I do not understand the idea that things can be “intrinsically” good or bad. I don't take that goodness or badness are properties of actions or entities such that they are intrinsic to them. I take them to be assigned to actions or entities in virtue of some agential evaluation.

My friend asked “Are fans turning on Joe Burrow? … because we would’ve a long time ago” 😆 Look — obviously Cincy loves Joe. He is an OH kid who took us to a SB what feels like forever ago. That generates enough goodwill to last a lifetime even in southern OH. I think people are more fed up with the culture and the underachieving that has led to 3 consecutive years of not making the playoffs after for a brief moment in time it looked like they’d be a perennial powerhouse with Burrow.

Legit question.

Who do you think wrote Hebrews? I'm reading through it with my daughters while simultaneously studying 1 Corinthians on Wednesday nights, and ... I gotta say, Hebrews does not read like Paul's voice to me.

My Wife: The Bengals are 2-2, how could you possibly think they're going to the SuperBowl? Me:

The historical evidence presents a very different picture. According to the ancient testimony, Mark was writing a concise Gospel based on Peter's preaching for a Roman audience. He was not attempting to write a theological treatise or a comprehensive biography. His purpose was different. If Mark is abbreviating material he received through Peter's preaching, then a rougher style, shorter narratives, fewer discourses, and a fast-paced structure are exactly what we would expect. Those features do not prove Mark was earlier; they are equally compatible with a deliberate summary aimed at a specific audience. Matthew and Luke may have been circulating for years, or even decades, before Mark wrote. In that case, Mark had no reason to repeat infancy narratives, long teaching discourses, or other material already available in the churches. His focus was on preserving Peter's testimony, especially the deeds and public ministry of Jesus for Roman Christians. Furthermore, the external evidence overwhelmingly points toward Matthean priority. Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, the Anti-Marcionite Prologues, the Muratorian Canon, and other early witnesses consistently place Matthew before Mark. The burden of proof lies on those who reject this testimony, not on those who accept it. The internal evidence also fits an early date for Matthew. Matthew is clearly directed toward a predominantly Jewish-Christian audience. It assumes detailed familiarity with Jewish customs, constant engagement with the Hebrew Scriptures, concern for fulfillment of prophecy, and a Temple-centered world in which the Temple tax and Jewish institutions remain fully operative. These features fit naturally within the earliest period of Christianity, before the destruction of the Temple. In short, many arguments for Markan priority seem persuasive only if Markan priority is assumed from the outset. The same evidence can be explained just as well, and arguably more consistently, by the traditional view that Matthew was written first and that Mark later produced a shorter Petrine Gospel for the Roman church.

A photographer captured a family of owls and accidentally ended up with the perfect cover for a music album.

New premium seating option lets you sit next to Israelis for extra security

A look at the matchup Sunday vs Jag predictions:

Candace Owens vs. the English language: 21 botched sayings.

This would've won the Rams the game if the correct call was made, absolute pure unfiltered bullshit from the zebras

The most privileged person in existence cosplaying like he has skin in the game.

Right now I have them more at like 14-3. Could they Bungle it and end up at 12-5 or worse, definitely. But as far as I can tell right now, this is a well rounded and very good team and, as it currently stands, they have the easiest schedule in the NFL.