Isn’t it fascinating how you can talk honestly about religious texts when you’re not bound by dogma? Fundamentalists hate this one simple trick.

it can be helpful to consider the thought as bad as the action for the purpose of weeding that behaviour out of our lives. Not that the thought is as bad as the action, because clearly it isn’t.

Considering how many (ex)Christian folks struggle with guilt for having “impure thoughts”, that appears to be a flawed approach. You can’t control what kinds of thoughts spontaneously appear in your mind. Imo you should simply be aware that these thoughts are separate from your intentions and actions towards that person, and don’t guide those actions.

Keep in mind that the Bible treats adultery as property crime against the father or husband of that particular woman. If you try to apply Jesus’ teachings to infidelity specifically, you must wrestle with a bunch of historical and cultural baggage. Nothing wrong with treating a story as inspirational, but again, be aware that you’re making Jesus more cool and progressive than he probably deserves.

Yeah, Jesus is prone to hyperbole, agree on that.

Counter point: literally the next two verses

31 “It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’
32 But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Not to mention that “adultery in his heart” is essentially thought-crime, which I personally find rather unchill and not based.

Even more interesting that land use had a marginal cooling effect, despite also causing a net increase in CO2 emissions.

Isn’t this specifically about sand for construction which needs to be coarse enough? For glass packaging you melt that stuff anyway, SiO₂ is SiO₂. Also I imagine the amount of sand needed for glass bottles would be way smaller than what construction industry uses, even less so if you recycle.