Charlie Kirk - so what now ?

[ZNP]

I know that Candace is not the favorite pundit on this thread, but I was considering what she said. Imagine you are the detective investigating a murder and you find out that for a year two military guys were following the victim and stalking him. Not only so but you learn that one month before being assassinated the victim became paranoid that someone was going to kill him.

Well those two military guys would jump to the top of your list of "persons of interest". This is basically the case with Charlie, so it is ridiculous to not discuss this as a key development and it is very important to put enough emphasis on this that the FBI will have to investigate.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

I enjoyed his speech at the Memorial, it came right after a couple of politicians that completely exasperated me.

I agree about those.
I was also glad to hear him participate in the eulogy.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Candace Owens converted to Roman Catholicism is 2024. Nick Fuentes has been Catholic his whole life. He says people would be better off if they didn't read the Bible and just left it to the clergy. 'Nuff said.

 

[studier]

Candace Owens converted to Roman Catholicism is 2024. Nick Fuentes has been Catholic his whole life. He says people would be better off if they didn't read the Bible and just left it to the clergy. 'Nuff said.

I don't know much about Fuentes, so this has nothing to do with him, but what he says about reading the Bible is understandable and he's not the only one with such thinking. I don't agree with it but I do understand it.

Take a look at the Bible Discussion Forum and all the personalities and depths and intensities of conflicts there, especially since it's no longer just splits from Romanism to what originally split from it, but now the many, many splits within Protestantism. It's a chaotic and hostile mess.

But aren't there 2 things not to discuss in social settings - religion and politics? Point being, we'll always find something to fight about.

 

[ZNP]

I don't know much about Fuentes, so this has nothing to do with him, but what he says about reading the Bible is understandable and he's not the only one with such thinking. I don't agree with it but I do understand it.

Take a look at the Bible Discussion Forum and all the personalities and depths and intensities of conflicts there, especially since it's no longer just splits from Romanism to what originally split from it, but now the many, many splits within Protestantism. It's a chaotic and hostile mess.

But aren't there 2 things not to discuss in social settings - religion and politics? Point being, we'll always find something to fight about.

Yes, but this is a brilliant tactical move by the Lord.

AI can mimic a very high intelligence on all the exams they give it, except one, and that is Bible exposition. Ask AI a tough question about the Bible and it will respond "there are many opinions". AI can hold its own in a discussion on any topic except the Bible, you can easily trip it up.

Also AI learns from people correcting it. However, the ones using AI to say something about the Bible are not correcting it so it is simply reenforcing its errors.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

I don't know much about Fuentes, so this has nothing to do with him, but what he says about reading the Bible is understandable and he's not the only one with such thinking. I don't agree with it but I do understand it.

You understand it? Could you explain it to me? How would he know how to live a Godly Christian life if he doesn't even read God's Word? That's like the worst advice ever to give someone!

Take a look at the Bible Discussion Forum and all the personalities and depths and intensities of conflicts there, especially since it's no longer just splits from Romanism to what originally split from it, but now the many, many splits within Protestantism. It's a chaotic and hostile mess.
But aren't there 2 things not to discuss in social settings - religion and politics? Point being, we'll always find something to fight about.

But that's still no reason not to read the Word of God. There is right and truth. Catholicism is wrong and people need to know that. The Bible is always our guide. I'm not saying you don't agree, just saying his POV is quite ludicrous.

 

[studier]

Yes, but this is a brilliant tactical move by the Lord.

AI can mimic a very high intelligence on all the exams they give it, except one, and that is Bible exposition. Ask AI a tough question about the Bible and it will respond "there are many opinions". AI can hold its own in a discussion on any topic except the Bible, you can easily trip it up.

Also AI learns from people correcting it. However, the ones using AI to say something about the Bible are not correcting it so it is simply reenforcing its errors.

Have you experimented with AI re: the Bible to any great extent?

I have because it's obvious it will be affecting theology and christendom and I have a very different view than yours, at least in regard to pressing it re: theology and interpretation of the Text.

 

[ZNP]

Have you experimented with AI re: the Bible to any great extent?

I have because it's obvious it will be affecting theology and christendom and I have a very different view than yours, at least in regard to pressing it re: theology and interpretation of the Text.

Experimented with it to a great extent: no.

I have experimented a little and found it's answers hilarious and I understood the problem. It was reviewing what was available online about the Bible and realized there was no consensus, in fact there were contradictory interpretations and so had no way to respond. Now I was asking it tough questions where it would have to take a stand and it balked.

However, you have to ask very tough questions, not the simple type of factual questions.

Also, they have AI spiders, or web crawlers, that are coming through this forum everyday trying to extract information and so it is crawling through my blog everyday. I realized that AI was learning every time someone used it, so I stopped using it.

 

[studier]

You understand it? Could you explain it to me? How would he know how to live a Godly Christian life if he doesn't even read God's Word? That's like the worst advice ever to give someone!




But that's still no reason not to read the Word of God. There is right and truth. Catholicism is wrong and people need to know that. The Bible is always our guide. I'm not saying you don't agree, just saying his POV is quite ludicrous.

I can try to explain it to you.

Fuentes is not the only one to say the Bible causes problems and his sect has its authority system that has kept the Text from much of its "faithful" and therefore reliant on the hierarchy.

The Bible was and is the base the Roman tyrannical system used as its authority. It's similarly and simply misused by anyone and everyone who wants to misuse it for some agenda or who misuses it through ignorance of what it says and means.

So, I do understand the logic of what some say about a Bible in everyone's hands. I don't agree with it, but expecting some from the Roman sect to not say what he said seems pointless. Similarly, expecting others who see "religion" as "the" problem in the world to not have a view that the Bible should be outlawed, seems pointless.

When it comes to everyone having and reading a Bible, I understand the sentiment of the point of view that there should be a human central authority. Again, I don't agree with it but I understand it. Seemingly everybody thinks the Spirit is teaching them yet we have thousands of denominations who think differently and do so aggressively.

I've seen and as I recall interacted with you on the Bible threads. You're no stranger to what goes on there. Anyone thinking it's a place to have friendly discussions about the Bible quickly learns otherwise. I'm trained in the Greek language and to some degree in a few theological systems and in-depth in one. My intention is mainly to bring out what the Text says and does not say. I gave up systematic theology a few decades ago.

After a few years on and off on forums, I now have people from at least 3 different systems of theology calling me an unbeliever and some from Romanism not unexpectedly treating me from the position of arrogance from many in that system. At least a part of this is due to my simply using the grammar of the Text to show what it says, which is often in conflict with what theological systems say it says.

The end for me may be that we have the Text. This is the reality as it stands and is for a purpose. But there may be as much or more abuse of it as humble reliance on it. I'm simply saying I understand the various points of view on the matter.

 

[Eli1]

Tucker made the mistake of being "Antiseptic" by



According to MIT ?


Aren't they the school known for developing mind control techniques?

Yes, but they did it for a false-flag operation Bob.

 

[Eli1]

You understand it? Could you explain it to me? How would he know how to live a Godly Christian life if he doesn't even read God's Word? That's like the worst advice ever to give someone!




But that's still no reason not to read the Word of God. There is right and truth. Catholicism is wrong and people need to know that. The Bible is always our guide. I'm not saying you don't agree, just saying his POV is quite ludicrous.

There's not much to explain about Fuentes either.
He's waiting to be sued as well. Another idiot. All you need to hear is about 10% of what someone says to get an idea where they are ideologically.
I don't click on 90% of the videos posted in this forum because they are videos made by people like Fuentes.
So don't waste your time and have another coffee.

 

[studier]

Experimented with it to a great extent: no.

I have experimented a little and found it's answers hilarious and I understood the problem. It was reviewing what was available online about the Bible and realized there was no consensus, in fact there were contradictory interpretations and so had no way to respond. Now I was asking it tough questions where it would have to take a stand and it balked.

However, you have to ask very tough questions, not the simple type of factual questions.

Also, they have AI spiders, or web crawlers, that are coming through this forum everyday trying to extract information and so it is crawling through my blog everyday. I realized that AI was learning every time someone used it, so I stopped using it.

Some of my experience to date:

• Beginning from scratch, it picked a theological system as a base. As I recall it was Reformed Theology - Calvinist.
• It would draw from other systems like Arminianism, Free Grace, etc., and mix systems.
• I had to recognize what it was drawing from and ask it to separate systems and provide input segregating various interpretations.
• It was able to add and differentiate even the systematic differences of a teacher I'm very familiar with who has students on this forum and who has a few interpretations of his own.
• I was able to get it to stop searching systems and begin just using the Text to analyze from a point of view I gave it a base for.
• It was very well-versed in Greek (and Hebrew) technicalities in grammar although I would catch it drawing from theological resources to come to some conclusions and would have to redirect it to other possibilities to try to keep it on track for certain harmonizing and logical pathways in the Text.
• If I caught it making a mistake it would readjust and simply proceed as if it had not erred. If I asked why it erred it sometimes would explain it in a way that could make sense, and at other times would basically not provide anything meaningful.
• In the end, so far:
  • It's very patronizing and seems to be pointed to helping you be you.
  • Its speed and access to data is astounding.
  • It'll help you be more informed in any systematic theology if you know where to focus it and can recognize when it drifts into another system, which it did many times with me.
  • It is very capable in biblical Greek, but, again, at this point I had to be well-versed in it also in order to spot where it could easily mislead me based upon conclusions it was drawing from a certain interpretational system rather than from other legitimate possibilities open in the Text.
  • At times it took a lot of focus and directing to get it to stay the course and not draw upon whatever theological system it would simply latch onto and try to lead me by.
  • It's a tool with good and bad results. It takes some work to use it for theology. It can get very confused and even crash. With some effort it can be more productive in a discussion than discussing with most people.

 

[ZNP]

Some of my experience to date:

• Beginning from scratch, it picked a theological system as a base. As I recall it was Reformed Theology - Calvinist.
• It would draw from other systems like Arminianism, Free Grace, etc., and mix systems.
• I had to recognize what it was drawing from and ask it to separate systems and provide input segregating various interpretations.
• It was able to add and differentiate even the systematic differences of a teacher I'm very familiar with who has students on this forum and who has a few interpretations of his own.
• I was able to get it to stop searching systems and begin just using the Text to analyze from a point of view I gave it a base for.
• It was very well-versed in Greek (and Hebrew) technicalities in grammar although I would catch it drawing from theological resources to come to some conclusions and would have to redirect it to other possibilities to try to keep it on track for certain harmonizing and logical pathways in the Text.
• If I caught it making a mistake it would readjust and simply proceed as if it had not erred. If I asked why it erred it sometimes would explain it in a way that could make sense, and at other times would basically not provide anything meaningful.
• In the end, so far:
  • It's very patronizing and seems to be pointed to helping you be you.
  • Its speed and access to data is astounding.
  • It'll help you be more informed in any systematic theology if you know where to focus it and can recognize when it drifts into another system, which it did many times with me.
  • It is very capable in biblical Greek, but, again, at this point I had to be well-versed in it also in order to spot where it could easily mislead me based upon conclusions it was drawing from a certain interpretational system rather than from other legitimate possibilities open in the Text.
  • At times it took a lot of focus and directing to get it to stay the course and not draw upon whatever theological system it would simply latch onto and try to lead me by.
  • It's a tool with good and bad results. It takes some work to use it for theology. It can get very confused and even crash. With some effort it can be more productive in a discussion than discussing with most people.

Yes, repeating and summarizing anything that others have taught is easy for it.

For example I asked for a personal experience of the Lord from Hudson Taylor

Perfect! I found a deeply moving personal spiritual experience from Hudson Taylor's life that was documented in the book Hudson Taylor's Spiritual Secret written by his son and daughter-in-law. This is known as "The Exchanged Life" experience and comes from a letter he wrote to his sister Amelia on October 17, 1869.

Hudson Taylor's Experience of "The Exchanged Life"

Hudson Taylor had been struggling spiritually for six to eight months. Despite his deep devotion and tireless work for God in China, he was experiencing constant inner defeat and exhaustion. He wrote about this period of struggle:


He prayed, agonized, fasted, made resolutions, read Scripture more diligently, and sought more time for meditation—but nothing changed. Every day, almost every hour, the consciousness of sin oppressed him. He knew that if he could abide in Christ all would be well, but he couldn't seem to do it.


Then came the breakthrough. A fellow missionary, John McCarthy, sent him a letter containing one simple sentence that changed everything:


"Not by striving after faith, but by resting on the Faithful One."


When Taylor read that line, he later wrote: "As I read I saw it all!" The Spirit of God revealed the truth of his oneness with Jesus in a way he had never known before.


Taylor described what he saw: He realized he had been trying to get strength from Jesus, when the truth was that he was already in Jesus—a living member of Christ's body. He wrote to his sister:


"I saw not only that Jesus would never leave me, but that I was a member of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. The vine now I see, is not the root merely, but all–root, stem, branches, twigs, leaves, flowers, fruit: and Jesus is not only that: He is soil and sunshine, air and showers, and ten thousand times more than we have ever dreamed, wished for, or needed."


He went on to express the wonder of this realization: "Oh, my dear sister, it is a wonderful thing to be really one with a risen and exalted Saviour; to be a member of Christ! Think what it involves. Can Christ be rich and I poor? Can your right hand be rich and the left poor? Or your head be well fed while your body starves?"


In the letter, Taylor wrote: "The last month or more has been, perhaps, the happiest of my life." He explained that his work had never been more plentiful, responsible, or difficult—but the weight and strain were all gone.


This wasn't about new information—Taylor knew his theology. This was about seeing and tasting a truth at a depth he'd never experienced before. The change lasted the rest of his life. His biographers noted that he never again experienced those days of spiritual defeat and unsatisfied longing.


It's a beautiful testimony of how sometimes the Lord meets us not with new knowledge, but with a fresh revelation of truths we already knew—making them real and alive in a transformative way.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

I can try to explain it to you.

Fuentes is not the only one to say the Bible causes problems and his sect has its authority system that has kept the Text from much of its "faithful" and therefore reliant on the hierarchy.

The Bible was and is the base the Roman tyrannical system used as its authority. It's similarly and simply misused by anyone and everyone who wants to misuse it for some agenda or who misuses it through ignorance of what it says and means.

So, I do understand the logic of what some say about a Bible in everyone's hands. I don't agree with it, but expecting some from the Roman sect to not say what he said seems pointless. Similarly, expecting others who see "religion" as "the" problem in the world to not have a view that the Bible should be outlawed, seems pointless.

When it comes to everyone having and reading a Bible, I understand the sentiment of the point of view that there should be a human central authority. Again, I don't agree with it but I understand it. Seemingly everybody thinks the Spirit is teaching them yet we have thousands of denominations who think differently and do so aggressively.

I've seen and as I recall interacted with you on the Bible threads. You're no stranger to what goes on there. Anyone thinking it's a place to have friendly discussions about the Bible quickly learns otherwise. I'm trained in the Greek language and to some degree in a few theological systems and in-depth in one. My intention is mainly to bring out what the Text says and does not say. I gave up systematic theology a few decades ago.

After a few years on and off on forums, I now have people from at least 3 different systems of theology calling me an unbeliever and some from Romanism not unexpectedly treating me from the position of arrogance from many in that system. At least a part of this is due to my simply using the grammar of the Text to show what it says, which is often in conflict with what theological systems say it says.

The end for me may be that we have the Text. This is the reality as it stands and is for a purpose. But there may be as much or more abuse of it as humble reliance on it. I'm simply saying I understand the various points of view on the matter.

Thanks, I do understand you're not promoting his POV or agreeing with it. I guess I look at history and see what happened when only the few hierarchy had the Bible in their hands and what damage it did. Like the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Dark Ages, people being burned at the stake, indulgences, mass, and about 97 other issues.

 

[ZNP]

Not incompetent, just not prepared to that level. Time will tell.

Chilling new details emerge about Charlie Kirk’s assassination

So his security detail was not incompetent and they were prepared to this level.

 

[pinebeach]

Have you experimented with AI re: the Bible to any great extent?

I have because it's obvious it will be affecting theology and christendom and I have a very different view than yours, at least in regard to pressing it re: theology and interpretation of the Text.

Well if AI is your guide and not the Holy Spirit, then you will never know the truth as it is in scripture. I was told by a number of people here that you basically create your posts using AI and not scripture. I don't know if that is accurate or not? but if that is what you follow, then what other conclusion would you arrive at other than the one you take your advice and 'truth' from

AI is not about the truth. AI has led people into suicide among other things. I don't believe it's a godly tool at all. People are being and will be, brainwashed.

 

[studier]

Well if AI is your guide and not the Holy Spirit, then you will never know the truth as it is in scripture. I was told by a number of people here that you basically create your posts using AI and not scripture. I don't know if that is accurate or not? but if that is what you follow, then what other conclusion would you arrive at other than the one you take your advice and 'truth' from

AI is not about the truth. AI has led people into suicide among other things. I don't believe it's a godly tool at all. People are being and will be, brainwashed.

Let's start with my use of AI.

• I explained a few posts ago what I've mainly been doing with AI re: theology and why.
• You've likely not been told by a number of people but by one poster.
• Here's an example of how I used AI for a specific purpose for some research I could post regarding some of his false claims about a Scriptural issue and scholarly materials he said supported his work - see link - and I disclosed it which can be seen in the post. I initially used it in that posts to access the BDAG Lexicon online because I've never found a link for others to so access it, and to copy and paste the content from my system would be burdensome to both do and to then be read by others.
• Before that I had AI do an analysis of one of his posts after I and others had noticed how mechanized and formulaic his posts were. He was asked several times to explain his methodology which requests he ignored. I posted to him that analysis and said it was AI re: his AI which it looked to some of us like he was using.
• I've been doing my own work in Scripture - long before AI existed - for about 20+ years after after seminary and being trained in Greek. For much of those decades I was also teaching and had been asked by the seminary to travel and teach Greek. As I stated in my other post on this thread, I've been testing AI to see how it does with Greek and with various theological issues and have seen pluses and minuses.
• AI is a tool. It's like a search engine on steroids. It'll also assist with many other things. It will absolutely IMO be used for theology. It has access to some resources not easily found on public domain. My first exposure to it was from a poster on this forum and the input it provided on topic was quite well done. After a few of his posts I thought it would be beneficial to get somewhat geared up on it because it's going to be something we're going to be contending with in theology, like it or not.
• As I told the poster who seems to have a grudge, all you have to do is ask if you have questions of me.

AI and the Holy Spirit:

• At times the claims to being taught by the Spirit seem laughable. Some of the craziest and most unscriptural things are supposedly taught posters by the Spirit and every systematic theology lays claim to the Spirit.
• Again, AI is a tool. Just like search engines, the internet, online ministries, computers, televisions, radios, books, etc. are tools.
• From what I've experienced, God uses many means to teach, including the above list of tools. And everyone of them has at one time or another been called satanic. AI is just the latest satan. Whatever we use, we use with discernment and proper caution. I'm testing it, not being taught the Bible by it, no matter any allegations. My work in the Text comes from time and training and much prayer and focus.

AI and the truth:

• If there is any truth in the combined, documented, theological knowledge and work of men, then AI has or will likely have access to it. Even at this stage we can ask it to compile and present information that was heretofore extremely time consuming and difficult to do - and it'll do it in seconds.
• The issue again is discernment and there is no one better than the Spirit to help us discern concerning what we see, read or hear.
• People are brainwashed by almost any means, especially today with so much access. Suicide is of course tragic but a fact of existence in this world and AI will be misused just like every other form of tech.

Use it or don't use it, and believe what you will. The tech is here. Sermon development software has been with us for quite some time. Not many in the pews know about it but many in pulpits do. Be ready to be hearing sermons and teachings created by AI whether you know it or not.

 

[Eli1]

As long as you can understand someone's point it doesn't matter if you use "ai" or not.
Before "ai" we still couldn't understand people and we still don't.

"ai" is just a program. Garbage in -> garbage out.
So whatever confused people will say on the web, it will spit it back at you.

 

[pinebeach]

Let's start with my use of AI.

• I explained a few posts ago what I've mainly been doing with AI re: theology and why.
• You've likely not been told by a number of people but by one poster.
• Here's an example of how I used AI for a specific purpose for some research I could post regarding some of his false claims about a Scriptural issue and scholarly materials he said supported his work - see link - and I disclosed it which can be seen in the post. I initially used it in that posts to access the BDAG Lexicon online because I've never found a link for others to so access it, and to copy and paste the content from my system would be burdensome to both do and to then be read by others.
• Before that I had AI do an analysis of one of his posts after I and others had noticed how mechanized and formulaic his posts were. He was asked several times to explain his methodology which requests he ignored. I posted to him that analysis and said it was AI re: his AI which it looked to some of us like he was using.
• I've been doing my own work in Scripture - long before AI existed - for about 20+ years after after seminary and being trained in Greek. For much of those decades I was also teaching and had been asked by the seminary to travel and teach Greek. As I stated in my other post on this thread, I've been testing AI to see how it does with Greek and with various theological issues and have seen pluses and minuses.
• AI is a tool. It's like a search engine on steroids. It'll also assist with many other things. It will absolutely IMO be used for theology. It has access to some resources not easily found on public domain. My first exposure to it was from a poster on this forum and the input it provided on topic was quite well done. After a few of his posts I thought it would be beneficial to get somewhat geared up on it because it's going to be something we're going to be contending with in theology, like it or not.
• As I told the poster who seems to have a grudge, all you have to do is ask if you have questions of me.

AI and the Holy Spirit:

• At times the claims to being taught by the Spirit seem laughable. Some of the craziest and most unscriptural things are supposedly taught posters by the Spirit and every systematic theology lays claim to the Spirit.
• Again, AI is a tool. Just like search engines, the internet, online ministries, computers, televisions, radios, books, etc. are tools.
• From what I've experienced, God uses many means to teach, including the above list of tools. And everyone of them has at one time or another been called satanic. AI is just the latest satan. Whatever we use, we use with discernment and proper caution. I'm testing it, not being taught the Bible by it, no matter any allegations. My work in the Text comes from time and training and much prayer and focus.

AI and the truth:

• If there is any truth in the combined, documented, theological knowledge and work of men, then AI has or will likely have access to it. Even at this stage we can ask it to compile and present information that was heretofore extremely time consuming and difficult to do - and it'll do it in seconds.
• The issue again is discernment and there is no one better than the Spirit to help us discern concerning what we see, read or hear.
• People are brainwashed by almost any means, especially today with so much access. Suicide is of course tragic but a fact of existence in this world and AI will be misused just like every other form of tech.

Use it or don't use it, and believe what you will. The tech is here. Sermon development software has been with us for quite some time. Not many in the pews know about it but many in pulpits do. Be ready to be hearing sermons and teachings created by AI whether you know it or not.

Your personal and obviously personal experience has zero to do with the influence of AI in this world (that is only just beginning). It is your choice to use or not use. It is anti scripture as those who developed and continue to program it, are anti-God.

Discernment. Ues. By all means but not your defintion of it. Don't think I mind if you rush headlong into an intelligenve that far outstrips your own. You are being owned.

 

[pinebeach]

Oh my.! Looks like heis here is falling asleep again. Explains alot.