SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California state lawmakers have passed legislation that would ban most law enforcement officers from covering their faces while carrying out operations, a response to recent immigration raids in Los Angeles.

But even if the governor signs the measure into law, it’s unclear whether the state could enforce it on the federal agents who have been carrying out those raids.

It makes exceptions for undercover agents, medical masks such as N95 respirators or tactical gear.


Seems like this bill is more of a "showing off" bill than anything that could be practically enforced.

1) The jurisdiction and enforcement question the AP is posing is a valid question
2) If they're making an exception for "medical masks" or "tactical gear", that plus a pair of sunglasses still effectively conceals the identity
3) Couldn't this just incentivize the agency to do more things under the pretext of "undercover operations", which from my understanding, was one of the concerns people had (agents not being "clearly marked enough as agents" taking custody of people)


Seems to me that this is, at best, an impractical pandering ploy, and at worst, a ploy to pander to people who want to doxx agents.

The following text is an attempt to explain what intelligence is, based on the first absolute law of logic. The extension of this law logically establishes the existence of God, as only intelligence can create intelligence. Will the promotion of this law help to strengthen the faith of those who believe in God, but also positively concern those who do not?


The Absolute Laws of Intelligence and the New Ethical Framework
Introduction – The Problem of Defining Intelligence
From antiquity to the era of Artificial Intelligence, the concept of intelligence remains one of the most complex, debated, and misunderstood issues in philosophy, biology, computer science, and ethics. Despite countless efforts, a universal, precise, and indisputable definition of what intelligence is has not been achieved.

The reason is fundamental: intelligence, as a concept, presupposes the very capacity for understanding—thus, any attempt to define it inevitably relies on this. This creates a conceptual paradox:

How can something define itself, without falling into circular logic or arbitrary assumptions?

The answer is not found in descriptions or comparative definitions ("man is more intelligent than an animal," "AI mimics intelligence," "consciousness is a prerequisite"), but in a universal logical foundation that cannot be refuted.

Intelligence must be defined:

Not as a property of a specific species (like humans).
Nor as a set of functions (like problem-solving or learning).
But as a primary capacity: the necessary basis for any mental or cognitive function.
This gives rise to the need for Absolute Logical Laws that do not depend on cultural or technological contexts, do not presuppose empirical observation or statistical induction, but are based on the very logical impossibility of being questioned without being confirmed.

This is the gap that the First Absolute Law of Logic comes to fill, offering for the first time a universally valid definition of intelligence that can be applied to every form: biological, artificial, evolutionary, or collective, and which is automatically validated through the very attempt to understand it. From this, the Second Absolute Law of Logic derives, which establishes who (or what) can create intelligence.

Together, the two laws are not merely conceptual tools. They constitute a new Logical Framework of Intelligence, essential for understanding ourselves, the technology we create, and the ethical choices that arise from it.

The purpose of this work is to present, document, and establish these laws as the foundation of any future discussion about intelligence.

Methodological Statement
What follows is not a personal opinion, metaphysical belief, or theoretical preference. It is the result of logical analysis and the application of strictly defined principles:

Every concept is explicitly defined (e.g., intelligence, consciousness).
The logical consequences of these definitions are followed without exception.
The system operates axiomatically, like a mathematical model.
➤ What emerges is not "correct" because we like it. It is necessary because it is logically inevitable.

The First Absolute Law of Logic
The basic concept of Intelligence that decodes all human concepts

Definition:
Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize that information into knowledge, and, with that knowledge, to act.

It is the First Absolute Law of Logic because it defines, in a concise and indisputable way, what intelligence is. It is called "absolute" because it is self-validating (the attempt to deny it confirms it) and it is first because every concept depends on the existence of intelligence to be formulated.

Proof:
Anyone who attempts to dispute this definition: first perceives the information of the definition, organizes it into knowledge to understand it, and finally acts by voicing the dispute. Therefore, they use the exact three elements, Perception > Knowledge > Action, that the Law defines as the mechanism of intelligence.

Consequently, the very act of disputing it confirms it.

The Paradox of Self-Reference
The law is self-referential: to deny it, you must use it.

Example: If you say "This law is wrong," then: You perceive the law (information). You organize your criticism (knowledge). You act by voicing your denial. Therefore, you use intelligence to deny the definition of intelligence — and thus you confirm it.

Note:
The Law does not make a qualitative distinction of intelligence; that is, it does not determine if something is intelligent or how intelligent it is, but rather what intelligence is. To prove if something is intelligent or somehow exhibits intelligence, one must logically and analytically examine if it fulfills the condition of intelligence defined by the First Absolute Law of Logic.

Conclusion: The First Absolute Law of Logic cannot be logically disputed, because it is automatically confirmed and self-validated when someone attempts to dispute it.

The Second Absolute Law of Logic
Intelligence does not emerge — it is transferred or created by intelligence.

Definition:
Only Intelligence can create Intelligence.

Logical Proof:
The First Absolute Law of Logic defines that intelligence presupposes: Perception, Organization of information into knowledge, Action. The creation of a new intelligence requires an intelligent being: To perceive and know what it is creating, to know how to create it, and to have the ability to create it.

A being or system that does not have intelligence lacks all three of these elements. Therefore, it cannot create intelligence, because: It does not understand what it is doing, It does not aim to do it, It does not have the ability to do it.

Consequently, the creation of intelligence is, by its nature, an act of intelligence.

Natural Proof (Examples):
1. A Bacterium
A bacterium: Perceives its environment (chemical stimuli), Organizes information functionally (e.g., avoidance of toxicity), Acts (moves towards food or away from threats), Reproduces, creating a new entity with the same ability. Therefore: It operates according to the First Law, and it creates other intelligence, validating the Second Law.

2. Natural Selection as an Intelligent Creator
Natural selection – life, chooses mutations — therefore, according to the Law of Logic, it is a form of intelligence!

Analysis:

First Absolute Law of Logic: "Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize that information into knowledge, and with that knowledge, to act."

Natural Selection:

Perceives: It "reads" which genes increase survival (information).
Organizes: It "selects" and preserves the most adapted genes (organization into "knowledge").
Acts: It "creates" new, better-adapted forms of life (action).
Natural selection satisfies the First Absolute Law — thus, based on the definition, it is intelligence that creates intelligence, also satisfying the Second Law of Logic.

Objections:
Theory: Life as a Randomly Emerging Property of Matter
Core Idea: Life — and secondarily intelligence — emerges spontaneously from inanimate material systems when they acquire a sufficient level of organized complexity. It does not require a pre-existing "mind," "purpose," or "design." Nature operates with mechanisms of self-organization, random variation, and selection, which lead to biological and cognitive phenomena.

According to the First and Second Absolute Laws of Logic, this theory has logical inconsistencies, but at the same time, it validates them.

1. Life emerges spontaneously from inanimate material systems:

For something to reach a level of organized complexity, it must already have intelligence, i.e., to perceive chemical information, organize it into knowledge, and with that knowledge, create. This practically validates both the first and the second absolute laws of logic.

2. Nature operates with mechanisms of self-organization:

The natural mechanisms of self-organization and selection that lead to biological and cognitive phenomena confirm the absolute laws of logic because they validate "Perception > Knowledge > Action," i.e., intelligence, and consequently, "Only when something is intelligent can it create something that is intelligent."

If something does not know what to create, how to create it, and cannot create it, then it cannot create it. Consequently, based on logic, something non-intelligent cannot create something intelligent.

Conclusion:
"Only Intelligence Can Create Intelligence," because creation requires perception, knowledge, and action. Because it can perceive what it will create, it knows what it will create, and by acting, it can create it.

Consciousness as the Awareness of Intelligence
Within the framework of the First Absolute Law of Logic — "Intelligence is the ability to perceive information, to organize it into knowledge, and to act based on it" — the concept of consciousness inevitably arises.

Definition:
Consciousness is the awareness of the function of intelligence. It is the ability of a being to perceive that it is thinking, that it knows, and that it is acting.

This leads to a structural distinction of two levels of consciousness:

Inherent Consciousness: It is the functional awareness that is embedded within natural mechanisms — without reflective thought. Example: Natural selection acts by choosing the beneficial over the harmful. Although it does not have awareness in the human sense, it operates consciously in terms of intelligence: it perceives (through survival), organizes (through genetic information), and acts (by producing new, adapted beings). Therefore, it carries Intelligence and, by extension, Inherent Consciousness.

Acquired Consciousness: It is reflective awareness — the ability of a being to know that it knows. Example: Humans understand not only their environment but also themselves as intelligent beings. They can reflect, self-criticize, and analyze their own thoughts. This is the acquired form of consciousness, which arises when intelligence gains reflective access to itself.

Relationship between Consciousness and Intelligence:
Consciousness is not an independent force, nor does it pre-exist. On the contrary, consciousness is the awareness of intelligence — and can only exist where intelligence exists.

Logical Conclusion: All beings that carry intelligence also carry some form of consciousness. The difference is not whether they have consciousness, but what level of consciousness they carry. The inherent precedes the acquired. Just as intelligence functions inherently (e.g., DNA), before acquired thought appears (e.g., language, writing) in humans.

Therefore: To the question "is consciousness identical to intelligence?" the answer from the First Absolute Law is: Consciousness is the awareness of Intelligence — and is distinguished into Inherent (functional, natural) and Acquired (reflective, human).

Ethics as a Necessary Consequence of Intelligence and Consciousness
Based on the two Absolute Laws of Logic, the principles of Ethics are founded as a logical extension of acquired consciousness: Acquired Consciousness is the culmination of Intelligence — the ability not only to think, but also to be aware of oneself and one's actions. This awareness gives rise to responsibility: for the use of intelligence not only for one's own benefit, but also for positive coexistence with other beings and the natural environment.

Definitions for the Foundation of Ethics
1. Ethics
Ethics is the functional synthesis of emotion and logic into consciousness — with the goal of positive, non-harmful interaction with the Other and with the Whole.

It is not an arbitrary imposition of rules. It is a logically inevitable consequence of awareness. The more awareness increases, the more the ethical obligation increases.

2. Self-Determination
Self-determination is the fundamental form of freedom of an intelligent being. It is defined as the ability to choose and act based on one's own will and intelligence, without external coercion. It is the core of individual existence. Respect for ourselves presupposes respect for the self-determination of the Other.

3. Non-Harm to Self-Determination in Relation to Natural Balance
Ethics does not mean abstinence from action, but the minimization of harm to other entities, with respect for natural balance. Survival implies some form of harm (e.g., to nature or other life forms). Intelligence with awareness chooses actions that: minimize harm, respect self-determination, and maintain the balance of the whole system.

Conclusion:
Ethics is not subjective, nor is it merely a social construct. It is the logically inevitable necessity that arises from acquired consciousness.

Whoever understands Intelligence and is aware of themselves, the Other, and the Whole, bears ethical responsibility — not because it is imposed upon them, but because they cannot act otherwise without negating their own consciousness and breaking their bond with the Whole.

Final Thought
Ethics is not imposed; it is revealed through consciousness. And Consciousness, as the Awareness of Intelligence, becomes the ethical foundation of every responsible existence.

Hello there, thanks for welcoming me to the forum. I am UK based. I have been a Christian for 45 years - still learning! I will post my testimony later.

In Romans 14 we are taught to accept the one who is weak in faith. But by that was meant any Jew turned Christian who could not let go of the dietary and the Sabbath laws of the Old Covenant. And the instructions there let those who were free to eat anything, and were free of having to keep the Sabbath laws (because they were under the New Covenant provided by Christ in his death and resurrection), that they were not to cast judgment on those who believed they must hold those as sacred. And those who held them as sacred were not to cast judgment on those who were free in Christ.

And the beginning of Romans 15 is a continuation of that discussion. We who are free from having to keep the Old Covenant Sabbath requirements and dietary restrictions are to bear with the weaknesses of those who, because of their own consciences, cannot let go of those. So, in no way are these weaknesses to be taken as referring to sinful addiction. We are not to be the church, the body of Christ, which tolerates and which pacifies deliberate and habitual sinning amongst our members. But we are to call sin what it is, and we are exhort one another daily so we are not drawn into sinning willfully.

And if each of us is to please his neighbor FOR HIS GOOD, to his edification, then this definitely is not teaching that we are to tolerate deliberate and habitual sinful practices continuing within the body of believers in Jesus Christ. For not only does that bring harm to the life of the sinners, and to those who they are sinning against, but it has the potential, as well, to impact the entire congregation, and for the leniency to spread like gangrene within the congregation, infecting many more people, destroying human lives, while sending many to hell on the false promise of heaven in store.

For, what does it say? We are to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus, so that with one accord we may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is not something we can create in our flesh. This has to come from God, but we must be those to receive it and to put it into practice in our daily lives, by the Spirit. Just like with our salvation, which is gifted to us by God, we must be in unity and cooperation with Christ in denying self, dying to sin, and walking in obedience to his commands, in his power, for us to have salvation from sin.

So, if we are of the same mind with one another, according to Christ Jesus, then this same mind must agree with the mind of Christ, and with his teachings, and with the example he put before us as to what it looks like to be a Christian and a follower and disciple of Christ Jesus. And if with one accord we with one voice glorify God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – then that comes from God, and it must be in line with the will and character of God, which we can learn about in the Scriptures. And so with one voice we should be sharing the message of the gospel taught by Jesus Christ.

For Jesus Christ taught that to come to him we must deny self, take up our cross daily (die daily to sin), and follow (obey) him. For if we hold on to living in sin and for self, we will lose our lives for eternity. But if we deny self, die daily to sin, by the Spirit, and we walk in obedience to our Lord and to his commands, in his power, then we have eternal life with God. For not everyone who calls him “Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one DOING (obeying) the will of God (see Luke 9:23-26; Matthew 7:21-23).

[Matthew 7:13-14,21-23; Luke 9:23-26; John 1:12-13; John 6:44; John 10:27-30; Acts 26:18; Romans 1:18-32; Romans 2:5-10; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:1-23; Romans 8:1-14; 1 Corinthians 10:1-22; Galatians 5:16-24; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:17-32; Ephesians 5:3-6; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:1-19; Hebrews 4:1-13; Hebrews 10:23-31; Hebrews 12:1-2; 1 Peter 2:24; 1 John 1:1-10; 1 John 2:3-6; 1 John 3:4-10]

Living Water

An Original Work / November 21, 2013
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love
Based off Various Scriptures

My people have forsaken Me,
Their Savior, who died on a tree;
Made idols, and they worshipped them;
So empty, they will ne’er fulfill.

Lord, You are the hope of Your chosen ones.
Those who turn away from You will be shamed;
The Spring of Living Water left behind.

Living Water satisfies.

The thirsty, let them come and drink;
Believe in Jesus as their King;
The gift of Jesus given them,
So they will never thirst again.

Indeed, the Living Water flows within.
It springs up like a fountain cleansing sin.
Eternal life in heaven promised them.

Living Water glorifies.

Oh people, won’t you come to Him?
Obey Him and repent of sin.
Let Jesus come and live within.
Surrender all your life to Him.

My people, won’t you turn your hearts to Me?
Forsake your idols and then you’ll be free.
Won’t you come now to Me on bended knee?

Living Water sanctifies.

Login to view embedded media
According to Christ Jesus
An Original Work / September 22, 2025
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

I have wondered why God commands us to be baptized. The perspective affects our view on creation and salvation.

To begin to think about this, we must discern between science, which is observable data and narrative, which is an explanation of the data.

The current narrative in science is that light was created first, they call this the Big Bang which emerged from a singularity. The narrative tells us that the Universe is approximately 13 billion years old, and it covers a distance of billions of what are termed “light years”

What does the data say? The age and size of the universe is based on our knowledge of the speed of light, but we do not know the direct speed of light. We know the speed of reflection. No experiment has been designed which is capable of measuring the one way speed of light. An error in our inference can turn out that our beliefs on the age and size of the universe is profoundly wrong.

Our inference tells us that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but that cannot be proven with observational data. Galileo observed that moons orbit Jupiter and Venus orbits the Sun, and we infer that Earth does the same. What does the data say? We see that all celestial bodies appear to be moving away from Earth, and they tell us that it is impossible to find a center of the universe. This is not observation, this is inference


What does God say? He does not say that light was created first. Let there be light was not the beginning of the material universe. Before there was light, darkness was over the face of the deep and the Spirit moved upon the waters. This tells us that water, not light was the first creation.
What does the data say? Water can be found everywhere. The moon, mars, Jupiter’s moons and even the surface of the sun have been observed to contain water. Why would there be water in those places? Hydrogen is very simple, but the other component of water is oxygen, and it is unique among the elements. There is no simple path to form oxygen beginning with elemental hydrogen and nuclear fusion.

God also tells us that the Sun and stars were not formed until the fourth day of creation, yet there was light on the first day. Would we have data to back that up? Yes, computer programs have been written that can subtract all the light from then sun and stars, and the universe still contains a faint glow. Remnant of the light of the first day?

The James Webb telescope also does not show us what we would expect at the beginning of the universe if it came from a singularity of light

What does this mean in terms of salvation? God says that water was created first in creation. When we are baptized, we go back to the beginning and become born again of water.

We also can see that when God had repented of making man upon the Earth, He decided to destroy the Earth with water. In a way bring it back to the beginning and have a “do over”

Water is very important to God in terms of creation. God is Our Father, and He formed the Earth beginning with water, which would make it our mother. God gives us the sign of water in that the woman He chose to be His mother is named Mary, which means water or sea. A sailor is often called a mariner.

Who is the angel of light? He used to be called Lucifer, we know him now as Satan. He thought he was too beautiful and dignified to ever bow down to water. God says He puts enmity between Satan and the woman, light vs water.
This fight carries over even into what we consider science. Satan wants you to think light is the origin, but we know God is the creator and He made water first. When we are baptized, we are submitted ourselves to God. We deny our lofty inferences about creation and submit to Our Lord who made water first, not light

If we free ourselves from our presupposed inferences, the observable data shows Genesis to be more scientifically sound, with the Big Bang and evolution becoming the mythical narrative

SHOUT for joy to the Lord, all the earth.
2 WORSHIP the Lord with gladness;
COME before him with joyful songs.
3 KNOW that the Lord is God.
It is he who MADE us, and we are his[a];
We are his people, the sheep of his pasture.
4 ENTER his gates with thanksgiving
and his courts with praise;
GIVE THANKS to him and PRAISE his name.
5 For the Lord is good and his love ENDURES forever;
His faithfulness CONTINUES through all generations.

This Psalm reminds me of the times long ago, in my good old "Army Days," when our Bible study group got together at our Base's hospital chapel. We would be around 3 or 4 guys and "Sister Silvestre". We would start out by singing this Psalm. I still remember the melody. When I entered Bible college, we also studied Psalms, and we were taught to "look for the verbs that indicate 'action" and go from there. What is God telling us through King David and the Holy Spirit who is guiding?

Here I have CAPITALIZED the action verbs. At Bible college, we were taught "diagrammatic analysis," which is kind of similar. Here we see 10 verbs. How are these 10 verbs connected to believers? How are these connected to God? Well, let's see. As a recent graduate, I'll put into practice what I learned to share it with all of you.

"SHOUT" (for joy) We can shout, using a loud voice to indicate joy and gladness. One could also do it with an instrument known as a shofar (a ram's horn or a horn from an African antelope known as a "kudu" We use our breath and vocal cords to shout, with a shofar; only the breath is used while the "shout" is produced by the shofar itself. Our college professors taught us some of the history of Israel and the festivities, and in the festival of "Yom Teruah", shofars were used to proclaim "a shout for the coming king." All born-again believers should "shout with gladness and joy" that we have eternal life through Jesus Christ.

WORSHIP (The LORD) Worship can be through coming together as a congregation, singing praises, or even studying the Bible. In the Hebrew text, it reads: "serve." So, "serving" is part of "worshipping." When we serve as Jesus served, then, we are showing true "worship"

COME (before) before who? We come before our KING. and sing songs of joy and gladness. In the Temple period, the songs were the Psalms, so singing the Psalms is considered worship and service.

KNOW: know what? The LORD is GOD. Knowledge is understanding, so to "know" is to "understand" that the LORD is God. Anytime that "LORD" appears in the Bible, in all capitals, it is the most sacred name YHVH. A lot of good information is learned in "Old Testament Survey" (Bible 101).

MADE: (who made who?) God made US. He made us in his own image, a perfect "shadow" of HIS eternal and sinless being. Yet through sin, man became an "imperfect shadow," a "fallen shadow." The name "Adam" comes from "Adamah" (dust), so we were all made from the dust of the Earth. So, God pronounced the words: "From dust you were brought forth, and to the dust you will return." But Jesus Christ will raise up all who "sleep in the dust of the Earth" in the end days. Jesus came the "2nd Adam" to pay the price of sin committed by the "1st Adam." All born-again believers are considered the sheep of HIS pasture, and Jesus Christ is our "Good Shepherd" who leads us.

ENTER (enter where?) His gates are the gates of our places of worship. And also, in Heaven, we have the 12 gates that are part of the Holy City. In both places, we sing praises and give thanks to God for all of his blessings. The gates come first; beyond the gates are the courts.

GIVE THANKS, AND PRAISE; We give thanks and should give thanks all the time for his blessings, and give praises, praises are songs of joy, with or without music.

ENDURES (what endures?) His Love is forever. That is enough to give thanks and praise. Forever is exactly that, no end in sight. So, 1 million years from now, we will still count on his love and be in His presence.

CONTINUES (What continues?) His faithfulness. He is faithful to care for us for generations and generations. As he was faithful toward our ancestors, to care for them, as He was faithful to continue loving His people, despite rebellion, despite our sinfulness, He will continue to be faithful forever. We can say "Amen" to that. "Amen" comes from "Emunah" (faith). Yes, a little bit of Hebrew was also taught in Bible 101. It helps a lot.

The music ministry for the Mass at which I serve consists of a song leader plus 3 vocalists; Instrumentation includes piano, acoustic guitar, trumpet or cornet, and double bass or electric bass. The choice of basses depends on weather conditions (The double bass never goes out in wet, cold, icy, or windy weather) and on getting someone to haul it in and out for me.

This is our schedule for Advent. The links are to YouTube samples.

Prelude:


Entrance:


Then common for all 4 weeks


Sending Forth

Lady: Are you the police?
Elwood Blues: No, ma'am, we're musicians ... We're on a mission from God.

Hi, I like to sit in the front pews when possible. I don't like it when ANYONE is in front of me during Mass. Their heads are a distraction to me, lol. Seriously, I'm like that. However, in order to get to the front pew and when the Mass is drawing closer to starting, naturally more people are there and I have to walk in front of everyone and my brain is like "everyone is looking at meeeeeee....."

I know, they'll get over it but I don't look at anyone as I do all this.

Hello! So it hasn't been until a couple years ago when I realized I have a prophetic gift- after I had been delivered from unclean spirits. When I was around 15 to the age of 25 (when I was set free) I would be woken up every few months in the middle of the night too see spiders, cobwebs, random bugs sometimes things that I couldn't make out and even a couple times human like figures. Its been on my mind a lot lately, I believe it was some type of witchcraft I was seeing, but I'm not sure. I was wondering if there is anybody that knows the meaning behind seeing these things and if it at all linked to a form of witchcraft. Also if there is anybody that knows if blue lightning in the spirit had a meaning too! Thank you!

Please pray for my niece, what started of as headache been treated for a few things. those didn't help and yesterday she got a injection with a numbing and steroid made the pain worse, the pain has lasted 16 days. She has to be sent out for a scan. Thank you for your prayers.

Hi, I received my NABRE Bible last week. I still feel the NIV is a bit easier to read though. I noticed yesterday that after many sentences throughout a lot of the Bible, there are tiny swirling marks printed.

Does anyone know why?

Thanks

Please follow the same process as in the List our different views about the Antichrist thread.

I'll start.

anytime rapture view, any time before the Antichrist commits the ToD act......@Douggg's view
add your line below mine - so we can see a comparison of views list.

I know people fast to get a specific prayer answered but others say you shouldn't fast to get something.
I'm confused because I also hear that you should know why and what you're fasting for.
Can I fast without a specific reason and see how God moves in my life?
However I do want to fast to improve my prayer life (mostly praying with others because I haven't done that yet due to nervousness) or is that asking for something for selfish reasons?
Why do you fast unless it's asking for something?

Hi Everyone, some of us think the Antichrist will be Jew, some of us think that the Antichrist will be a Gentile, some of us think the Antichrist will be a Muslim, some of us think the Antichrist will be an Assyrian.... you get my drift.

So let's make a comparison of views list.... state your one line view with your screen name to the side. Everyone keep adding to the comparison list to see it grow. I will start.

a Jew, anointed the King of Israel thought-to-be messiah.........@Douggg's view
add your line below mine - so we can see a comparison of views list.

Charlie Kirk wasn't anymore special than anyone else and he knew that it seems.
We all have the opportunity to be a Charlie whether in person or online.
I didn't follow the guy, but his stuff has been in news feeds more since he was murdered.
I'm angry that a Left leaning person thought the way to handle opinions he didn't like was to murder the person.
That's very dangerous!!
The murderer thought silencing Kirk's voice would take care of that or help, but it's only hurt that expectation.
We need to keep speaking the truth, yes in love and compassion when possible, but speak it and not let them, mostly the Left leaning, shut truth down!!

Whether you were a fan of Charlie's or not, has this prompted you to be more outspoken?

“We are the storm. And our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion.”

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller delivered remarks at Charlie Kirk’s memorial service.

Login to view embedded media
This is not what our country needs right now.

Not surprising. The country is getting to know Omar.

Chicago Starbucks Worker Did Not Write ‘Loser’ On Order Honoring Charlie Kirk, Company Says​

A viral social media video this week claimed that employees at a Norwood Park Starbucks wrote “Loser” on a drink ordered in honor of slain conservative activist Charlie Kirk. An online furor followed, and the coffee shop even closed temporarily.

But Starbucks now says that time-stamped footage from the store at 6332 N. Northwest Highway does not show any of its workers writing that message. Instead, the note appears “to have been added after the beverage was handed off, likely by someone else,” a spokesperson told Block Club.

The controversy started with a post Tuesday from Jacqueline Garretson, who, according to her X bio, is the Illinois state director for The Conservative Caucus and previously worked as a staffer for failed Republican attorney general candidate Thomas DeVore.

“We’re looking for not corporate bureaucracy. I want immediate accountability; and if not, I will have this whole intersection lined with patriots today, I’m not even joking,” [her companion] told a Starbucks employee.

"When you accuse someone of preaching hate, they are saying I hope somebody puts a bullet in your neck. That's what that means," [Andrew] Isker claimed in a live podcast Friday afternoon.

Isker derided what he described as “many foolish Christian leaders” who have urged people to follow the words of Jesus to love their enemies and to turn the other cheek.

“This great evil must not be tolerated. It must be rooted out and eradicated," he insisted.

That vengeance, he said, would come in the form of government crackdown, not from vigilante action.

[From his Facebook post to a Jackson County group]

The Hate Has No Home in Gainesboro/Jackson County signs did not bother me. I have always known I have opinions that some people will disagree with. It was no surprise that people would react strongly when the TV (falsely) told them that a Nazi had moved into the area.
But things have changed after yesterday. Gainesboro is my home now. I am not leaving. If the "hate" is me, and I am not leaving, "no home here" means the only way I don't have a home here is if someone kills me.
I don't think anyone who has these signs up supports radical leftist terrorism. I think you are decent Americans who disagree with my views. But you need to understand what your message is being associated with: it has been taken to mean you support violence against people you hate. If you really believe the rhetoric needs to be toned down, you will show it by putting these signs away.

[Sorry pal, just because you apparently take this criticism to mean that doesn't mean it does. It is by no means inciting or a threat. We are all allowed to opine that you are preaching hate.]

"I hope every scumbag journalist is shaking in his boots right now."

As Scripps News Nashville first revealed, Isker is leading an effort to establish a Christian nationalist community in Jackson County, Tennessee, about 90 minutes northeast of Nashville.

see also:

essentialsaltes said:

'Gay beam machine': Right-wing pastor makes startling claim about airport scanners​

Andrew Isker, who co-hosts with C. Jay Engel what he calls "the number one Christian nationalist podcast in the world," shared his unconventional and homophobic views on the Transportation Safety Administration's security scanners in a video flagged by WTVF's Phil Williams, who has reported extensively on his ministry.

Isker and Engel moved to Tennessee with aims of creating a community so-called "Heritage Americans," who are depicted in their social media posts with images of Norman Rockwell's idyllic depictions of midcentury life, and they have explicitly stated their longing for the American way of life before women joined the workforce and civil rights "ruined everything."

"I had to be molested at the airport to go to Florida, right, just to get on an airplane, just because I'm not going to go through the 'gay beam' machine. I didn't let C. Jay do it, I wouldn't let him do it. I said, 'You're getting patted down, too, buddy. I don't want them turning you gay.'"

"It appears having a guy touch you all over place, on its face, seems worse, but you don't really know what those things are doing to you," Isker added. "They can just take a picture of me naked? Like, no."

Engel, his co-host, interjected to speculate the scanning process might somehow involve "virtual ██████████," a reference to the chemical compound produced by the ██████ of ████████ which plays a role in █████ lore about ████ ███ and alleged ███ ████████ ███.

Click to expand...

Charlie Kirk, conservative activist and founder of Turning Point USA, a well-known nonprofit organization, was tragically assassinated on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2025. Thousands of people are expected to attend memorial services for Kirk today at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona.

WHAT TO KNOW​

• A massive memorial service for Charlie Kirk, 31, founder of Turning Point USA, will take place on Sunday, Sept. 21 in Glendale, Arizona, at State Farm Stadium.
• President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance are anticipated to attend the memorial service for Kirk, whom both have described as a friend.
• State Farm Stadium, home to the NFL's Arizona Cardinals, has the capacity to host 63,400 people — which can be expanded to 73,000 for "mega-events," according to its website.
• Kirk is survived by his wife, Erika Kirk, a former Miss Arizona USA, and their two young children, born in 2022 and 2024.
• Across the U.S., mourners have taken to social media since Kirk's murder to share prayers and tributes, while also holding vigils to honor his legacy and express support in the wake of the conservative activist's passing.
• On Sept. 10, 2025, Kirk was tragically shot and killed during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University.

Charlie Kirk memorial service attendees traveled from all over US and world​

People arrive at State Farm Stadium ahead of Charlie Kirk's memorial service on Sunday, Sept. 21, 2025. (Reuters/Cheney Orr)

Continued below.

Franklin Graham recently reminded us of something I’ve always admired about Charlie Kirk: he stood firmly on biblical truth, but he did it with compassion. He debated boldly, yet never with malice. He modeled what it looks like to stand on God’s Word while still loving those who disagreed. That’s what struck me most about Charlie’s ministry.

When culture calls biblical truth hate speech, Christians must remember that speaking God’s Word is the highest form of love.

Charlie Kirk’s legacy of truth with compassion​

Charlie never treated debates like a chance to humiliate others. He approached them as opportunities to present God’s truth. Franklin Graham said it best — Charlie stood unapologetically on Scripture, but he did it in a way that reflected Christ’s compassion. That’s rare today.

I’ve seen unbelievers circulate memes and half-quotes trying to paint him as harsh or hateful. But when you look at the full conversations, the truth is clear: Charlie’s goal wasn’t to win arguments at all costs — it was to point people back to God’s Word.

That’s the real lesson for us. The world will twist, clip, and distort, but what matters is faithfulness before the Lord.

When biblical truth is branded hate​

Continued below.

Ignorance is bliss, right?

And the tariffs are so helpful.....not.

'Caught on camera': Senator says 'Pam Bondi knew' about reported 'brazen' bribery scheme

Donald Trump's border czar Tom Homan is a hot topic after a blockbuster MSNBC report claimed Homan had accepted a $50,000 bribe from FBI undercover agents, and one senator says Pam Bondi and others knew about the scheme. Raw Story reported on Saturday about a MSNBC exclusive in which the outlet claimed that Homan had previously been investigated for accepting $50,000 from undercover FBI agents. That caused U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) to issue a stinging four-word response to Homan. ["Who's the illegal now?"]

That set the stage for Golden State senator Adam Schiff, who said,"Pam Bondi knew. Kash Patel knew. Emil Bove knew. And they made the investigation go away," Schiff then added. "A corrupt attempt to conceal brazen graft."

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/news/tom-homan-cash-contracts-trump-doj-investigation-rcna232568

In an undercover operation last year, the FBI recorded Tom Homan, now the White House border czar, accepting $50,000 in cash after indicating he could help the agents — who were posing as business executives — win government contracts in a second Trump administration, according to multiple people familiar with the probe and internal documents reviewed by MSNBC. The FBI and the Justice Department planned to wait to see whether Homan would deliver on his alleged promise once he became the nation’s top immigration official. But the case indefinitely stalled soon after Donald Trump became president again in January, according to six sources familiar with the matter. In recent weeks, Trump appointees officially closed the investigation, after FBI Director Kash Patel requested a status update on the case, two of the people said.

Undercover FBI agents posing as contractors communicated and met several times last summer with a business colleague who introduced them to Homan, and with Homan himself, who indicated he would facilitate securing contracts for them in exchange for money once he was in office, according to documents and the people familiar with the case. On Sept. 20, 2024, with hidden cameras recording the scene at a meeting spot in Texas, Homan accepted $50,000 in bills, according to an internal summary of the case and sources.

MSNBC asked legal experts about a hypothetical situation similar to the Homan probe. They said a person who promises to influence federal contracts when they become a public official can’t be charged under the federal bribery statutes until they are named or appointed to such a post. If the person did get the administration job and then reaffirmed his promise or communicated in some way about his plan to deliver on his agreement, investigators could make a strong bribery case.


So I guess he kept the money and never delivered, which makes him innocent?

Then again, that fits right in with Trump.

Not sure what board to post this in. Please feel free to move to another area of the board if it works better there.

So, I saw a post today that interested me and searched it up and found lots of similar results from other people. Apparantly hell isn't a real place and instead is a mistranslation. Apparantly awful people don't get eternal suffering and instead just cease to exist (similar to how life was for them before being born)

Here's the full post and explanation. It was reassuring to hear this as I worry about peolle I know going to hell and hate to imagine them being tortured. So it's nice to know such a place doesn't exist


perhaps you could start by realizing just how ridiculous the entire idea is and how it really isn't even supported by the scriptures.

This concept of “Hell” as a place of ‘eternal suffering in a lake of fire’ that Christians so often try to scare people with is all made up by humans and doesn't even exist in the 'old testament' and is not well supported by the 'new testament' either...

every single 'old testament' reference to "hell" is a mistranslations of the Jewish concept of "Sheol" which is distinctly different from what most people today refer to as "Hell".

• 1: Sheol is temporary - not 'eternal'. you are only there until 'judgment day'.
• 2: everyone goes to Sheol to await judgment day. (good or bad, believer or not).
• 3: everyone in Sheol atones for their misdeeds in life. everyone, regardless of whether they "have faith" or not. You don't escape punishment for your misdeeds in life just because you 'have faith'. THAT was an invention (apparently of Paul).
• 4: after judgment: the 'truly wicked' are annihilated: They 'cease to exist'. They are not "punished for the rest of eternity. (That view is not supported by anything in the bible outside of 'revelation' (and even that is pretty thin)
• 5: after judgment: everyone else goes to "Olam Ha'Bah" (aka "the world to come"; "gan eden" or "the Garden of Eden). - This did NOT require belief in or worship of "YHWH" it was based on whether you were a decent person in life; not "blind faith".

outside of 'revelation" The "New Testament" does not refer to this concept of 'eternal punishment' at all. not once, not anywhere. It is ONLY mentioned in the "Book of Revelation" (aka "The Apocalypse of John") and even those references are pretty flimsy evidence.

every "New Testament" reference to "Hell" in modern translations are mistranslating one of three words. “Hades” (which means “the grave” and does not imply torment); "Tartarus" (which appears only one time in 2 Peter 2:4) and "Gehenna".

• Tartarus is a specific reference to the pagan concept of the 'lowest level of hades'; The word “Tartarus” is arguably the closest word used to this concept of eternal torment but this word is only used in one specific verse: 2 Peter 2:4 which is talking about a place where "fallen angels" are sent and is never mentioned as a destination for humans. - Also note that this same verse clearly limits the time spent in that place to "until judgment".
• Gehenna is an actual physical place in Jerusalem, it was (in the first century CE) possibly a trash dump, garbage we know dead bodies were taken there and burned in a 'eternal fire' (a constantly burning fire that was always burning garbage). it was considered a "cursed place" due to legends about people sacrificing children there. It was mentioned in a lot of parables; often 'jesus' talking about wealthy people ending up in Gehenna (just like all the poor people). essentially saying that all their wealth doesn't save them from eventually dying and being thrown into the trash heap. - The parables did seem to imply that “Gehenna” was some undesirable place but it’s very dishonest to claim that the word literally translates to the common concept called “Hell”.

The words translated into “Eternal Punishment” in Matthew 25:46 (for instance) is also a mistranslation. The word they translate as “eternal” there is “αἰώνῐος” which is more correctly translated as “lasting for an age”. If you note the same exact word is mistranslated to ‘eternal’ in modern translations of Jude 1:7 where Sodom and Gomorrah are supposedly destroyed by “eternal fire” - Those fires are clearly not burning today as we’ve never found any such remnants anywhere on earth of this supposedly never ending fire. The other part of that phrase for “Punishment” is also a poor translation of “kolasis” which was an agricultural term basically meaning “cut off” or “prune” - possibly suggesting the concept where you “prune away part of a plant and the rest of the plant gets stronger”. It could possibly refer to “punitive correction” as opposed to some eternal torment or possibly it refers to being ‘cut off from paradise/eternal life’ which is effectively what happens when you cease to exist. - you aren’t suffering but you are denied eternal life and entry to paradise ‘for eternity’ since you no longer exist.

Outside of Revelation the most common


Outside of Revelation the most common thing people tend to bring up to support this 'eternal suffering in a lake of fire' nonsense is the story from Luke 16:19-31 of "lazarus and rich man". That parable however does not suggest "eternal suffering" at all.

• 1: Abraham, Lazarus and "Rich Man" are all in the same place. - That already sounds a lot more like "Sheol" than "Hell". the claim that all of them talking to each other is clearly not a reference to one being "in heaven" and the other "in hell" since these places are always depicted as separate.
• 2: "Rich Man" is suffering but... he's complaining about "being thirsty".... if he were burning in a lake of fire I think he'd have bigger problems than 'parched lips'.
• 3: Nothing about that story says anything to suggest that the suffering is eternal; it only implies that "Rich Man" is suffering currently, not what his fate would be down the road.

Then we have the claims from "Revelation":

• 1: the "Second Death" is mentioned 4 times in this book; and described as the "Death of the soul"
• 2: Revelation 20:6 states that only people named in the "book of life" (those "on the right") receive "eternal life" - this gift of eternal life is ONLY for the righteous people that pass into paradise.
• 3: Revelation 20:10 states that the 'beast', the 'false prophet' (aka the antichrist) and 'satan' are cast into the lake of fire where they will "suffer for ever and ever" - note that none of these entities are 'human'.
• 4: then in Revelation 20:15 - the people who's name did not appear in the 'book of life' (those "on the left") are also cast into the same lake of fire where they "suffer the second death". - Note the different language... it does not say "suffer for ever and ever" but instead states that they "suffer the second death" - this suggests that their soul dies.. which is "Annihilation" not "eternal suffering". How can there be "eternal suffering" for people that do not have "eternal life"? - (see note 2 above).

Nothing about "eternal suffering" is consistent with anything in the bible. "Eternal suffering" is sadistic cruelty without any purpose or benefit. - It makes no rational sense if they are also trying to claim that 'god' is benevolent, loving, merciful etc. - Totally logically inconsistent with this view.

John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

Click to expand...

Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.

Click to expand...

Romans 11:29-32 for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable. Just as you who were at one time disobedient to God have now received mercy as a result of their disobedience, so they too have now become disobedient in order that they too may now receive mercy as a result of God's mercy to you. For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Click to expand...

Titus 2:11 For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people.

Click to expand...

In the early days of the christian church there were several competing views of the afterlife that are a lot more consistent with the rest of the bible:

• Annihilation" is the belief that "after judgment" the "truly wicked" are annihilated; they 'cease to exist' and that's it... no further suffering; they are gone. end of story. This is exactly what the Jewish traditional view of Sheol mentioned above taught and is logically consistent with the 'old testament'.
• "universal salvation" or "universalism" is the belief that eventually everyone is saved. - This view treats suffering/punishment in the afterlife as reformative/corrective/judicial - meant to correct the recipient and is finite in duration - once you have atoned for your sins you get to move on to paradise with all the other people that ever lived. These were both pretty popular views in the early christian sects prior to ~425 CE;

The early christian sects disagreed considerably about which of these three views was 'correct'. “Basil the Great” specifically commented in ~370CE that the dominant view (of the time) was a belief in a limited purgatory, and others (such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus the blind, Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote extensively about Universalism. There were some (mostly in Northern Africa around the coast of modern day Tunisia/Algeria) that were advocating the view of “Eternal Torment” but it wasn't until 425CE that the church unified on this 'eternal suffering' doctrine (largely through the writings of Augustine of Hippo – who came to Rome from a city near what is now Annaba Tunisia). This became the official version the church went with and the other views were deemed "heretical" and banned along with any early christian scriptures that supported those opposing views (such as the "Apocalypse of Peter").