RT

@XCkyro Luther was ‘Catholic.’ ‘Catholic’ can be found nowhere in Scripture. ‘Catholic’ was the first denomination. ‘Protestant’ is just a derivative of the first.

I wonder why there are 44,000 denominations and counting? 🧐

Crack spreads (refining margins) won’t go any higher than where we are today. The shortage is in crude so refinery margins will be capped unlike 2022 when most of the upside was eaten by refined products. From now, I expect ebbs and flow. Refining margins allow a $25+ move in crude. Once we get there, we need to see if refining margins can recover at those prices, if so, that means end user demand can handle higher prices. This will rinse and repeat as we drawdown storage.

Very good. Demand destruction hasn’t even started and has to accelerate quickly

Who’s the most righteous human you know? It’s Mary. There are many who would qualify (cf. Hebrews 11).

@neopalloki @CorgiSquirrel @BreeSolstad “The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” - James 5:16 Who’s the most righteous human you know? It’s Mary. But we also pray to other Saints to pray for us.

I pray to Mary everyday. Please stop pretending like we don’t pray to her and all the Saints. It is proper and just.

Elijah was a human being, even as we are. He prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the land for three and a half years. Again he prayed, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth produced its crops (James 5:17-18) So, was Elijah praying to Mary? Context matters.

@CorgiSquirrel @BreeSolstad x.com/servantsavio/s…

Petros is used throughout the NT to reference Peter, the man. Yes that’s because Jesus changed his name when He gave him his new divine mission. Yes, He changed his name to Cephas, which is also masculine. So, neither Petros nor Cephas fits your argument. Why do you continue to repeat the same mistake? His mission was to take the Gospel to the Jews and Gentiles, as noted in Acts 2 and Acts 15. You are trying to impute something into Scripture that is not there. Simple as that. The fact that Jesus changed his name makes no difference. Jesus renamed James and John the "Sons of Thunder " (Mark 3:17). Who knows, He may have done it for other too. The text is clear and plain as I have made it. If it’s so clear why do we disagree? Because you clearly put your man made traditions ahead of a plain reading of the Scriptures. Not hard to see. Nowhere is a ‘pope’ mentioned. Sure. The term pope isn’t in the Bible. But a clear leader of the Church absolutely is. Again, your opinion does not make Scripture. Your opinion does not matter. "A clear leader" is given nowhere in Scripture. All the Apostles had equal authority (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11; Luke 22:25-26). Similarly the terms Trinity and Christianity aren’t in the Bible. I guess that means you need to deny their existence too. More evidence of a "Catholics" inability to reason. Jesus is God (John 1:1 ff); the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:1 ff); God is God is axiomatic. Nowhere, as you admit, do we have 'pope' defined. Nowhere in Scripture is Peter called the Supreme leader or is such implied anywhere. So, yes, the "Trinity" as commonly defined is in Scripture. Your 'pope,' as you admit, is not. Facts are stubborn things. Actually, Paul shows that have equal authority (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11) Is this a joke? Paul is talking about false teachers and sardonically referring to them as “super-apostles.” Literally the verse prior, 11:4, he’s telling them to not be deceived by these false teachers. How did you arrive at this exegesis? Well, that would apply to someone claiming an office, such as 'pope' that, as you admit, is not given nor defined in Scripture. Once again, in your throw spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks in your attempt to defend your man made traditions. In 11:2, Paul writes "I am jealous for you with a godly jealously." The "you" in this verse is not a false teacher. In the next few verses, Paul continue with what he is concerned about/what he fears. In v4 he speaks of those who would preach a different Gospel than what he is teaching and then in v5 ff he goes on to explain why his message is superior; that he is an Apostle and has authority. He does something very similar in Galatians 1. Paul goes on and explains in detail in 2C12:12: "I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including signs, wonders and miracles." Why repeat if he was just just being sardonic? Your interpretation makes no sense. Additionally, there is Luke 22:25-26, which pretty much puts the argument to rest. It couldn’t have been by reading the Bible in context. We’ve already demonstrated you don’t know how to do that. You have been shown to be wrong on this point here and, prior, and below. Your opinion does not matter Okay so no refutation of anything I said there, got it. I could say the same thing to you. Doesn’t really accomplish much. Yeah, pretty much everything you stated. Glad we could move forward on all that point. Jesus blessed more than one before he ascended Correct. His blessing of Peter does not on its own carry the entirety of what I said. Once again, context is needed. You didn’t address any of the additional statements I made. There was no need to. You claim was shown to be false, as you essentially admit. You said previously the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible. We agree on that. Don’t you think that the Sacred Scriptures contain more than surface level information? What more is needed? Again, you are arguing not from Scripture but from you own resources. Good grief. We have been given all that we need for the purpose of Salvation. How many more examples of miracles, baptisms, etc. do you people need? You are just like the Pharisees, always looking for another sign. Surely you don’t think it’s simply a history book that documented events and nothing more. Surely it is divinely inspired, and full of truths both evident and mysterious. Explained above. You are not inspired. Your 'pope' is not inspired. You do not get to add to God's word just because you find the Scriptures inconvenient. Jesus gave Peter the job of taking the Gospel to the Gentiles So we agree Jesus appointed Peter to a unique divine mission. This doesn’t take away from the special authority given to Peter – it reinforces it. Again, it does not reinforce any "special authority" as defined by "Catholics." Other Apostles were given divine missions. One could easily argue Stephen for example. Jesus specifically chose Paul in a unique way and gave him his mission. Again, your opinion imputation does not make Scripture. The Scripture you reference demonstrates that it is Peter who leads the early Church after Christ’s ascension. This entirely aligns with everything I’ve said. Again, false. Peter lead no more than any other Apostle. In fact, Paul had to call Peter out at one point because he was going against God's teaching (cf. Galatians 2:11 ff). If anyone, it should be Paul as the first 'pope,' but Paul would have rejected that out of hand (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:5 as cited earlier). The singular Key of David in Isaiah and Revelation refers specifically to Christ's own sovereign authority – the master key, if you will. It is the key that belongs to the King Himself. It is absolute, divine, and non-transferable in its fullness. The distinction is made nowhere in Scripture. This is made up opinion. There is no discussion anywhere in Scripture of a "master key." The plural keys given to Peter represent the scope and range of delegated authority over the Kingdom household. In ancient royal households, the steward didn't carry just one key. He carried a ring of keys with access to every room, every treasury, every gate of the king's house. Again, more made up opinion. That is the image behind Matthew 16:19. Peter isn't given one narrow jurisdiction. He is given comprehensive governing authority over the entire royal household of the Church, which Jesus refers to as His Kingdom. Again, false. Jesus gave the same "comprehensive governing authority" to all His disciples in Matthew 18:18. Goodness. Additionally, M16:19 reads: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven Jesus clearly states that what the Apostles bind on earth will already have been bound in heaven. This shows that what the Apostles taught was determined by God beforehand. They introduced nothing on their own. The binding and loosing confirms this. Binding and loosing is Rabbinic legal language for declaring things permitted or forbidden – doctrinal and juridical authority (also known as Halakha). This is not one narrow function. It covers the entire range of governance over the life of the Church. Repeating the same mistake from above. Again, the "binding and loosing" was given to all His disciples (please read Matthew 18:18). The plural keys and the binding/loosing power are saying the same thing from two different angles: Peter's authority is comprehensive. False and has been shown to be false. The "binding and loosening" was comprehensive. There was/is no connection between your citation of Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16:18. Isaiah and Matthew are speaking of two different things. Context matters. Thus, in conclusion, your entire narrative has been shown to be false, as you essentially admit.

Petros is used throughout the NT to reference Peter, the man. Yes that’s because Jesus changed his name when He gave him his new divine mission. The text is clear and plain as I have made it. If it’s so clear why do we disagree? Nowhere is a ‘pope’ mentioned. Sure. The term pope isn’t in the Bible. But a clear leader of the Church absolutely is. Similarly the terms Trinity and Christianity aren’t in the Bible. I guess that means you need to deny their existence too. Actually, Paul shows that have equal authority (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11) Is this a joke? Paul is talking about false teachers and sardonically referring to them as “super-apostles.” Literally the verse prior, 11:4, he’s telling them to not be deceived by these false teachers. How did you arrive at this exegesis? It couldn’t have been by reading the Bible in context. We’ve already demonstrated you don’t know how to do that. Your opinion does not matter Okay so no refutation of anything I said there, got it. I could say the same thing to you. Doesn’t really accomplish much. Jesus blessed more than one before he ascended Correct. His blessing of Peter does not on its own carry the entirety of what I said. Once again, context is needed. You didn’t address any of the additional statements I made. You said previously the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible. We agree on that. Don’t you think that the Sacred Scriptures contain more than surface level information? Surely you don’t think it’s simply a history book that documented events and nothing more. Surely it is divinely inspired, and full of truths both evident and mysterious. Jesus gave Peter the job of taking the Gospel to the Gentiles So we agree Jesus appointed Peter to a unique divine mission. This doesn’t take away from the special authority given to Peter – it reinforces it. The Scripture you reference demonstrates that it is Peter who leads the early Church after Christ’s ascension. This entirely aligns with everything I’ve said. It says “key” not “keys” I was hoping you’d bring up this distinction. It’s actually extremely rich and even further reinforces the theological weight of Christ’s words to Peter. The singular Key of David in Isaiah and Revelation refers specifically to Christ's own sovereign authority – the master key, if you will. It is the key that belongs to the King Himself. It is absolute, divine, and non-transferable in its fullness. The plural keys given to Peter represent the scope and range of delegated authority over the Kingdom household. In ancient royal households, the steward didn't carry just one key. He carried a ring of keys with access to every room, every treasury, every gate of the king's house. That is the image behind Matthew 16:19. Peter isn't given one narrow jurisdiction. He is given comprehensive governing authority over the entire royal household of the Church, which Jesus refers to as His Kingdom. Think of it this way: • The King holds the master key – ultimate authority over the entire Kingdom. • The chief steward is given the keys – delegated authority covering the full range of the household's affairs. Jewish tradition actually speaks of keys in the plural when referring to God's authority over creation (keys of rain, birth, resurrection, etc). When Christ gives Peter the keys (plural), a Jewish audience would have immediately understood this as granting broad, comprehensive divine authority – not a single, limited function. The binding and loosing confirms this. Binding and loosing is Rabbinic legal language for declaring things permitted or forbidden – doctrinal and juridical authority (also known as Halakha). This is not one narrow function. It covers the entire range of governance over the life of the Church. The plural keys and the binding/loosing power are saying the same thing from two different angles: Peter's authority is comprehensive.

Catholicism isn’t a “denomination.” It’s the original, universal Church Denominations are a man-made Protestant thing. There are thousands of them Be the original kind of Christian. Be Catholic

China, the US, Japan, and Europe have a combined strategic oil reserve of 855 million barrels, but Goldman Sachs projections show the world will be short 1.6 billion barrels. There is no way for the US and Europe to keep oil prices suppressed for very much longer. Full report: peakprosperity.pulse.ly/eaewk7jhqh

This could be the most important chart right now. The days-on-hand inventory of commercial crude oil is plunging past minimum operational levels. The last time we saw anything approaching these conditions was 2008, when oil spiked to $147, which is $220 in today's dollar value. Full report: peakprosperity.pulse.ly/5007zyftud

A Stanford lecture just exposed where the ~$650B AI data center spend is actually going and who is quietly capturing the upside They explain why the entire bottleneck has shifted from GPUs to power and what comes next This is a MUST watch for investors:

@MJKelleyII There is not office of 'priest' given in the New Testament church, similar to the office of elder. Not sure how else to state this.

We are all priest and kings! ~ Peter

I don’t know how many times this has to be explained. Petra is a feminine word. The word was inflected to Petros to form a masculine name, because a man could not have a feminine name. That’s just how Greek grammar works. No amount of semantics changes this simple fact. This is your opinion and false on its face. Petros is used throughout the NT to reference Peter, the man. Petra is never used in the NT in the manner you claim. You just ignore that fact, but hey, you are "Catholic." You are going to great lengths to explain an eisegesis that you are forcing into the text. I have forced nothing. The text is clear and as plain as I have made it. The Early Church was in full agreement that this verse is a foundational text for the Church. Again, false. What you claim can be found nowhere in Scripture. Nowhere is a 'pope' mentioned. Nowhere is Peter set above any other Apostles. Actually, Paul shows that are have equal authority (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Your eisegesis would also strip the statements Jesus makes in verses 17 and 19 of their meaning. No. It strips those verses of your abused interpretation. Every time someone is renamed in Scripture, it is because they are given a new mission, and their life has taken on a new meaning. But Peter is evidently renamed for no particular reason that you can discern, because you must find an explanation for why he couldn’t possibly have been given any sort of position of primacy amongst the Apostles. Your opinion does not matter. Jesus’s blessing to Peter (16:17) demonstrates that he is the chief patriarch of the New Covenant by echoing language God spoke to Abraham. Again, opinion statement presented to support an unsubstantiated claim. But hey, you are "Catholic." Jesus blessed more than one before He ascended (cf. Luke 24:50). The next part in Mt 16:19 further confirms the Trinity’s selection of Peter and his elevation to leadership of the Church, Again, false. M16:19. Jesus gave Peter the job of taking the Gospel to the Gentiles. This is recorded in Acts 2 and Peter admits as much in Acts 15. This was not what you claim. It says nothing about him becoming a 'pope' or supreme leader or whatever. when Jesus clearly invokes the language of Isaiah 22:19-22. The passage concerns the Asher al Habayit, which is the second-in-command of the Kingdom of David, who wields the authority of the king when the king is away. Another example of why one should always check any verse that a "Catholic" quotes. Note in Isaiah 22:22: 22“Then I will set the key of the house of David on his shoulder,          When he opens no one will shut,          When he shuts no one will open. It states "key," not "keys." The "key" of David is mentioned in Revelation, specifically Revelation 3:7. Note what the verse states: Write this letter to the angel of the church in Philadelphia. This is the message from the one who is holy and true, the one who has the key of David. What he opens, no one can close; and what he closes, no one can open: This is a clear reference to Christ (cf. Revelation 3:8). He has the key of David. He opens and closes and what He opens and closes, no one else can open or close. This verse makes the "Catholic" use of Isaiah 22 clearly as well as Matthew 16:19 wrong if not deceptive. Everything this poster posts is just opinion clap that has been refuted time and time again. The most logically consistent reading of Matthew 16:18, in full context, is that Jesus renames Peter for a new and divine purpose and elevates his position. To deny this on the basis of grammatical particulars is nonsensical and a huge logical leap, at best – and a dishonest anti-Catholic reinterpretation at worst. False. See above. You cannot read Matthew 16:18 alone to get the "full context."

I don’t know how many times this has to be explained. Petra is a feminine word. The word was inflected to Petros to form a masculine name, because a man could not have a feminine name. That’s just how Greek grammar works. No amount of semantics changes this simple fact. You are going to great lengths to explain an eisegesis that you are forcing into the text. The Early Church was in full agreement that this verse is a foundational text for the Church. Your eisegesis would also strip the statements Jesus makes in verses 17 and 19 of their meaning. Every time someone is renamed in Scripture, it is because they are given a new mission, and their life has taken on a new meaning. But Peter is evidently renamed for no particular reason that you can discern, because you must find an explanation for why he couldn’t possibly have been given any sort of position of primacy amongst the Apostles. Jesus’s blessing to Peter (16:17) demonstrates that he is the chief patriarch of the New Covenant by echoing language God spoke to Abraham. 1) Both are blessed by God (Gen 14:19); 2) both respond with heroic faith (Heb 11:8); 3) both receive a divine mission (Gen 12:1-3); 4) both have their names changed (Gen 17:5); 5) both are called a “rock” (Is 51:1-2); 6) both are assured a victory over the “gate” of their enemies (Gen 22:17) Furthermore, Peter’s father was named John – but Jesus refers to him as “Simon son of Jonah.” Did Jesus make a mistake? Of course not. It is a reference to Jesus’ role as a new Jonah (Mt 12:39-41, 16:4) and He views Peter as His spiritual son. Since the Hebrew name Jonah means “dove,” Jesus is also be pointing to the relationship between Peter and the Holy Spirit – the same Spirit who confirmed Jesus’ Sonship in the form of a dove (Mt 3:16) now inspires Peter’s confession. Which gives context to Jesus’ following statement that “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” In total, we see the entire Trinity invoked in this passage: Jesus claims Peter as His spiritual son, invokes the Holy Spirit’s selection of Peter, and the Father’s revelation to Peter. The best way to understand Scripture is to read it in its full context. This is why the pun of Jesus referring to Peter as a rock and then saying “on this rock I will build my Church” is a foundational text – not because it stands alone, but because it is supported by the entirety of Scripture. The next part in Mt 16:19 further confirms the Trinity’s selection of Peter and his elevation to leadership of the Church, when Jesus clearly invokes the language of Isaiah 22:19-22. The passage concerns the Asher al Habayit, which is the second-in-command of the Kingdom of David, who wields the authority of the king when the king is away. “I will thrust you from your office… I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the House of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; he shall shut and none shall open.” It is not a coincidence that Jesus uses similar language in Mt 16:19; He knows Scripture better than anyone – He is the Word of God incarnate. The obvious connection is the key(s) of the kingdom, and “bind and loose” vs “open and shut.” This is clearly a transmissible office Jesus is instituting, and with kingly authority (though the officeholder is not himself a king). Jesus is the Davidic King of the New Israel, and the Old Testament kingdom prefigures the New. The most logically consistent reading of Matthew 16:18, in full context, is that Jesus renames Peter for a new and divine purpose and elevates his position. To deny this on the basis of grammatical particulars is nonsensical and a huge logical leap, at best – and a dishonest anti-Catholic reinterpretation at worst.

Except when Jesus gives Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and promises him “whatever you (Peter) bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven” etc You should read on in Matthew. In Matthew 18:18, He tells all of His disciples the same thing. Consistency is not a "thing" w/ "Catholics" now is it? 🤦🏼‍♀️y’all skip over that one and the one that says “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood-you have no life within you”….pick & choose Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. What a joke. See above. Yeah, you just skipped right over John 6:63 where Jesus explains exactly what the prior verses meant.

@CorgiSquirrel @HoldenCCole Except when Jesus gives Peter the Keys to the Kingdom and promises him “whatever you (Peter) bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven” etc 🤦🏼‍♀️y’all skip over that one and the one that says “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood-you have no life within you”….pick & choose 🤷🏼‍♀️

The Pope is the leader of ALL Christians.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church’ Not even sure what your point is but hey you are "Catholic." Peter is "Petros" in the Greek in Matthew 16:18. The 'rock" is "petra." Two different words w/ two different meanings.

@CorgiSquirrel @SubprimeBort @sola_chad Peter wasn’t even his name. Thats what Jesus called him. Seems like he did that to drive a point home, no? Peter/Petros. “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church’

Catholics looking for verses that mention a pope.

I agree Acts 15 isn’t adding new doctrine—that’s not my claim. The question is authority: the letter says, ‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us… to lay on you no greater burden,’ and it’s sent for observance across multiple churches. Please state the verse. Sorry, but "Catholics" are not known for their consistency when it comes to text. Who were leading this? The Apostles. Who were inspired? The Apostles. Who had been given authority? The Apostles. Who had authority with regard to doctrine? The Apostles. However, there are no more Apostles (cf. Acts 1:20-22). Once the faith was delivered (Jude 1:3; Galatians 1:9), there would no longer be a need for Apostles. Thus, we are left with elders to lead the individual congregations, as designated in the Scriptures quoted prior. Acts 15 shows a clear trend toward said structure. If churches are fully autonomous, how do you account for a binding ruling addressed beyond one congregation? Goodness. How many times do I have to write the same thing? You are so stuck on your man made tradition that you cannot even reason. The Letter contains nothing, as you admit, that was new. There was no new doctrine "to bind" anyone. Your claim is false on its face. And in Mt 16, Petros/petra is a name–noun pairing; grammatical form (including gender) doesn’t force two different referents—the sentence itself links them. It does. Your continued use of rhetorical word play does not change the fact that the reference in the Greek is to two different things: One is to Peter (Petros, Cephas) and the other is Christ's church. The context is clear if you bothered to include prior verses. But hey, you are "Catholic."

I agree Acts 15 isn’t adding new doctrine—that’s not my claim. The question is authority: the letter says, ‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us… to lay on you no greater burden,’ and it’s sent for observance across multiple churches. If churches are fully autonomous, how do you account for a binding ruling addressed beyond one congregation? And in Mt 16, Petros/petra is a name–noun pairing; grammatical form (including gender) doesn’t force two different referents—the sentence itself links them.

@CSW_Hoosier There is no office of ‘priest’ given for the New Testament church. So there is that.

Jesus didn’t ordain women. Therefore His Church has no authority to do so. Case closed. No Catholic who actually understands Church doctrine regarding the priesthood desires women priests. In fact we reject it outright and will never permit it.

Rick Rule & Mike Rothman Warn Oil Could Hit $200 Faster Than Anyone Expects 👉 Watch the Full Episode: youtu.be/QcyP1m-gjpE  📩 Mike Roth Email: sales@cornerstoneanalytics.com  📩 Rick Rule: ruleinvestmentmedia.com  Rick Rule, one of the most respected natural resource investors of the past 50 years, and Mike Rothman, founder of Cornerstone Analytics and a veteran energy market analyst. Recording Date 4-28-2026. In this episode, Rick and Mike into a bold and controversial thesis that the world is not facing an oil glut but a structural supply crisis. Mike brings decades of experience studying oil supply, demand, and geopolitics, while Rick offers a capital allocator’s perspective shaped by cycles across mining, energy, and commodities. Together, they explore whether the world is on the brink of a major energy bull market. The conversation challenges mainstream narratives around oversupply and instead presents a case for a tightening market. From flawed demand forecasts to declining investment, the episode sets the stage for a potentially explosive shift in energy prices. Key Insights in this episode ✅ Global oil demand continues to rise despite higher prices, defying traditional economic theory ✅ Underinvestment of over 3.6 trillion dollars has structurally reduced future oil supply ✅ Non OPEC production growth is slowing while shale output faces steep decline rates ✅ Inventory drawdowns contradict the widespread belief in a global oil glut ✅ Geopolitical disruptions have removed over 10 million barrels per day from supply ✅ Energy equities are still in the middle phase of a multi year secular bull market

@ShamelessPopery In the New Testament, a bishop and Presbyterian are the same office.

I admittedly haven't followed all of the latest round of this fight, but it seems like Catholics and Protestants are arguing about whether there's a valid argument from silence to be drawn from the fact that St. Ignatius doesn't mention a bishop in Rome in his letter. Arguments from silence CAN be valid, but they're often not. In this case, let's spell out the argument from Ignatian silence to see just how strong or weak it is. 1. Ignatius writes 6 letters to people and churches that he knows personally, all in Asia Minor, where he's recently been. In each of these, he greets or references their three-tiered hierarchy, and reminds the laity to obey their bishop, presbyters, and deacons. 2. Over the course of these letters, he makes clear that to be a Church it is necessary to have this three-tiered hierarchy. 3. In his letter to Rome, he's greeting a church he doesn't know personally, and rather than giving them parting instructions, he is writing them a deeply-personal letter about his own upcoming martyrdom. 4. In the letter, he not only greets them as a Church, but the presiding Church. 5. Nevertheless, he doesn't greet any of these strangers by name - there's no reference to their bishop or presbyters or deacons. 6. He DOES however, refer to the monepiscopacy twice, in refering to himself as the sole bishop of Syria. From this, we're meant to conclude that... the Romans had presbyters and deacons, but not a bishop?

Incredible EIA numbers > 4% of US diesel inventories gone in a single week A nearly 3% drawdown in gasoline inventories and summer driving season hasn't even started yet Nearly 2% of US strategic reserve drawn down in one week

@garrettham_esq It is a fact. I suggest you read 2 Peter.

Protestantism's deepest assumption is that Christianity went wrong almost immediately and stayed wrong for 1,500 years. That's not a small claim. It's the entire premise of the movement.