Rumina7ions

Discontent of ignorance, seeking to know Christ more fully and obey what He commands of me.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

1) It would have been culturally inappropriate for Jesus to call Peter the feminine version of the word, if Jesus spoke in Greek. The fact that it was recorded as masculine vs. feminine means the author understood this cultural norm.

2) If Jesus had intended to make Peter's new name and what the foundation of the Church was to be separate moments in the same sentence, He could have used any other figurative language to drive that point home that wouldn't have led to the majority of Christians supposedly believing the wrong thing. I name you rock, and upon these... roots, tree stump, core, literally anything other than rock... It would have made it clear Peter wasn't what Jesus was building on, but Jesus chose to use the word rock after naming Simon rock.

Jesus does not cause confusion. When the people or his disciples were confused by His parables or symbolic phrases, He clarified. He did not clarify here. They were not confused.

Why would Jesus, in such a critical moment like this, knowing the division this moment would cause Christianity 1500+ years later when a bunch of Protestants all thought they knew better (but disagreed with each other on, and disagree with each other even more now, a number of topics), why would Jesus in this moment use either identical words (if Aramaic) or near identical words (if Greek), if He was not intending to declare Peter the rock that the Church would be built on? Why not be clearer if that's not what He meant? Why give Peter the keys? Why tell Peter to feed his sheep three times? Why tell Peter whatever he loose and binds on Earth will be done in Heaven? Why tell Peter the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church?

Why would Jesus focus so much on Peter, giving him special attention and power, in the above moments if He knew it would cause the majority of Christianity to supposedly falsely believe there should be a leader of the Earthly, visible Church?

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

@Gb__f @CWingUexkull If the federal union ever broke up enough to allow this new nation to exist, then it would break up into a bunch of other fragments as well; southeast, Texas, the far west coast portions of CA, OR, and WA, possibly the Greak Lake states, etc.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

@CFB_Signals Maybe the SEC should invite Virginia, UNC, and West Virginia, then? If B1G goes to 19, SEC could capture three states in another, final, regional expansion move.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

@CHS_SC843 @DPGBehler Yeah I don't get the objection? Yes, Protestants are separated Brethren and also yes Christians need the Holy Spirit. These are not contradictions.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

@Bnjmnharvey1 @CFB_Signals Catch the SEC? Really?

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

Yes independents, but how much Dems are winning by is shrinking.

2008 Republicans lost with 44.5% of the vote.

2024 they lost with 47.9% of the vote.

2028 I expect a razor thin race either way, with possibly a flip, at the rate NH is shifting right.

2032 NH will be lean Red, again at the rate it's shifting right.

Shifts can change, I'm just basing the above on what we've seen so far. Time will tell.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

Been saying this for a long time, but while the GOP is an umbrella of differing views on certain things, the DEMs are an umbrella with groups that have much wider gaps on what they think society should look like, and it has bit them in the butt and it's only going to get worse.

How can you be a party of feminists and transgenders?

A party of Catholic Latinos, Muslims, and atheists that all have wildly different beliefs on social issues like abortion, LGBTQ, etc?

A party of environmentalists and blue dogs fighting for the working man?

A party of capitalists and socialists?

The umbrella is simply too big. Some of these groups are and have been waking up to the fact that they have more in common, with core topics to them, with the GOP than they do with the Dems.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

I said in my last response that it isn't all about carriage fees, but viewership/ratings as well (around midway down my comment). They both matter. Conferences still make a ton of money off the carriage fees, so you can't disregard them just like someone else can't disregard viewership.

They both matter and when combined I think the list I made is the correct order of most to least valuable additions.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

@MJKelleyII There is a massive difference in someone being of the Church and thinking something individually that is different than what the Church teaches than the Church itself changing what the Church teaches.

You are looking at an apple and seeing an orange.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

Fans should not care about money. Should care about ability to travel to games. Do you want partially empty stadiums because the guest section is so low in attendance due to fans having to travel thousands of miles in the B1G when you could have a lot more fans traveling with only having to go hundreds of miles in the SEC.

This isn't the NFL where people with careers spend a ton of money traveling, this is college football where tons of fans are in their young to mid 20's and can't afford to spend tons of money traveling thousands of miles by plane but could afford the gas to make a 200-mile road trip to another school.

And do we not care about the athletes having to travel these crazy distances while attempting to do classes?

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

I said a lot more thing than just the word "prestigious" and I made points that, in my opinion, this would make financial sense for the SEC to add those three schools. They won't get new SEC Network expansion by adding Clemson, FSU, or Miami, because the state of Florida already carries the SEC Network. It's a different of in-market, high carriage fees, and out of market, low carriage fees.

The SEC already has full market penetration in the states of Florida and South Carolina, so adding additional schools from those states does not increase SEC Network carriage fees.

Adding UNC, VA, and KS would convert 3 out of market states into in market states and make all the carriage fees go from low to high, profiting the SEC immensely.

It's not all about carriage fees, just as it isn't all about TV ratings. But if you analyze both at the same time, I believe the order of most desired to least desired potential expansion candidates for the SEC would be:

1. UNC
2. UVA
3. Kansas
4. FSU
5. Clemson
6. Miami
7. Oklahoma State
8. NC State
9. VA Tech

With 19 being the cap, if they go that high, I believe Kansas makes the cut.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

@bootingdems @Genetics56 Why would you hope for a conference where your fans and atheletes have to travel like crazy from the southwest to the northwest to the northeast, when you could have a far more regional conference in the SEC with tons of schools nearby?

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

I could see a new conference arising of Colorado, Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Iowa State, and Texas Tech combining with Miami, NC State, Duke, Virginia Tech, Clemson, and Georgia Tech to form a new 12 team conference that makes much more than either the current ACC or B12 schools do currently in media money, honestly.

Then the PAC could take the leftovers from the western flank of the Big 12 leftovers and the ACC could take the rest of the leftovers from the Eastern flank of the Big 12.

We'd end up with 3 conferences that are collectively more regional than they are now, and one of them making a lot more money per year (not B1G/SEC level, but closer than now).

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

No, there simply needs to be some trading going on. UCF, Cincinnati, and West Virginia should go ACC as backfill after B1G/SEC raids them. So then Big 12 is down to 13 schools, they add Wazzu, Oregon State, and Boise State to claim three new states and a whole new region of the country to get back up to 16. Ignore the California schools, not a good fit.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

I think if the SEC had its way they'd get the most prestigious schools from states they aren't already in that would expand the regional footprint. So, UNC, VA, and Kansas would make the most sense.

I know they have redundancies but if you think about it:

Miss St and Ole Miss are original schools before anyone cared about media deals.

They got A&M in an environment when Texas was not possible to get, and Texas is so massive in population, and population that cares about CFB, that it is okay to have two from there.

They don't need (nor do I suspect that they want) redundancy in South Carolina, Florida, Virginia, or North Carolina. So, one school from both Virginia and North Carolina, and if they go to 19 (which probably only happens if B1G goes to 19), what makes sense to me would be Kansas. They'd solidify the SEC as a basketball powerhouse, claim all the most prestigious schools in the southeastern corner of the US map (yes Kansas can fit in that depending on how to grid it out), add some teams that would cushion the elite football teams with easier wins, add a bunch of new fanbases and markets to the media footprint, and keep the fan and athlete travel regional (unlike the mess that is ACC,B10,B12).

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

I don't believe he is a Christian, not even as a Protestant (I doubt any would necessarily claim him), let alone a Catholic. I think he believes in God, nothing too specific, if I had to guess (I could very well be wrong). So, I doubt he cares a whole lot about just war Catholic principles.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

@jstands4D @JaredW67913667 Apparently the cap is less then wanting to put a limitation on themselves and moreso them wanting to prevent the ACC and Big 12 from merging.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

If my parent gave me $300,000, I would invest the entire thing into a mixture of individual stocks (from companies that have had sustained, long-term growth over the past 30+ years) and ETF's. I'd then only sell based on the profits for each month as needed (primarily targeting high interest debt). The money would continue growing and I'd have lots of funds to tap into to help my kids as they start adulthood (with education, their own mortgages, etc.).

How someone can just waste $300,000, let alone so quickly (if what Tom says is true) is incomprehensible to me. That's multi-generationally changing money, if invested and withdrawn wisely.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

It will force PA DEMS to nominate moderates if they want to win state-wide elections, which itself is a win for the GOP. Gov.

Shapiro, while quite liberal on social issues, has lowered corporate net income tax, enhanced tax incentives on manufacturing/energy businesses to attract more jobs, ended PA being in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and swapped for PACER (a less environmentally obsessed solution that also prioritizes job growth), hired more police officers, etc. These are not things a leftist would do.

If PA Dems nominated someone that was more of a traditional liberal for statewide office, with PA shifting further to the right, they'd probably lose at this point. If they primary Fetterman and he loses to a progressive, I fully expect that progressive to lose to the Republican, with the way PA is shifting to the right. The smart play is to keep Fetterman in the Dem party and just accept that he will vote occasionally with the GOP.

[Rumina7ions @Rumina7ions]

@RandyR358 If they get Mizzou and Kansas that would be insane.