Rewritten, Toontown Rewritten, and The Legend of Pirates Online (based on Pirates of the Caribbean Online) are resurrected fan-made versions of games shut down by Disney. The former was also shut down by Disney, but the others are still going. I think the difference is that the Club Penguin revival included ads while the other two were never monetized at all.
Yes, and actually with low amounts of money to work with you can make your contributions very efficient. To best spend save for retirement, choose the first option from this list that applies to you (and if you are able to save more later, go down the list after exhausting each option):
For most people, it’s recommended to use a traditional 401k and a Roth IRA, but it varies by situation. As for what to invest in, I would recommend a popular low cost ETF or index fund, like Vanguard or SPY. You can also look into ESGs if you want to do good with your money, but your expected earnings may be lower. I’m in ETHO and TICRX.
You might check out fire@lemmy.ml or personalfinance@lemmy.ml if you have questions about getting started.
But they’re questioned now more than ever. There are more atheists and agnostics in the world than ever before.
It’s cherry picking because it’s choosing which pieces of the bible to give credence to and which to ignore based on preference. Paul was chosen as God’s chosen vessel; I don’t see why his instructions to the early church should be cast aside.
Jesus did say to love thy neighbor, yet it is easy to find examples of God condoning slavery and demanding genocides. Unless you intend to also deny those parts, it’s pretty clear he’s willing to contradict that commandment against whoever he considers sinful. For gay men, he prescribed the death penalty, although that was part of the covenant with Israel. I don’t think the new testament says how they should be punished, just that it’s a sin.