RangerM

If you can......, and you do....., I can't say if it separates you from God, because I can't read your mind or see your heart. But, I don't subscribe to the belief that "once saved, always saved", nor do I believe that person has only one chance to be saved. What I do believe is that salvation requires a change of heart. And with that change of heart, I can agree that temptation is no longer the master. Christianity preaches against pride--which could be viewed as unselfishness--however I don't believe it is a contest on who can bow the lowest.

Not sure what to make of that. I'd say sinning in and of itself is wrong, although the act is no more important than what's in the sinner's heart.

I think that might be a difference between the meetings. The gay couple included a personal friend. Áfaik, the Pope didn't know Kim Davis before their meeting. I don't know what the Pope's position is, but I do know he should love all sinners, and not their sins

My emotions don't depend on peoples' acceptance of me. Nor should yours. Nor should a gay couple's. It feels great to be "accepting", but personal feelings don't address whether or not what's being accepted is a positive or a negative for society as a whole. No one.....ever......banned the practice of homosexual pair-bonding. They simply said there would be no equal recognition of gay marriage as (traditional) hetero-marriage. That's not the same thing. I agree it's not a sin to bake a cake. But it is wrong (call it a "sin" if you want) to force somebody else to bake a cake against their will. With regard to "blacks wouldn't be able to eat at the same lunch counter as whites". AFAIK, there was never a law that said a business couldn't be integrated, and gradually people's attitudes changed--accelerated by the horror of blacks' treatment by law enforcement they saw on TV.

We got to the Supreme Court Ruling because the same people who claim to support peoples' rights failed to heed the peoples' collective will. I've deleted the hyperbole from your post. The question of whether or not gay marriage affects me is not the issue. I believe it will negatively affect society because I see it as a blurring of gender boundaries. Legal rights don't change the fact that men and women are different--and they always will be. Just because you say something is (equal), doesn't make it so. Apparently, a willingness to accept a legal recognition, but not full-on equality wasn't good enough. So, I guess gay marriage supporters need to force others to get their mind right; including forcing them to serve in scenarios they find personally objectionable or lose their livelihood. (note: I'm not referring to Kim Davis, because as a public servant she must follow the law. I'm referring to a sole-proprietor who doesn't want to make cakes, provide flowers, or officiate at a gay wedding)

But unless I'm mistaken, the content of your original post presents the Pope's (ie, the Church's) support of Left-leaning policy? I don't care what the lawyer said, because that is deflection. Here's an excerpt from one of your links....... With the Pope’s visit to the United States launching Tuesday, Republicans are lining up to condemn his views on everything from the climate crisis to income inequality and, most recently, confessional forgiveness for women who have abortions. Why? Obviously because the GOP is cherrypicking the religious teachings it prefers. And yet they throw a fit when they’re accused of selective faith — embracing dogma that supports their pet issues while rejecting dogma that contradicts it. The same applies to the Left who is up in arms over Kim Davis' meeting with the Pope. From my standpoint, the attitude of papal support of Left-leaning policy differs from that which isn't--and that is (or certainly smells like) hypocrisy. Gay marriage is something that has been forced (quite suddenly) on a significant population not prepared to accept it, rather than allowing a natural progression of changing attitudes. (which could easily go either way) That may be fine in the eyes of some, but it is viewed as an offense by others.

Here's where I have an issue (not with you). I'm not familiar with the lawyer, but I do question why it took his disclosure to reveal the Pope's (presumed) position. Why keep it out of sight? What is a values' system worth if you won't defend it publicly? That goes for both (political) sides. I may not agree wholly with a certain policy position, but I can respect someone who will defend it and not attempt to obfuscate it with "feel-good" terms and demagoguery.

The company refuses to address important issues around...... 1. safety, I saw the mention of heat stress, but what is being asked of the workers that is objectionable? OSHA covers issues related to safety. Is there an OSHA violation? 2. seniority Is Ford showing favoritism toward lower wage earning workers? My philosophy on seniority is that the most experienced should also be the most productive. 3. manpower Are workers being asked to do too much, or is the UAW trying to increase its numbers?

The Pope meets with Kim Davis, and the Left hates him again. Maybe this means the Sun will return.

What form does this "bad faith" take? The reason I ask is because the statement (by Settles) is vague at best and vacuous at worst.

Referring to it as a marketing.........scheme.......makes it sound like something that's at least misleading, or possibly nefarious. Based on the author's description every trademarked name must a scheme. ("Quattro" anyone?) "Ecoboost" is just a trademark. (I'm assuming Ford trademarked the name, since it would seem foolish if they didn't)

If I were the FCA proletariat I'd be more worried about putting all my eggs in the RAM Trucks basket.

Just an FYI, 500 days was last week (September 26). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QDJb6fF8pg

You have illustrated my (general) distaste for organized religion. True, I consider myself a Christian, but that is not the same thing. Christianity is the religion. Once you've added the "organized" part, it's more about dogma. There are some things open to interpretation--mostly due to vagueness in the Bible. And allegory and metaphor doesn't make it much easier. But, my goal isn't to be on the church's side, but that of the Almighty.

I can't speak to the Pope's attitude toward abortion or gay rights, since I don't know what he said. Those are issues that are universal (ie. not exclusive to Catholics). I have difficulty with the recent softening of attitudes (in the church) toward certain social issues. My view is if God really is the Alpha and Omega, then if it's right now, then it must have been right since the beginning, OR if it was wrong at the beginning, then it hasn't become right.

Thing is, I'd say most (if not all) Catholic Republicans (although I could be wrong, since I'm not Catholic) are left-of-center on a personal basis. The difference comes when...... ....you try to turn it into a political system for everyone. ("you" in the abstract, not you-Len_A)

Apparently, the cars were "smart" enough to monitor wheels moving but steering wheel not moving. The OBD port had nothing to do with it. The lack of steering movement was the trigger for the computer to kick up the emissions controls. http://www.citylab.com/crime/2015/09/the-study-that-brought-down-volkswagen/407149/

The will be additional moneys paid to the (true) victims; which is better than going to the government.

Trump isn't what's wrong with America--he's a symptom of it. His responses to policy questions are every bit as vacuous as those of Obama. He (like Obama) says what people (seem to) want to hear, with the addition of the celebrity factor. But canned phrases and simple ("I'll hire the best people") responses may add fluff, but they add no weight.

I suppose so long as the Pope supports your policy, you love him. Once not, you don't.

Something tells me the Papal policy on Planned Parenthood and fetal tissue distribution won't sit well with the Left, either.

I thought I'd read the OBD was putting out (intentionally) incorrect data, when it detected the test was being conducted; NOT that it was altering the tune of the engine.

The "else" is where Ford seems better to me. I haven't driven a Ford that I'd say I couldn't live with for at least a decade.

I rented a Prius earlier this year. The technology was impressive, but the experience driving it was not at all. It sounded like a tin can when closing the door. I was bathed in road and wind noise when driving on a smooth interstate. And it had the acceleration of a diesel Chevrolet Chevette. If you were blindfolded (and old enough to remember what they were like), I can't help but think you'd believe you stepped back in time and were riding in an '80s econobox. Aside from the "look at me" factor and the decent MPG, does anyone sincerely like driving/riding in a Prius? I once called the Yaris a P.O.S. based on the way it drove. The Prius is only different in that it's slightly larger. Maybe I'm just old, but I know life is too short to live with a Prius.

The decision to consolidate the wireless operations with the other wired(?) operations was probably not made overnight--more likely years ago. Many of the traditional phone companies have been losing money the last few years. Verizon (not wireless), formerly known as "Bell Atlantic", is probably no different. My local phone company, Southern Bell (along with its cellular division, Cingular), was rolled into AT&T years ago. Can't speak of bad faith, except to say that businesses rely on share value to maintain operations, and if equity (total share value) goes down the cost of operations/financing goes up.