sherpa

Since you didn't answer the question I asked in quoting your post at * this morning, I'll ask again. Who did he say were "good people?"

I would appreciate it if you would explain your claim here, with names.

I expect the arrival of good war weather in May has more to with this issue than the economist's analysis.

The wishes of a gay couple do not compel a requirement that their union be sanctioned by a formal acknowledgement of it. If some want to, so be it. They can find that venue without problem. Regarding your lack of belief, which i have no problem with, I would refer you to the exact claim, made by Jesus, that people are not equipped to handle it. Matthew 16: 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

The issue here is what it always is. The events that I reference are recorded in the Bible, specifically, in the Book of Acts. The Book of Acts is accredited to Luke, the physician. It goes into great detail regarding the events after the crucifixion that I referred to. If someone discredits the veracity of the Bible, which is assuredly your posture, it is a fool's errand to have the discussion. I have no interest in trying to convince anyone of anything, but I have spent a good deal of time and effort in this, and I have my beliefs based on that.

As it should be.

Have you ever looked into this? Have you seen what happened after the crucifixion? If those events happened today, as you suggest, I would pay attention. I get that you don't acknowledge this, and I'm fine without arguing with people who don't. That question doesn't make sense. Nothing unusual there. I have no view on gay marriage. I have a view that faith based organizations should have the right to not perform that ceremony.

Good that your "goofin," 'cause it saves me time from posting numerous extrabiblical references.

It isn't obvious to you? There is no claim by anybody, anywhere, that those people rely on religion to guide their moral compass.

There's pretty solid proof.

An absolutely asinine claim. There is no insecurity. Not even remotely close. Just a completely stupid assertion.

So have I, and studied the issue for years, far more time than I spent on my undergraduate degree. I'm quite comfortable with my conclusions, and I continue study the issue.

Think about that for a second.

I fully get your point. Everyone who has ever studied Scripture has considered this. You judge as "archaic" something that you consider a work of fiction. I don't, and I've spent many years considering and studying it. It isn't an easy issue, but if one starts from the point of view that humans really don't have infinite wisdom, or anything even close, it is understandable. Humans are to love one another, as all are products of a loving God who asks that we do in order to experience the true joy that was intended for us. Read First John, not the Gospel of John, but First John. It's only five chapters or so. Tough to understand without guidance and a bit of knowledge of Greek and how it was originally written, but clearly, we are to love one another. Sanctioning any marriage, no matter who is involved, is not the criteria for loving one another.

With respect, you aren't getting this. Their love is not invalid. Loving is a requirement for fellowship with Christ, and it doesn't mandate who. That, in no way, compels a faith to perform a marriage ceremony not in concert with their beliefs, derived from their interpretation of Scripture. Either way, we are to love others.

Of course they are "allowed to love each other." That love, and the love that others have for them does not have to be validated by a religious ceremony. The refusal to perform same sex marriages does not invalidate any love.

I'm not sure this is a correct viewpoint. Jesus' message to love is incontrovertible. There is nothing preventing people from being loved or loving simply because Scripture interpretation causes various faiths to not recognize marriage between two people of the same sex. They love and are loved regardless. Those faiths have nothing to do with a secular gov's recognition.

How the hell would you know? By your own admission, you didn't read it. It is a preposterous question to ask how the price of something as volatile as oil was effected by a President, who during his campaign stated that he was going to end the domestic production means, and thus the supply, of that very item. Might as well ask for a prediction of gold prices based on FTX bankruptcy. Simply impossible to accurately suggest. Biden saying he was going to end drilling had a significant impact on oil prices, which are emotional and volatile as always. Him then begging the Saudis to not impact OPEC's production numbers, or at least not do so until after the elections, is a further embarrassment, though by now, he probably doesn't remember it.

Do you get paid to ask stupid questions? There is o chance that anyone can answer the question of how much lower. It is absolutely certain that the peak prices would never have ben reached without Biden doing hat he did in his first six months. Watch this video for 30 seconds. Do you honestly think that any oil company is going to invest capital which takes years to produce product after listening to this? https://freebeacon.com/elections/biden-promises-no-more-drilling-under-his-presidency/ The more scary thing about that debate is that he could actually talk then. For him, that capability no longer exists. Very sad.

I'm quite certain that oil prices would be considerably lower if such policies in existence when our current administration took over were still in place. Further, when the next debt ceiling/continuing resolution debate occurs, I'm sure you will be silent as the Republicans advocate for anti inflationary issues.

These people do things habitually that would get a military officer court martialed immediately.

Exactly wrong. If someone behaves in a manner contradictory their own professed and expressed belief, that is hypocritical. Someone else's religious views don't enter into it.

The issue of continued support, is I think, made quite well here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYDnspMWdaM&t=2172s Go to the 41:50 mark and watch the last five mins. The player's bona fides are established in the initial five minutes, but this is a guy I pay close attention to.

This missile in Poland thing should be very easy to figure out. The only way for the Russians to gain momentum is through air power, and the Ukrainian air defense capability is currently very poor, so perhaps aid from the US and others will be in that area. The Russians figured out within a couple weeks how to successfully jam drones, so that isn't a real threat to them either, unless changes are made. Evidently, the life expectancy of a Ukrainian drone is about a week, so they are treated as munitions, not assets that last multiple missions.

I have quite a few friends who were in the Blues, including Mike Gershon, who was killed in a midair at Niagara Falls. I have flown in three, two off the carrier and one shore based. The Blues and the Thunderbirds mission is public relations, and they are extremely prepared and extremely good. The point made to me as a young aviator is that you really can't do anything that is incredibly impressive, but you can easily screw up. I almost did that screws up thing when I flew the shore based one, being a young guy and trying to do something to "impress." Don't fly airshows and don't do interviews. Words to live by.