FJK

I imagine they're afraid that Hamas is actually going to be defeated, and the United States is also afraid of this but doesn't want to go on record of actually supporting this anti Israel resolution so it just abstained hoping it wouldn't be seen as actually in support of it. Or maybe I'm wrong and there's some entirely different reasoning behind it.

So far as I know, an actual egg cell form the same species female would be required to do this. It would involve removing the nucleus from the egg cell the somehow creating a donor cell nucleus by combining the DNA of the two different donor cells to make a new combined DNA nucleus that wold function as if it came from a single donor cell then injecting it into the empty egg cell, activating it so that it starts forming an embryo, then implanting it into a woman to bring it to term. This would result in a child that was a sort of artificial clone of both original donors combined into a single donor to produce a new body that was somehow representative of both in a single body. We don't have the technology to do that and it isn't something that could ever be done and still produce a child that was actually fully human. As far as I can understand it anyway. The days of Noah are coming upon us at an ever increasing rate.

Jesus said we can do all of the things he did and even more, yet we don't. Maybe this is why.

If he wants his campaign to take off like a rocket he should probably choose Elon Musk. FWIW, the under 35 and independents are usually dominated by Democrat voters so I would expect this to take away from Biden's vote, expect the Democrats to do something hysterical if they see this happening to get him out of the running if he can (that would divide their efforts into opposing both RFK and Trump instead of being able to concentrate on Trump alone). In any event, RFK is just another political insider and will act as one if elected, that means we'll keep doing what we have been that got us into our current state of affairs and will keep going the same direction we are now with the only difference being who gets to lead us while we do (IMO, subject to change). If anyone thinks he is actually different I would like to know why they do from his political record to date, I'm not of an opinion that people, particularly politicians, are subject to any radical departures from their history. Also FWIW, I think we are on the edge of several game changing events worldwide so I'm still unsure what the final theme of this elections will be if we go over that edge on any of them.

It is said that peace is what is left when all of your enemies are dead. Anything else is just the planning stage fof the next war.

It was Obama that officially announced this when he said the America was no longer just a Christian nation. WE can look around us at our country today and compare it to what it was in the past and understand the result of this, some would consider it to be a negative one, others positive. As Joshua said ""But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living ................"

It's a bit unusual to hear about something like this.

Things could end up getting seriously interesting soon.

This elevates the Houthi's to the status of being a major player on the world political, economic and military scene. How is it that they have been allowed to reach that status and who allowed it?

This could mean they expect that the US wont or won't be able to respond to their invasion in any meaningful manner. Who do they support in the upcoming elections?

I've been sort of mediating some on Isaiah 5:20 (NIV), "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." I wonder how it comes to mind when this is being brought up for discussion. And I wonder how many in the American populace would ever consider such things when looking at our leaders and that it can apply collectively to an entire nation as well as the individuals within it. But maybe I'm just drifting out into left field here and this is nothing to be considered at all.

You realize that I'll still have 50 years more experience at life than you do 50 years from now? But I'll make a note of and get in touch with you if Worthy and the internet as we know it is still around then. Have fun while you're young, plenty of time to get serious about things when you're old since it ain't fun no more when you get there.

Does anyone out there actually believe that we live in any kind of sane and sustainable society?

I'm a man, and I identify as one as well. As for the difference in thinking in different periods of life, you'll understand when you get there (I know, I didn't believe that either till it happened). There are some things you just can't fully understand till you've seen them develop over a long period of time, human nature being among them.

I think it would be good to develop a common understanding of "Liberal" at this point. Would help in making a more coherent discussion.

I wonder if you'll say that in 50 or so years, there are different purposed too different stages of life. FWIW, one of my morning thoughts about it is that when you are young your purpose is to populate and when you are old it is to understand. But I didn't understand that till I got quite old, seems that you have to see both ends of life to know the fullness of it and how to use each segment of it. BTW, happy birthday, may it be your best ever.

It's Australia's fault.

I think maybe it would be good to look at each and decide for ourselves which is hostile to the practice of God's word and the practice of Christianity and which is not. Which will force us to violate our religious beliefs and which will not, and to what degree will each do it? Biden is a self confessed devout Catholic and the Pope has approved of him as such, so where would we put Trump?

As you grow older you may find yourself changing your position on this. But let me ask a simple question that might serve to illustrate what I'm saying here (don't take this as a hostile question, my naturally mean and nasty personality occasionally causes me to sound that way when it is not my intent): Would you be comfortable with naked men pretending to be women sharing the showers and other facilities in your dressing and locker rooms as you pursue your career? Because that sort of thing is what I'm referring to when I speak of other forcing violation of my values by legally forcing me to accept that situation in spite o believing it is morally and spiritually wrong to do so. Give that some consideration, maybe you'll find yourself agreeing with me or not but it should help you understand where I'm coming from. I wish happiness on your day, may you be a blessing on all you meet.

Oh, you wouldn't believe how wide my "social circle" is. I respect your stand on your values, but I look at things a little differently and at how the candidate will affect my ability to practice my own values in my own life (how other people live is none of my business as long as they keep it to themselves and don't try to force it on me in which case it becomes my business), but I will say that I have one uncompromising value that stands above all others, I will not vote for anyone that takes a stand in favor of abortion. Almost everything else I can see in terms of different degrees of evil compared to one another -the lesser of evils thing- but not on abortion: I will not compromise on that.

I don't see that as being inconsistent with what I said.

In all my years of life, that is not something I have found true. And I've known very many people of all sorts ah=nd types fropm all walks of life. My observation is that some people are reasonable but most are not, with their self identities tied up with all sorts of things they think come from within themselves but actually have never done any deep self examination to find out it that is true or not. Socrates once said "The unexamined life is not worth living" but I say that the unexamined life is actually one being lived by others instead of itself.

Couldn't that also be equally said of almost everyone on every side of every issue, both political and otherwise? FWIW, there's a lot of both social and psychological cognitive functions in play here, very few of us actually understand why we are the way we are which is why we have sociologists, psychologists and psychiatrists.

You realize that your argument here would seem to be a semantic one rather than either a scientific or Biblical one?

Some of what we call mythology may not actually be mythology.