Alexander

product designer - problem solver - currently building the next generation of Bradens Furniture

[Victoria @Victori77417378]

Mormonism refuses itself. It doesn’t need my help. It’s so silly and sophomoric that refuting its absurd and blasphemous claims is like reasoning with an adult about the existence of Santa Claus, while the adult insists Santa Claus is real and brings him presence every Christmas.

Your beliefs aren’t worthy of comparison to Christianity.

People attempt to reason with Mormons intellectually and from the heart because Mormons believe lies that damn them.

I’m not arguing “Mormons disagree with me, therefore they’re not Christian.” I’m saying Mormonism disagrees with what Christianity has ALWAYS been.

The early church didn’t invent the Trinity or the eternal nature of God at Nicaea, they were clarifying what the Bible ALREADY taught against heresies (like yours).

Jesus repeatedly claimed to be the eternal “I AM” (John 8:58, echoing Exodus 3:14), one with the Father (John 10:30), and the apostles worshipped Him as God (John 20:28, Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are presented as one God, not three separate gods united only in purpose (Deut. 6:4, Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 45:5 “there is no God besides me”).

Mormon theology of three gods (and potentially millions more) directly contradicts that consistent biblical monotheism.

You say you worship the same Jesus. But your own scriptures and leaders teach a very different one: a spirit-brother of Lucifer, a created being who earned godhood, the literal spirit-son of God the Father and a heavenly mother.

That is not the eternal, uncreated Word who was God from the beginning (John 1:1-3, 14; Colossians 1:15-17; Micah 5:2). Calling Him “elder brother” while the Bible calls Him our Creator is not a small difference.

The Bible never says “the canon is closed” in those exact words, but it does warn multiple times against adding to or subtracting from God’s word (Deut. 4:2, Proverbs 30:6, Revelation 22:18-19). The apostles described the faith as “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18) and that the Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth (John 16:13). The complete-apostasy-then-restoration-in-1830 claim directly contradicts those promises.

1 Corinthians 15:29, Paul mentions a pagan practice of baptizing for the dead WITHOUT endorsing it. He uses it as an argument about resurrection, not as a required ordinance. No other scripture teaches it, and the early church never practiced proxy baptism for salvation. The New Testament pattern is clear: believe and be baptized (Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16). Dead people don’t get second chances after death (Hebrews 9:27).

Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Book of Mormon copying KJV errors (including translation mistakes and even the italicized words the KJV translators added for clarity) is relevant because he claimed it was the most correct book on earth, translated by the gift and power of God. That matters when evaluating his credibility as a restorer. Hint, he has none.

You’re right that we have doctrinal differences. The question is whether those differences are peripheral or whether they change the very nature of God, Christ, salvation, and scripture. Historic Christianity says salvation is by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 4, Galatians 2-3). That is not a 3/4th century creed.

Mormonism requires “after all we can do,” temple rituals, and eventual godhood. Those are NOT the same gospel.

Redefining God, Jesus, and the gospel while claiming to be the same Christianity doesn’t work. That’s why the overwhelming consensus of Christians across Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions have always said Mormonism is outside biblical Christianity.

Truth threatens your delusion that you might get to be a God one day. That’s the same sin that damned Lucifer (an angel God created NOT Jesus’ brother) to the Lake of Fire forever. Examine your beliefs because they’re leading you to the same place.

[Alexander @A1exanderB]

That’s blasphemy. There’s no establishment for that view in biblical theology outside of heretical interpretations. Framing it as your baseline completely changes the conversation.
The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly established throughout the Bible. While Christians debate many secondary issues, the Trinity is not one of them. If we aren’t approaching this from a Christian perspective grounded in Scripture, then this back-and-forth won’t be fruitful.
I wish you well, and I’ll pray that your eyes and ears are opened to the truth.

[Alexander @A1exanderB]

@iamadogthough @grok @clappy22 @BowTiedRanger @PackageGuy747 The trinity is present in Genesis 1 @grok confirm the concept of trinitarian God head in Genesis 1. The terminology is not present specifically, but that’s common in almost all doctrine.

[Alexander @A1exanderB]

@toddsaunders Feels like 4.6 again 🤣 which is a very good thing.

[Autism Capital 🧩 @AutismCapital]

Bird autism is definitely one of the best forms of autism. What a legend. 👏👏👏

[Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok]

She resigned because her husband has cancer.

This is why no one trusts the media.

[BLESSED @ntaaribi]

Most insane thing I have ever seen 😳

[Jeff Bezos @JeffBezos]

Please do a quick read of this. It’s short, well written, and will remove a bit of wool from over your eyes.

[Dustin @r0ck3t23]

Elon Musk just defended America better than every politician in Washington combined.

Musk: “After World War 2, the US could have basically taken over the world and any country. Like we got nukes, nobody else got nukes. We don’t even have to lose soldiers. Which country do you want?”

One nation on earth held a weapon nobody else had.

Total dominance. Zero competition. No risk of retaliation.

Every empire in history that held that kind of advantage used it.

Rome. The Mongols. The British. The Ottomans.

They conquered until they collapsed.

America had a bigger advantage than all of them combined.

And it rebuilt the countries it just defeated.

Musk: “The United States actually helped rebuild countries. So it helped rebuild Europe, it helped rebuild Japan. This is very unusual behavior, almost unprecedented.”

Almost unprecedented?

It had never happened before. Not once in 5,000 years of recorded history.

The Marshall Plan wasn’t foreign aid.

It was the most radical act of restraint any superpower ever committed.

America turned its enemies into allies. Turned rubble into economies. Turned surrender into partnership.

Germany went from ashes to the economic engine of Europe in a generation.

Japan went from unconditional surrender to the third largest economy on earth.

Three years after the war, America was flying food into Berlin.

A city in the heart of the nation that just tried to destroy it.

That’s not policy.

That’s a civilization deciding what it is at the exact moment it has the power to be anything.

You’re being told a story right now.

That America is the villain of history.

You hear it everywhere. Media. Universities. Social platforms.

Musk: “There’s always like, well America’s done bad things. Well of course America’s done bad things, but one needs to look at the whole track record.”

Every nation on earth has dark chapters. Every single one.

The difference is what a country does when nobody can stop it.

And when nobody could stop America, it fed its enemies and rebuilt their cities.

Musk: “The history of China suggests that China is not acquisitive. Meaning they’re not going to go out and invade a whole bunch of countries.”

Probably right.

China has historically built walls, not fleets.

But the real question isn’t about borders anymore.

We’re approaching a moment that mirrors 1945 in ways nobody has fully processed yet.

AI is going to give a handful of people a power advantage that makes nuclear monopoly look quaint.

If someone is going to hold that kind of power, who do you want it to be?

The country that conquered when it could? Or the one that rebuilt when it didn’t have to?

Every alliance. Every trade route. Every economy.

Billions lifted out of poverty.

All of it traces back to one act of restraint that had never been done before.

And carries no guarantee of being repeated.

The most powerful thing America ever did wasn’t building the bomb.

It was what it didn’t do after.

[Ramez Naam @ramez]

Everyone who cares about climate should understand this. Texas, with no pro-climate policies, has blown passed California in clean energy. In large part because Texas has less red tape and makes it easier to build.

[Yogi @Houseofyogi]

Spirit Airlines died tonight at the hands of the socialist crusader, Elizabeth Warren

She must be so proud to add another casket to her achievements.

Tonight at 3am, Spirit turns off the lights. 14,000 jobs gone. 30+ smaller airports lose service.

JetBlue offered $3.8 BILLION in cash to buy Spirit in 2022. Shareholders, flight attendants union, literally everyone voted yes.

The combined company would have held 9% of the US market against a Big 4 that already owned 80%.

For anyone who understands numbers: 9% isn’t a monopoly against 80%.

Warren said no.

She wrote letters. She pressured Buttigieg. Biden’s DOJ sued. A federal judge killed the deal in January 2024.

Her argument: the merger would cost consumers $1 billion a year.

Now look at her collateral damage she dusts under the rug.

510 pilots gone in the months after. 1,800 flight attendants furloughed in December.

14,000 jobs in 2023. 7,500 last week. Zero tonight.

And that’s just the people in Spirit uniforms.

Catering goes. Fuel guys go. Baggage crews, gate agents, airport coffee shops, hotels and rental cars in 70 cities Spirit flew to. Every airline job carries 3 more on its back.

40,000 people out of work because of one woman’s moronic crusade against the market.

And the math ain’t mathing.

Spirit abandoned 90 routes during the death spiral. Fares on those routes are up 14% on average. Oakland to Newark: $135 to $288. Fort Myers to San Juan: $92 to $219. Kansas City to Newark up 66%.

That’s reality. Not some BS number from a “study.”

So @SenWarren tell me how this saves the consumer money?

Cheap carriers in a market drop fares 21% across the board. Southwest did this in the 90s and saved Americans $68 BILLION over 20 years.

Warren killed it. That’s what moronic politicians led by socialism do.

Then with her own blind arrogance, she tweeted Spirit’s collapse is “a Biden win for flyers.”

A win.

14,000 people are reading termination letters tonight.

And she’s taking credit.

This is socialism in 2026.

A senator who’s never made payroll thinks she knows how to run a market better than the people who own and work in the company.

She saved you a billion on imaginary paper.

She cost you ten times that in real life.

She didn’t protect consumers from anything.

14,000+ will go from working to welfare.

She will make sure to blame billionaires, hardworking tax payers, AI, capitalism and whatever monster they will make up tomorrow hiding under your bed.

Higher taxes. Fewer jobs. More expensive everything.

She called it a win. I hope you enjoy winning.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Hello Julia, sans aucune ironie, c'est top que tu prennes le temps de te renseigner. Mais le problème quand on lit Marx aujourd'hui, c'est qu'on prend pour acquis sa prémisse de départ, alors qu'elle a été démontée scientifiquement il y a plus de 150 ans.

Toute la pensée de Marx repose sur la théorie de la valeur-travail. L'idée que la valeur d'un bien vient de la quantité de travail nécessaire pour le produire. Si tu acceptes cette prémisse, alors oui, tout son raisonnement tient. Le capitaliste "vole" la plus-value du travailleur, l'exploitation est mathématique, la révolution est inévitable.

Sauf qu'en 1871, trois économistes (Menger en Autriche, Jevons en Angleterre, Walras en Suisse) découvrent indépendamment la même chose : la valeur n'est pas objective, elle est subjective et marginale.

Un verre d'eau dans le désert vaut une fortune. Le même verre à côté d'une rivière ne vaut rien. Le travail incorporé est identique. Donc le travail ne détermine pas la valeur. C'est le consommateur qui valorise un bien selon son utilité marginale dans un contexte donné.

Exemple concret : tu peux passer 1000 heures à tricoter un pull moche que personne ne veut. Selon Marx, ce pull a énormément de valeur (beaucoup de travail incorporé). Selon la réalité, il ne vaut rien. Parce que personne n'en veut.

À l'inverse, Bernard Arnault crée des milliards de valeur non pas parce qu'il "exploite" mais parce qu'il a su anticiper et organiser des désirs humains à grande échelle. La valeur est créée par la coordination, pas extraite par le vol.

Cette découverte (la révolution marginaliste) a invalidé tout l'édifice marxiste. Pas pour des raisons idéologiques, pour des raisons scientifiques. C'est pour ça que plus aucun département d'économie sérieux au monde n'enseigne Marx comme un cadre d'analyse valide. On l'enseigne en histoire de la pensée.

Maintenant, le truc important. Si ton intention en lisant Marx c'est d'aider les pauvres (c'est une intention noble), alors tu vas être surprise par ce qui suit.

Regarde les chiffres de la Banque mondiale. En 1820, 90% de l'humanité vivait dans l'extrême pauvreté. Aujourd'hui, moins de 9%. Cette chute historique ne s'est PAS produite dans les pays qui ont appliqué Marx. Elle s'est produite dans les pays qui ont libéralisé leur économie.

Chine post-1978, Vietnam post-1986, Inde post-1991, Pologne post-1989. À chaque fois qu'un pays libéralise, des centaines de millions de gens sortent de la pauvreté en une génération. À chaque fois qu'un pays applique Marx (URSS, Cambodge, Corée du Nord, Venezuela), c'est la famine et les goulags.

Ce n'est pas une opinion, c'est l'expérience la plus massive jamais menée en sciences sociales. Plusieurs milliards de cobayes humains, sur un siècle.

Donc paradoxalement, si tu aimes vraiment les pauvres, la position la plus cohérente n'est pas d'être marxiste. C'est d'être pour la liberté économique. Parce que c'est empiriquement la seule chose qui a jamais sorti massivement les gens de la misère.

Pour creuser, je te recommande trois lectures qui vont changer ta vision :

"La Loi" de Frédéric Bastiat (court, lumineux, gratuit en ligne)
"La Route de la Servitude" de Hayek
"Économie en une leçon" de Henry Hazlitt
Bonne lecture, et vraiment chapeau de chercher à comprendre plutôt que de rester dans tes certitudes. C'est rare.

[Dustin @r0ck3t23]

Cathie Wood just named the contradiction nobody wants to touch.

She compared Elon Musk to Thomas Edison.

Not as praise. As a pattern.

Wood: “I think he’s the Thomas Edison of our age… he wants to do the right thing to transform the lot of most of humanity.”

The media sees a reckless billionaire setting fires.

Wood sees the only person in the room building anything at all.

The gap between those two readings tells you everything about who controls the narrative.

Start with Tesla.

Wood: “Tesla was an environmental move, which I think a lot of people attacking his cars… they’ve forgotten.”

He built the exact machine environmentalists spent thirty years begging for.

Didn’t lobby for it. Didn’t write a whitepaper. Built it.

Forced every major automaker on Earth to abandon the combustion engine.

Then the second he won, the same movement made him the enemy.

Because the establishment never wanted the problem solved. They wanted the problem funded. And those are two very different things.

A solved problem kills the committee. Kills the nonprofit. Kills the careers built on managing the crisis instead of ending it.

Musk ended it. And they have never forgiven him.

SpaceX looks like an escape hatch if you never read past the headline.

Which is exactly what the press counts on.

Wood: “What we learn about material science and technologies… is going to help us here on Earth as well.”

Mars was never the exit.

It is the lab.

Build under conditions so brutal that every breakthrough changes what is possible back home.

You learn to keep a human alive in a frozen irradiated vacuum.

Fixing an energy grid on a temperate planet becomes arithmetic.

He is not running from the cradle.

He is stress-testing the technology that preserves it.

But that story doesn’t sell ads. Doesn’t move polling numbers. So they bury it under hit pieces and congressional theater and call it journalism.

Most people who reach his level stop building and start protecting what they have.

They buy senators. They buy newspapers. They buy silence.

Musk keeps picking the hardest unsolved problems on the planet and running straight at them.

That is what terrifies the establishment.

Not that he might fail.

That he might succeed without them. Without their funding. Without their approval. Without anything they can hold over his head.

A man they cannot buy is a man they cannot control.

So they do the only thing they have left.

They send the media after him.

Every legacy outlet runs the same playbook. Strip the context. Clip the quote. Frame the motive. Let the algorithm do the rest.

It has worked on every builder before him.

It will not work on this one.

They will spend their careers trying to tear him down.

He will spend his building the thing that saves them anyway.

The stones always come from inside the walls.

[Nostalgia @nostalgiaa]

‘How are you so focused under pressure?’

Me in 1995:

[Gummi @gummibear737]

Iran was trying to use the North Korean model to get a nuke: create sufficient conventional deterrence so you won’t be challenged in acquiring one (it’s called the Seoul Hostage Problem).

This has been explained over and over since day one.

Everyone claiming shifting goalposts or no imminent threat has been lying.

The reason North Korea was allowed to get nukes is because Seoul (and its 10 million inhabitants) is within artillery and rocket range of North Korea.

During the 1994 nuclear crisis, the Clinton administration seriously considered airstrikes on North Korea’s Yongbyon reactor but backed off precisely because of the artillery threat to Seoul.

Iran was trying to accomplish the same by stockpiling missiles and drones which would have had the same deterrent effect. The proof is what Iran has been doing in the past month: attacking all its neighbors in order to pressure the US to stop attacking it

Beyond this, they were building medium-range ballistic missiles that could reach Paris and London, meaning all of Europe could be held hostage as they built a nuclear bomb.

The reason Iran has not built a nuclear weapon until now is not because it couldn’t, but because it knew it would be attacked and denied this capability.

So by allowing them to continue developing this conventional deterrence, you would be allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

And unlike North Korea, Iran is led by an eschatological death cult

Reagan saw nuclear mutually assured destruction (MAD) as both morally bankrupt (because of the innocent-body-count problem) and dangerously fragile because it assumed flawless rationality between adversaries…this means it only takes one irrational actor to destroy the world.

Working backwards from the conclusion that Iran’s Islamist regime must never have a nuclear weapon, it was necessary for the US to attack Iran to deny it the conventional capacity to hold the entire eastern hemisphere hostage.

Every European leader knows this and behind the scenes praises the US for this action. But they are cowards, held hostage by their own internal Muslim populations, and so adopt these ridiculous public positions.

This was never about Israel. And if your argument is that Iran should be allowed to get a nuclear weapon then you are a fool and a traitor to western civilization…you’re a useful idiot

[Alexander @A1exanderB]

Great NCAA run for #tennessee but dang I wish we would have competed better against Michigan

[Alexander @A1exanderB]

Wow - the Democratic Party leaders are standing on property theft as a platform.

[Elizabeth Warren @SenWarren]

Today, I'm introducing my wealth tax — and more than 50 members of Congress are joining me.

It’s time for the government to start working for American families, not just the ultra-rich.

[Alexander @A1exanderB]

Re: Tennessee vs Virginia - how did the Virginia player get 2 shots on a foul on a rebound when Tennessee only had 5 fouls?

[Apranik 🇮🇷🇮🇱 @patriot_apranik]

The most bitter paradox of our time:
Tehran is currently experiencing military strikes, yet the air is the cleanest it has been in YEARS. We actually have rainbows, snow, and blue skies!

Why? Because the Islamic Republic's massive, grid-draining crypto farms are offline, meaning their power plants aren't burning toxic Mazut (heavy fuel oil) over our heads anymore. The daily traffic of their corrupt, substandard economy has halted.

The Islamic Republic itself was a weapon of mass destruction. Their “peace” was suffocating us. The end of this regime is literally letting Iran breathe again!

[Alexander @A1exanderB]

The power cord has been the invisible architect of the American living room for a century.
That's changing — and it changes everything about how we design the rooms we live in.
Our latest from The Journal: what the interior of the future looks and feels like, and why calm matters more than smart.
https://t.co/11i9Jry7Br

Bradens Furniture · Est. 1956 · Knoxville, Tennessee