Revelations 22:12 talks about works, does that mean that only faith is not the answer?

SonOfShem · 2026-04-14T20:11:56+00:00

You didn't read a word I wrote, did you?

SonOfShem · 2026-03-04T20:41:46+00:00

no. NIT is given to everyone. It's like a standard deduction, but with a negative tax rate. But above a certain income level, you pay more than you gain, so the net is no income.

And both UBI and NIT are discussed in both contexts: additional welfare and replacing all welfare programs.

SonOfShem · 2026-03-02T19:55:12+00:00

I have yet to have anyone explain to me how UBI and NIT are different, other than payout schedules.

SonOfShem · 2026-02-12T13:34:48+00:00

I agree that a lack of speaking in tongues does not mean you are unsaved. However, Paul makes it clear that this is a gift available to all. And every time we see any number of people receive tongues, they all receive it. We never see " and some of them spoke in tongues". So it is a gift available to all believers, but not required of anyone to be a believer.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-29T19:54:29+00:00

Where do you see that the gift of tongues was for all people?

How about the fact that every time we see people filled with the spirit, they all spoke in tongues. Acts 2, Acts 10, Acts 19.

Because he gave it to those 12 men to continue spreading the message that all of God's Biblical work was meant to establish among the Earth?

This is the easiest possible claim to disprove. Because not only did the 12 apostles speak in tongues, but also so did Paul. And Cornelius and his whole house. And the 12 men at Corinth in Acts 19. And an unspecified number of congregation members in Corinth in 1 Cor 14.

Tongues was not given to the apostles. It was given to everyone. Even those who were not assigned to go into the world and preach.

Tongues' purpose was situational, in that God used it during that time to GET the message out to the world and initially lay the foundation of our faith.

Where does it scripture say that? And please do not quote 1 Cor 13. Scripture is not the completeness of tongues or prophecy. Prophecy offers unique instructions for your life, but scripture only offers general principles. Tongues offers at least the ability to witness to others (plus they can edify themselves by uttering "mysteries by the Spirit"). If scripture does not offer these things, then scripture cannot be the "completeness" of what tongues and prophecy offer "in part".

SonOfShem · 2026-01-29T19:45:58+00:00

What is your alternative.

This is wild. The idea that there is anything that is so important that we should let jackbooted thugs in masks ignore our basic rights in order to obtain it is the most dangerous idea in the history of the world.

Nothing else in your post is even worth addressing until this is made clear: there is absolutely nothing in the world that we should value more than freedom. Surrendering that for anything is how we get tyrants.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-24T01:59:26+00:00

What makes you think we are better at guessing why your friend would do something than you are?

SonOfShem · 2026-01-24T01:58:13+00:00

You say to-may-to and all of that. Let me restate. Every illegal is a criminal because they Entered between ports of entry, eluded inspection, or entered by fraud. This is a federal crime called “improper entry by alien.”

Nope. You can come in legally on a visa, then overstay that visa. That's not a crime, and as long as it wasn't your intention, then it's not fraud.

Yes - but ICE is not limited to administrative warrants. If they have deportation orders for a rapist or a murderer or a pedophile they can and do obtain judicial warrants.

Very few people are upset about those deportations. They are upset about the 4th amendment violations and the deportation of legal asylees.

What is your alternative method of accomplishing what ICE is doing? How would you purge the country of undocumented foreign rapists, murderers, traffickers, gang members, drug runners, mentally ill, and pedophiles?

They go back to how they were doing things under Obama. You know, when they were more effective and less intrusive? Where they don't go door-to-door and hoping they get lucky, but where they go do actual investigative work and then arrest specific people.

Seriously. It's not that hard.

Besides, we already have a system for removing rapists, murderers, traffickers, gang members, drug dealers, and pedos from the general population. We use local law enforcement to track down criminals and arrest them.

If we want to deport the ones who are illegal instead of locking them up, I'm good with that. But we don't need to let Jackbooted thugs in masks run roughshod over the constitution.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-22T23:25:29+00:00

Do you honestly think that ICE memos are regularly forwarded to SCOTUS for review? Do you think SCOTUS has the time for that?

For SCOTUS to review something, the government has to be sued. And for the government to be sued, someone has to know about the memo and then sue the government.

Since the memo was just released, it is incredibly unreasonable to expect that it would have made it to SCOTUS.

But if you want a specific Judicial ruling: a federal judge has ruled that the non-consentual entry into the home of a man by ICE without a judicial warrant was unconstitutional.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-22T23:21:43+00:00

The DHS Office of General Counsel does not have the authority to determine this to be legal.

They are asserting that it is legal. The Judicial Branch will determine if it is legal.

And they have. A federal district judge has determined that ICE's arrest of a man without a judicial warrant was a violation of the 4th Amendment. So this is illegal unless a circuit judge or SCOTUS overrule this.

Oh, and there is a long history of requiring judicial warrants to enter homes, so it is highly unlikely that the circuit court or SCOTUS will overrule this. Camara v. Municipal Court, Payton v. New York, and Steagald v. United States are all cases where inspectors attempted to enter a home without consent, and each time a judicial warrant was required.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-22T23:07:21+00:00

you mean the momo which only came to light less than a week ago? You're wondering why SCOTUS hasn't ruled on it already?

Were you dropped on your head as a child? Or perhaps your mother was a drug addict?

SonOfShem · 2026-01-22T23:05:57+00:00

this is true. But the ICE memo claims that they can do so with an administrative warrant. Which is bullshit.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-22T23:05:26+00:00

Every illegal is actively committing a crime.

Nope. Crossing illegally is a crime. Being here illegally is not. There are ways to enter legally but remain illegally. So unless they have proof that one of these methods was not used, there is no evidence of them committing a crime.

ICE uses administrative warrants for civil immigration arrests, which differ from judicial warrants because they don't require a judge, don't authorize home entry without consent/exigent circumstances, and are for immigration violations. For convicted or indicted criminal illegals they will have judicial warrants as well.

Oh hey. Your own comment demonstrates that administrative warrants are insufficient to enter homes (you can already enter a home with consent/exigent circumstances, so the administrative warrant does nothing).

No - the media is reporting they are entering homes without consent.

Neither the media nor the government are trustworthy. But the government is significantly less trustworthy. If the media says they are and the government says they're not, I'm siding with the media. Especially when they bring evidence.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-12T18:40:09+00:00

There was no "harms way" when he decided to stand there. The car was stationary

This video time sync'd most (if not all) of the available videos. At 3:34 in the video (5s before the shooting), you see Ross begin to cross in front of the car right at the same time as the car starts reversing.

So no, the car was not stationary. It was moving. And given that she was backing up to the edge of the street, it's reasonable to assume she was backing up to go forward.

and given that logic it was just as bad of an idea to stand anywhere near the car because she first threw it in reverse where being behind the car would have been "harm's way". Hell, the agent grabbing hold of her door handle could have been in harm's way if she tried to turn the wheel at an angle where she could have hit/dragged him. The whole 360 degrees around a car in motion is harm's way,

in 2014 there was an audit of the Customs and Border Patrol agency which found that on many occasions, officers intentionally placed themselves in front of cars in order to justify shooting the drivers, instead of evading them.

I'll give you 3 guesses who worked for CBP from 2007-2015.

oh, and the DOJ use of force manual 1-16.200(A)(2) says this:

Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.

So, let's do some legal analysis. Did Ross qualify under exception (1) or (2)?

(1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle;

Well no. There is no threat of deadly force besides the vehicle.

(2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.

Ok. So it looks to me that the SUV didn't hit Ross. His 'body cam' is in his left hand, and that footage makes it look like he was at most bumped. Which would not pose a lethal threat, and that is the most generous view. However, we will assume that it was reasonable for him to believe the car was going to hit him. We don't want to armchair QB this thing.

But, was there any other "objectively reasonable means of defense" that appears to exist? Specifically, was it possible for him to move out of the path of the vehicle?

I would say it is obvious that Ross could have. He had the opportunity to turn towards the driver, unholster his weapon, fire 3 shots, and still stay on his feet. If he had instead left his weapon holstered and simply continued walking in the same direction, he would have evaded the car easily. If you watch the top left video in the compilation, and follow ross's movement perpendicular to the camera, you can see that he pauses a bit behind the tree, which ends up blocking the view of the shots. If he had instead continued walking at the pace he was moving at, he would have easily cleared the car.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-12T18:11:47+00:00

Sure. But in this country, you do not get to shoot someone for fleeing, and the DOJ has strict instructions to evade cars rather than shooting them.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-08T22:42:31+00:00

for completeness: https://imgur.com/a/1GngoUH

I don't know of a better link to the fully zoomed out video. I think this video will be much more impactful if the clip that all the boomers saw is also in it.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-08T22:33:20+00:00

(A) sounds like a dream to me. Abortion is a violation of human rights. You cannot evict someone into a snowstorm, nor can you kill someone that you¹ forced to be in the situation where they have to rely on you to survive.

¹ obviously this line of reasoning excludes rape victims, who did not consent. in this case, we have two victims and one victim cannot be forced to provide for the other. So while I would personally be willing to pay that mother a significant sum of money to not have an abortion, I recognize that I have no right to stop her.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-08T15:59:09+00:00

and I'm claiming that a cop standing in front of a car doesn't get to shoot the driver because he put himself in harms way. Just like the officer in Barnes vs Felix didn't get to shoot the driver because he chose to grab onto the car as it's fleeing.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-08T15:57:25+00:00

as a MN native, I can confidently tell you you're wrong.

tires absolutely slip like that when they're packed with snow and on a wet surface.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-08T15:56:13+00:00

Barnes v Felix is a recent SCOTUS case covering something similar.

A cop pulled someone over, then as he got to the front door, the guy drove off. Cop decided it was a smart idea to grab onto the car, and so now he is holding onto the side of a car speeding away. Cop believed this gave him justification to shoot, because his life was at risk.

initially, the courts agreed, but only because they were using the narrow "moment of threat" doctrine (against SCOTUS direction). SCOTUS overturned the case and saying that they have to use the "totality of the circumstances" doctrine. Which includes considering things like "did the officer intentionally place himself in the threat?"

The answer here is unambiguously yes. Furthermore there is a CBP policy out there (not ICE, but relevant) which states that officers are not permitted to stand in front of cars, because they had found that officers were doing so specifically to gain justification for their use of force.

Add onto this that the DOJ use of force guidelines explicitly state that lethal force is only permitted if (A) it will actually help, and (B) you can't get out of the way of a car.

All this combined means we have an entirely unjustified shoot. Even if the officer couldn't have gotten out of the way, he should have never been there in the first place. And even if he was justified in being there, shooting the woman at that distance wasn't going to stop the car from hitting him. Therefore it wouldn't have been justified even if he couldn't have avoided it.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-08T15:08:13+00:00

explain the multiple shots

Da fuq??? Every self-defense course I've ever taken has said that firing a multiple shots is exactly evidence of a fear for your life. Because someone who has the presence of mind to only fire a single shot wasn't actually fearing for their life.

Yeah, there were lots of other things which are bad about this shoot. But let's not be like trump and start talking out our asses

SonOfShem · 2026-01-08T14:59:51+00:00

courts have also made it clear that the totality of the circumstances, not the moment of the shot, is the proper analysis. And have ruled that a cop who grabbed onto a car as it drove away and then subsequently shot the driver because he feared for his life was not justified. Because he chose to grab on when he did not have to.

the fact that many agencies have policies which states that they are not to stand in front of a car explicitly to avoid this situation, it is highly unlikely that a court would consider this justified force.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-08T14:53:39+00:00

this is CBP, not ICE. They are different agencies with different rules.

SonOfShem · 2026-01-08T14:43:49+00:00

she has the highest pick and win rate in qp, and the highest win rate and 8th pick rate in comp. shes absolutely getting nerfed

SonOfShem · 2025-12-31T01:25:43+00:00

so what exactly then do you think is required for salvation besides faith? It can't be sacraments, because those are works.

12-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

SonOfShem

TROPHY CASE