#Reformed Doctrine Explained

[mindfulldsliving]

The Impact of Calvinism on Modern Christianity

When we think about Reformed Theology and Calvinism, a common perception emerges that these beliefs are simply extensions of Pauline Christianity. Critics argue they introduce a false gospel, one that diverges from the teachings of Christ Himself.

Apologetics Unveiled: Dissecting Reformed Theology and the Calvinist Doctrine When we think about Reformed Theology and Calvinism, a common perception emerges that these beliefs are simply extensions of Pauline Christianity. Critics argue they introduce a false gospel, one that diverges from the teachings of Christ Himself. We aim to explore these claims and understand their implications for our…

[theonion]

Explaining that the offshoot group remained on the religion’s periphery due to their inflexible belief system, sources confirmed Wednesday that a fringe Catholic sect doesn’t tolerate child abuse. “While this splinter group considers themselves followers of Christ and his teachings, it’s important to note that the vast majority of Catholics view the Reformed Church of St. Isidore’s conviction that children should not be molested or assaulted as wildly out of step with conventional doctrine,” said Bishop Thomas DeNunzio, adding that the centuries-old faction has been living in the shadows in the United States since at least the 1950s, drawing disciples with its contentious dogma of respecting children and refusing to open their doors to priests who had left their previous positions due to child abuse.

Full Story

[emmasmoke8]

You guys should have known I couldn’t leave well enough alone, so here’s some stuff about the Children of Space and Time series (or the idea about Silver being Sonadow’s kid but the Time Stones yoinked him)

The Scions of Chaos is a religious group. They primarily worship the primordial will of chaos (as in the energy). According to them, it was split into Gaia, the will of the earth (as in nature), and Sky, the will of the cosmos. They want Gaia and Sky to merge once more.

Their doctrines heavily focus on the natural world and celestial bodies, especially stars. As such, the scions will forsake their former names and take on the name of constellations/stars.

They are a mixture of humans and Mobians. They believe humans are of Sky and Mobians are of Gaia. They call humans “Son/Daughter/Child of Sky” and Mobians “Son/Daughter/Child of Gaia.”

In recent years, the Scions of Chaos have determined that Sonic and Shadow are particularly important. They have traced their powers and histories until a conclusion was reached. They are not merely the Sons of Gaia/Sky (they consider Shadow to be a Son of Sky despite being Mobian because of his Black Arms genetics, his time on the ARK, and his connection with humanity). Sonic and Shadow are the incarnations of Gaia and Sky.

From here, the Scions of Chaos knew what they must do. To reform Chaos, they must combine Gaia and Sky. Sonic and Shadow’s child, therefore, would be an incarnation of Chaos, like they are.

(It should be noted that Sonic and Shadow are not Gaia and Sky. Gaia exists, but that’s Dark/Light Gaia. Sky and Chaos—as the scions know it—does not exist)

Their pursuit was known as Project Aether. They tried creating several test tube offspring. Only one survived. When this child (who is about the age of the current sidekicks—Tails, Cream, Marine, etc.— but this is a timeskip so she’s younger than them now) passed all necessary tests, she was named Astra (star) and given the title of Daughter of Chaos.

Astra was with the Scions of Chaos for a while. Her experiences weren’t pleasant. Some revered her as a divine being, a primordial will in her own right. Others thought she was a stepping stone to finally awakening Chaos. Neither side treated her as an individual, even going so far as to suppress her personality (it would ‘taint’ the process).

There were also conflicts about inhibitor rings. Some thought they were necessary since Astra had a lot of power she couldn’t yet control. Others thought it was sacrilegious and an affront to Chaos. The rings were made, but they weren’t used to pacify both sides.

Her powers obviously included super speed, but she could also manipulate wind.

When Astra was given a chaos emerald, it was found that she couldn’t freeze time or teleport. Instead, Astra unleashed a gigantic storm made of chaos energy. She remained safe in the eye, but the Nebula (the institution she was made at) along with all the scions in it were killed or maimed.

Sonic was on a mission to find the chaos emeralds, so he noticed the storm. He made his way through to find Astra. He helped her stop the storm and took the chaos emerald from her. Sonic wasn’t quite sure what to do with her until a long look made him realize how similar she looked to him and Shadow. Just to confirm things, Sonic took Astra to Tails to check her blood.

Astra, who has never been given choices before, just went with him. She also recognized him, however, as one of the scions’ ‘gods.’ Astra worshipped them as the scions did, so she wouldn’t have been able to refuse Sonic, anyway.

Tails confirms that Astra is, indeed, Sonic and Shadow’s kid. This puts Sonic in a rough spot. He was looking for the chaos emeralds because his and Shadow’s firstborn (I’ll explain this in a minute) went missing. Sonic and Shadow haven’t spoken since this disappearance, so it’s a bit awkward when Sonic goes to leave Astra with Shadow. He’s forced to stay, however, when Astra refuses to leave him. Sonic only stays until she becomes more comfortable with Shadow. This will result in them reconciling and whatnot.

Now, the other child. Who could that be? Why, it’s none other than Silver!

So, Shadow, as a Black Doom’s greatest weapon, has many similar abilities to him, including genetic manipulation. When they were ready, Shadow combined his and Sonic’s DNA. The child was in a pod (like the ones from Shadow the Hedgehog 05). When they hatched, Sonic and Shadow were there. They were going to name their child after the birth because a) they didn’t know the gender and b) their names came from characteristics about them so they thought the same should apply to their kid.

Unfortunately, they only got maybe a minute with their kid before the Time Stones stole the hoglet away. This child was destined to be their guardian, after all, so they brought the child to the future to start guarding them. This event also bleached the child’s fur silver/white.

Sonic and Shadow went about saving their kid in two different ways, causing them to temporarily separate until Astra forced them back together.

Silver is in their lives, entirely unaware of being their kid (and they’re unaware, too). Silver and Astra team-up to take down the rest of the Scions of Chaos who will prove to be a threat in the future. As they investigate, they discover the truth bit by bit.

They learn of Silver’s parentage first. Silver is angry and sad. Astra believes in Shadow and Sonic, though, so she convinces Silver to help look for the reason they ‘abandoned’ Silver. This is when they learn about the Time Stones.

Although this puts the family back together, they still have to work out some things. It isn’t smooth sailing, but they’re trying their best

You can ask me questions if you want. I might have made too much lore about the Scions of Chaos lmao

I also might draw Astra

[artist-issues]

hello I'm cynthia one of @sunkissedliterarylightofchrist mutuals and she said you'd be a great person to ask for resources about learning about church history and theology for someone who is new to these topics.

I’m not a big reader of non-fiction Christian literature; I happen to be discipled by a lot of people who are! This is what they recommend:

My brother, who is a theologian, says “Justo Gonzalez has a great two vol survey of church history but that’s technically a textbook. Michael Reeves as a book called “the unquenchable flame” that’s a very easy read about the reformation with key theological doctrines explained in it.”

“Delighting in the Trinity” is a good intro to theology, I think! And I love anything by C.S. Lewis because it beautifully combines reason and imagination with truth from Scripture, so it feels like soul-food that’s training your tastes toward Christ.

I also occasionally work for and sincerely trust GotQuestions.com: they’ll actually personally email you back with answers to questions you send them, and include their exegesis of Scripture and links to their sources when they do so!

I’m sorry it took so long to answer this.

[rabbits-of-negative-euphoria]

The doctrine of the Trinity does not fully explain the mysterious character of God. Rather, it sets the boundaries outside of which we must not step. It defines the limits of our finite reflection. It demands that we be faithful to the biblical revelation that in one sense God is one and in a different sense He is three.

Reformation Study Bible, The Triunity of God

[faeriefully]

Hi there!

I'm one of your Catholic followers, and I'm just a little curious to learn more about Reformed Theology since I know very little of it.

is there any books you could reccomend to learn a bit more about it?

always interested in learn about how the beliefs of my brothers and sisters in Christ!

if you don't have any no issue either just curious

Hi hi ✨

Sure! I’ve got a couple different resources!

Books:

What is Reformed Theology? - R. C. Sproul

The Holiness of God - R. C. Sproul

Chosen by God - R. C. Sproul

Knowing God - J. I. Packer

Concise Theology - J. I. Packer

Show Me Your Glory - Steven Lawson

Bondage of the Will - Martin Luther

Freedom of the Will - Johnathan Edwards

Reformed Theology - Jonathan Master

These are all great books that discuss theology from a reformed foundation! Some are specifically about explaining reformed theology and some are foundational doctrine studies from a reformed perspective.

For further reference! There’s great, free resources that are available through Ligonier Ministries (a trusted prominent reformed ministry).

“What Is Reformed Theology?” from Ligonier Ministries

“Chosen by God” from Ligonier Ministries

“The Holiness of God” from Ligonier Ministries

-

I also am always up for answering questions and have quite a few answered tagged #reformed theology

[iliveinprocrasti-nationn]

I'd be curious to learn about a really egregious case of projected vs unprotected speech. In either direction, for example a court rules obvious hate threats as protected or if they rule something innocuous as unprotected? If you want to talk about that

Initially, I thought I didn't have any for you because my research focused on neo-nazi groups, and I also did more of an exploration into unprotected speech through the first amendment instead of through cases. However, I went back in my notes, and I was wrong. Here are five that I had listed; I have more, I think, but these were easy to find. Before I get into it, I need to emphasize that, by legal standards, all of these are, in fact, legal. They were ruled to be legal. They piss me off, though. Note also that I started this a little before 11 p.m. on a Saturday, and I am also not a legal scholar. I just get mad about neo-nazis not getting fired, do a deep dive into the first amendment, and then write an 11 page paper that's now been submitted to a $1000-$10,000 scholarship. This is to say, this will be long as hell and minimally edited, so research these on your own if you want more information.

1) First off, you have Terminiello v. Chicago (1949). Terminiello was a wildly antisemitic, etc. Catholic priest who got a small following in the '30s and '40s for that because America did have its own nazi party and a lot of people love antisemitism. Anyway, he was arrested in 1946 for basically creating a "breach of the peace" because a speech caused some scuffles between his audience and outside protesters. SCOTUS, in a 5-4 decision, said "nuh-uh" and decided the "breach of the peace" law violated freedom of speech because speech has to be "likely to produce a clear and present danger" and can't just be a "public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest". Welcome to the clear and present danger doctrine! This is a facet of free speech; unprotected speech has to present a "clear and present danger" to be considered unconstitutional. What constitutes clear and present danger? Who knows. That's decided by the court.

2) Not necessarily a hate threat in the traditional sense, but I did want to explain Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969) because it was mentioned in that person's post. Brandenberg was not an antisemitic Catholic priest, but he was a KKK member. He was involved in a big rally full of racism and antisemitism, and he also made a speech saying the KKK should march on Congress (and then split into two groups to march on St. Augustine and Mississippi). This was because the government was apparently "suppress[ing] the white, Caucasian race". Ohio had a law saying you can't advocate for "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism" to advocate for industrial or political reform. Ultimately, SCOTUS says this law is unconstitutional, and this case has also become strong legal precedent in free speech cases. Basically, speech is protected unless it would cause/is likely to cause "imminent lawless action". Again, welcome to vague wording! What counts as imminent lawless action? I have no clue. I guess they didn't think the KKK would try to overthrow the government because of this one guy.

3) Here's one that does fully count, though, and it pisses me off the most. Welcome to the case I can't talk about in person without yelling: National Socialist Party v. Skokie (1977). Now, you might be thinking, "J, I think I've heard of the national socialists." To that, I say, you have heard of them! They're nazis. National socialists are nazis. Just thought I'd clear that up because some people don't realize that "nazi" is an abbreviation. So. Nazis saw this city, Skokie, which had a lot of Jewish families, including a significant number of Holocaust survivors, and wanted to go there in their little costumes and march around. The county said "what the fuck, no", and also the city had a ban on wearing Nazi uniforms and exhibiting swastikas. This case didn't actually go to SCOTUS; it went to a Court of Appeals (a lower court) who said this ban was unconstitutional. It was appealed to SCOTUS, though, who said "we don't wanna hear it, go with what they said", and the lower court's ruling became law. The Nazis got permits to march and then promptly decided they didn't want to anymore. Also, I do want to mention the ACLU defended the nazis. Not a fan of that.

3.1) Also: I found out through double-checking some details that there's actually a lot more involved here as there were issues beforehand with Nazis in the area. It was all dubbed The Swastika War by the Chicago Tribune, but a lot of civil rights leaders and orgs were also involved because the Nazis were also being horrifically racist. It became a whole thing. The NAACP and a lot of other civil rights leaders/orgs were prepared to be involved in the counter-protest that had been planned for the Nazi's march in Skokie. I'm planning to look more into all of this because it's super cool.

4) Next up: R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992). A teenager burned a cross on the lawn of a black couple in Minnesota, and he was arrested and charged because of an ordinance that banned hate crimes/symbols that are enacted on the basis of "race, color, creed, religion or gender." Makes sense, right? Minnesota Supreme Court said this was legal, but then it went to SCOTUS who said that the only reason it wasn't permitted was "solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses." Basically, because this would be legal if they'd done it on a white couple's lawn and not done it because of any of the reasons listed, then it would've been fine, so the ordinance is too broad. I think specifically protecting your marginalized citizens with legal protection makes sense, but SCOTUS decided otherwise.

5) Virginia v. Black (2003) brought us more cross burning. This time, they said that, yeah, cross-burning is sometimes illegal (intimidation), but you can't just ban the burning of crosses (first amendment). So cross-burning can be banned as a form of intimidation with other actions "most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm", and the act can be brought to court if it's proven that intimidation/fear of bodily harm is the goal of the cross burning. Drawing from Justia here: you can't ban cross burning with the intent to intimidate UNLESS the cross burning was intended to intimidate. It's very confusing, but it works with the intimidation vs. first amendment thing. Can't ban cross burning specifically, but you can ban acts intended to intimidate, so you can ban cross burning with the intent to intimidate. Why is this needed? Because apparently the KKK sometimes classifies cross burning as a "[message] of shared ideology" according to the Sandra Day O'Connor institute for American Democracy. Apparently, according to a former KKK grand dragon, they tend to hide away do all that shit in the woods now. Probably because they don't want to be arrested and revealed as being racist sacks of old coleslaw. I think the dude's conviction was decided to not stand, though.

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed my very small round up of legal cases that make me want to eat drywall. I can definitely go more into unprotected speech if anyone is interested. This was for an essay with a focus on neo-nazis, so people are welcome to ask me about that. I'll try to answer with the best I know. For now, I'm gonna go clean my kitchen, brush my teeth, and then collapse into bed and hope my cats let me sleep past 7 a.m. tomorrow.

[khorneschosen]

Design is Destiny: A Grim Warning.

I have seen the phenomenon of the socialists of my country slowly begin to shift in a concerning way over the years—what began as a mere insult, then became a troubling resemblance, and now stands as an unmistakable likeness that demands attention. Especially in the wake of terrorist attacks against Jewish people in my own country and abroad, we now face a socialist movement tasked with rooting out anti-Semitism within its own ranks. Having observed this, my concern grows over their apparent inability to effectively confront this issue within their own system—because that system has, over the past decade, changed into something unmistakably old and evil.

One of the most interesting and concerning aspects I've noticed about socialists across the world is the slow march toward becoming structurally fascist. I don’t mean authoritarianism or use any other shorthand, but the literal philosophical framing and ideological structure itself.

To start, many intellectuals and historians are increasingly accepting this: fascism is an offshoot of socialist theory. Instead of democratizing the means of production, fascism collectivizes the people of a nation into service of that nation, controlling the means of production through them as representatives.

This highlights a crucial point: the line between classical and modern socialism and fascism has never been clear—a problem worsened by the collapse of the meaning of "fascism." This is a warning: without a clear definition of fascism, society cannot meaningfully define itself in opposition to it.

With that said, let me explain how our so-called anti-fascist socialists are, in my opinion, adopting the structure of fascism.

First, consider economics. The new socialists of the 2020s emphasize market socialism, where employee ownership of businesses supposedly achieves socialism by seizing and democratizing the means of production. But this leaves the state mostly unchanged, except possibly expanding welfare.

This is the model we see in practice in modern China—the last major socialist country that has kept the party in power by adopting market reforms. Many socialists look to this model as the only functioning form of socialism.

We must understand that adopting this model means accepting it as the socialism to be practiced. The Communist Party's structure under market reforms is nearly identical to fascist governments worldwide—from surveillance and censorship to one-party rule and tight market controls.

This structure, though adopted without full understanding, results in the same form and function as fascism.

One of the most troubling parts of the Chinese model is its foundation on a mono-ethnic framework: the Han Chinese. This group makes up 93% of China’s population and absorbs other ethnic groups like Uighurs and Tibetans into this framework. This is a model of socialism built around a mono-ethnic society that is being applied to a multi-ethnic society.

This ethnic focus mirrors aspects of early fascism, particularly under Franco and Mussolini—though not to the racial extremes seen in Hitler’s regime—and raises concerns about how this model is implemented.

Turning to “woke” ideology: at its core, it applies Marxist ideas to identity categories like sex, gender, and race. Unlike previous socialist movements, which rarely focused on ethnicity except for tactical reasons, today’s socialists emphasize ethnicity and race deeply.

The “Progressive Stack” as we know it isn’t official doctrine, but it is a concrete application of victimhood ideology. It measures legitimacy and moral authority by historical harm, not individual merit. Groups aren’t judged on character or contribution, but by cumulative grievances.

If you critique nearly every group on Earth, what remains uncriticized becomes a hierarchy—even if no race claims supremacy outright. White people are generally at the bottom for obvious reasons, followed by Jews or Asians, who have faced oppression but also achieved success. Next might be Native-lineage Hispanics, then people of color from Africa historically, who—within this framework—have never been oppressors and are seen as most innocent. And thus, in the kingdom of the guilty, it is the victim who is king.

The exact order shifts by conversation, but the principle holds: it’s a hierarchy based on historical victimhood, not on achievement or value produced.

Supremacy in this model isn’t abolished—it’s now about moral innocence and absence of oppression, not strength or accomplishment. The Progressive Stack is not just a social trend; it’s the operating system of a belief system centered on guilt, grievance, and group identity.

Both engage in political violence as a praxis of political life regardless of their relation to power. Both openly endorse censorship, political violence against opponents, and even political assassination of rivals. Both believe in violence as the truest form of politic—whether in the Marxist model of the necessary conclusion of the contradictions of capitalism, or in the fascist model of cleansing struggle and national rebirth.

The main differences between 21st-century socialism and early 20th-century fascism are ideological and aesthetic. Early fascists valued strength; today’s socialists value weakness above all. But this doesn’t change the structure—both run on victimhood playing out in power.

In conclusion, we need this framework to understand what socialism is becoming—to resist it where we can, reform it if possible, and above all understand how our opposition operates and thinks.

We should stop using the term “fascist” as a mere insult and recognize it as a lens to model how socialists act. Tools that fought historical fascism can be adapted to counter today’s socialism.

Intent is cosmetic. Structure is destiny. No matter the slogans, the machine does what it was built to do. This means that whether socialists intended to mirror fascist structure is irrelevant—because the system will act as its design dictates.

So in closing, I will answer the personal point I made at the start. The Nazis didn't just oppose Jews and make them the central focus of hate in their ideology merely because they were different—they did so because Jews represented intellectualism and market success. We now have a socialist movement operating on a model of fascism, which despises market success and intellectualism, now asked to root out antisemitism within its own ranks.

And this is why I write this: to help people understand what we are seeing, and that we are watching an ideology that has gone off the rails and is plummeting out of control toward a very dark period. If we want to avoid the conclusion of violence that will come from this, we must act now—do the work that socialists are incapable of—and call out their antisemitism for what it is and condemn it when we see it on that basis.

[prolifeproliberty]

As a “confessional Lutheran (not catholic, not Protestant),” how would you like… explain that because the definition many (Catholics, let alone others) have of Protestantism is that it’s a breakaway from the Catholic Church circa Reformation era; and it’s not Catholic or Orthodox. Like. I mean both are true ? Honest question for real not trying to be shady!! Tysm!

Thanks for asking!

You see, the definition of Protestant as “broke away from Rome during the 1500s” is both so broad as to be functionally meaningless when it comes to actual doctrine and also so narrow that it would exclude many denominations that we consider Protestant today who broke away from the “Protestants” of the 1500s.

First, it should be noted that Luther had no intent to leave the Roman Catholic Church, but was forced out when he refused to recant all of his works, including those that were in line with Catholic teaching. He held on to Catholic practice wherever he could.

From our Lutheran Confessions:

At the outset we must again make the preliminary statement that we do not abolish the Mass, but religiously maintain and defend it. For among us masses are celebrated every Lord’s Day and on the other festivals, in which the Sacrament is offered to those who wish to use it, after they have been examined and absolved. And the usual public ceremonies are observed, the series of lessons, of prayers, vestments, and other like things. (Source: https://bookofconcord.org/defense/of-the-mass/ )

Most Protestant churches/denominations today either have their roots in Calvinism or Arminianism, both of which are wholeheartedly rejected by Lutheranism.

In fact, the Lutheran Confessions (from which Confessional Lutheranism gets its name) go to great lengths to distinguish Lutheran teaching from both Roman Catholicism and from the other Protestants of the time.

Also, Lutherans are much closer to Catholics on matters such as Holy Communion and Baptism, even if we aren’t quite on the same page.

For a lighthearted, more humorous take on the distinction, here’s one of my favorite videos to post on Reformation Day:

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

What is the greatest difference between Reformed theology and non-Reformed theology? What distinguishes Reformed theology from the doctrine held by other Christian groups? From one of our Ask Ligonier events, W. Robert Godfrey explains that being Reformed involves much more than a rejection of Arminianism.

[just-like-her-father]

(Listen to the music to enhance the reading experience.)

Eight years ago, Florence greeted Charlotte Stark not with fanfare, but with quiet curiosity. A name whispered along marble corridors of old Italian banking halls, in the leather-scented salons of private innovation clubs, and in university courtyards where theory wrestled with practice. Back then, she was an outsider. Today, she is Florence’s beating heart of intellect, innovation, and influence — a sovereign force whose dominion spans the realm of economic reformation, cognitive technology, and futurist philosophy.

The transformation was not gradual; it was exponential.

She arrived in 2017 — twenty-four, enigmatic, American-born but philosophically borderless. Charlotte Stark, then a polymath fresh off a controversial exit from a U.S. think tank, stepped into Florence with a singular mission: to redefine how cities think, build, and thrive.

In her first public appearance, held in the minimalist atrium of the Istituto per le Scienze Cognitive Avanzate, Charlotte addressed an audience of jaded economists and optimistic engineers. They expected tech jargon and futurist fluff. What they got was clarity wrapped in elegance:

“Economics is not the study of money,” she said, eyes calm, voice measured. “It is the study of vision. Currency is just the applause.”

That quote would go on to become the opening line of The Stark Doctrine, a widely circulated economic paper that challenged the traditional GDP framework and introduced the Vision-Impact Gradient — a new metric for evaluating a nation’s worth by its ability to manifest intent into scalable change.

In less than two years, Stark Novae, her self-founded think-and-do tank, had revitalized a decaying Florentine industrial park and turned it into a cybernetic incubator zone. Her work fused predictive AI, sustainable energy models, and economic behavioral theory. What struck most was not just what she built — but how.

She implemented Italy’s first decentralized AI-governed green grid in a consortium of Tuscan towns. Energy costs dropped. Community trust surged. Stark Novae was suddenly not just admired, it was followed.

In a 2020 interview at TechFlorence, she stunned the room by asking:

“Why are we still romanticizing fossil energy in a city that gave us the Renaissance? If Leonardo da Vinci were alive today, he’d be programming synthetic photosynthesis, not painting ceilings.”

Florence, a city that once resisted outsiders’ dominance, embraced her. Even the most traditional Italian institutions — the Accademia delle Scienze, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Vatican’s AI-Ethics Council — sought her counsel.

As the world began turning to Florence for innovation models, Charlotte became the epicenter. She didn’t chase markets; markets began to orbit her.

Her public lectures drew thousands — but it was her closed-door midnight salons that rewrote policy. In the candlelit backrooms of converted convents, she’d gather philosophers, bioengineers, quantum coders, and chefs. Conversations ranged from post-human cognition to the future of bread.

A local journalist once called her “the high priestess of synthesis — she speaks like she’s explaining the future to the past.”

In 2023, she co-authored The Cognitive City, a blueprint for cities run on adaptive neural logic. That document, now translated into 18 languages, became required reading in design schools and U.N. developmental summits.

She was no longer just a thinker. She was a shaper.

Her empire expanded: A NeuroDynamics Lab outside Siena. A Civic Ethics Simulator used by mayors across Europe. A Reality Layer Protocol — a semi-augmented environment designed to re-train human attention spans — quietly beta-tested in schools under her nonprofit, Synapse Florence.

And she never lost the flair.

Riding through Oltrarno, in tailored trousers and fingerless gloves, she became as much a part of Florence’s daily myth as Brunelleschi’s dome. She quoted Foucault at wine tastings, debated political economy in vintage cafés, and had standing Tuesday breakfasts with local grandmothers who adored her fluent Italian and her deep love for saffron risotto.

The world watched as Charlotte took the stage at the Telekinesis - Intellect Union Conference 2025, held poetically at Galileo’s restored observatory.

Dressed in stark ivory and soft steel blue, she walked to the podium with the solemn grace of someone about to shift a paradigm.

“Telekinesis is not a fantasy,” she opened. “It’s the final frontier of cognitive bandwidth. The mind, if given the right conditions and interface, is the most efficient processor known to man. The question is not how — but why haven’t we yet?”

She then unveiled NeuroBridge v1.4, a functioning prototype of a brain-interface conduit that allowed short-distance object manipulation through trained intent pathways. The crowd — a constellation of Nobel Laureates, policy giants, and disbelieving scientists — stood breathless as she demonstrated lifting a titanium sphere, three inches above the platform, without touching it.

The interface, according to her, was still in infancy. But the implications were seismic: intent-based interaction, neural-syntactic reprogramming, and even post-verbal cognition.

She didn’t seek applause. She simply nodded and said:

“Human potential is not capped by biology. It is capped by permission.”

Florence erupted.

Within days, investment surged. NeuroBridge became a joint project with Italian state labs, and Charlotte launched the Stark Initiative for Cognitive Sovereignty — aiming to give marginalized communities access to emerging brain-tech tools.

Today, Florence refers to her simply as La Signora della Mente — The Lady of the Mind. Her face is painted on murals next to da Vinci. Her quotes are engraved on bridges. Teenagers cite her like she’s Socrates with better hair.

She chairs four international panels. Advises two European presidents. Sleeps four hours. Meditates in hidden monasteries. Dines with artisans. Still walks into every room like she owns the blueprints of the universe.

And what of her next move?

A recent cryptic post from her official channel read:

“The future is not being invented. It’s being remembered. Like something we lost in a past life and are finally learning to rebuild.”

In Florence, Charlotte Stark is no longer a guest.

She is the standard.

[pure-land]

Suggested Further Readings Jodo-Shinshu;

Bloom, Alfred. Life of Shinran Shonin: The Journey to Self-Acceptance. 1968. Reprint. Berkeley: Institute of Buddhist Studies, 1994. 80 pp. One of the earliest treatment of Shinran’s life in English by a Western scholar. Scholastic in nature but this monograph can be enjoyed by non-specialists. The author raises many intriguing questions, for example, 1) why did Shinran enter the monastery, 2) why did he leave, 3) what were the specific charges against him, and 4) what prompted his return to Kyoto.

Bloom, Alfred. Shinran’s Gospel of Pure Grace. Tucson: The Univ. of Arizona Press, 1965. 95 pp. The first systematic and “theological” treatment on Shin- ran by a Western scholar. Extremely popular in college classrooms and still in print after thirty years.

Bloom, Alfred. Tannisho: Resource for Modern Living. Honolulu: The Buddhist Study Center, 1981. 102 pp. Explains the most important chapters that illumine the heart of Shinshu teaching from the perspective of modern issues and concerns. Re- cently it was republished as Strategies for Modern Living by the Numata Center for Buddhist Re- search and Translation with a new translation of the Tannisho.

Bloom, Alfred. Shoshinge: The Heart of Shin Buddhism. Hawaii: Buddhist Study Center Press, 1986. 107 pp. A commentary on the set of poetic verses expressing Shinran’s indebtedness to his spiritual masters and one which has played a central role in the Shinshu liturgical tradition; contains an Eng- lish translation of the verses by T. Nagatani and R. Tabrah.

Dobbins, James C. Jodo Shinshu: Shin Buddhism in Medieval Japan. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1989. 242 pp. An excellent his- torical treatment of the development of Shinshu institutions from Shinran to Rennyo. This book, in particular, fills “gaps” in previous scholarship in two areas: 1) contributions of Kakwnyo (third abbot) and his son Zonkaku and 2) developments of the other Shinshu branches. The discussion of doctrinal heresy offers an innovative and insightful approach to our understanding of doctrine and its historical evolution.

Fujimoto, Ryukyo. Shin Buddhism’s Essence: The Tannisho — Prof. Ryukyo Fujimoto’s Translation, with Extracts from His Writings as Commentary. Edited by Tetsuo Unno. Los Angeles: Prof. Ryukyo Fujimoto Memorial Publication Ad Hoc Committee,148 pp. Contains the author’s translation of The Tannisho and a collection of brief essays on Shinshu doctrinal and historical topics. The book provides a glimpse into a respected scholar and teacher who inspired many of the Shinshu teachers in North America. Kakumura, Northiko. Shinran: His Life and Thought. Los Angeles: The Nembutsu Press, 1972. 192 pp. A concise book that introduces Shinran through the main phases of his life. It critically examines the scholarly theories surrounding the areas of con- troversy.

Kiyozawa, Manshi. December Fan: The Buddhist Essays of Manshi Kiyozawa. Trans. and ed. by Nobuo Haneda. Komiyama Printing Co., 98 pp. Kiyozawa (1863-1903) is one of the most pivotal Buddhist leaders in modern Jodo-Shinshu history. Belonging to the Higashi Honganji branch, this progressive priest helped to reform the teach- ings with message that resonated with modern Japan. Nobuo Haneda has translated other worksby teachers of the Higashi branch, notably those of Maida Shuichi (1906-1967), in Heard by Me and The Evil Person. Rogers, Minor L. and Ann T. Rogers. Rennyo: The Second Founder of Shin Buddhism. Berkeley, California: Asian Humanities Press, 1991. 434 pp. A thorough study of the eighth abbot (monshu) of the Hongwanji branch, Rennyo (1415-1499), with a translation of his letters and a discussion and analy- sis of his life and his preeminent role in the devel- opment of the largest Jodo-Shinshu institution.

Ueda, Yoshifumi and Dennis Hirota. Shinran: An Introduction to Hts Thought. Kyoto: Hongwanji Int. Center, 1989. 372 pp. The most comprehensive and systematic presentation so far of Shinran’s thought in a single volume. It places Shinran within the development of Mahayana Buddhist thought. It contains ample translations of key passages from his writings based on major doctrinal themes. Authored by two main translators of the Shin Buddhist Translation Series.

Yamaoka, Seigen. True Pure Land Buddhism: Jodoshinshu: An Introduction. Los Angeles: Pure Land Publications, 1991. 65 pp. Provides a good traditional overview of the major doctrines, supported by appropriate citations from the original sources. Written from within the tradition with emphasis on orthodox doctrine. May prove to be difficult reading for those looking for spiritual edification on an introductory level. Translations of Jodo-Shinshu scriptures Inagaki, Hisao. The Three Pure Land Sutras. Kyoto

[sofiaflorina2021]

Habemus Papam: Pope Leo XIV!

Habemus papam! Pope Leo XIV, previously Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, has became the 267th head of the Roman Catholic Church and 9th head of the Vatican City State on 8 May, 2025. He is the first pope from North American continent (United States). He is the first pope from Order of Saint Augustine (OSA). He is also the first pope from an English-speaking country since Pope Adrian IV from England began his papacy in 1154, so it's over 850 years later.

Of course this is a great joy for all adherents of Roman Catholic Church and for entire Christianity as well. After two days of the 2025 Papal Conclave on 7 May and 8 May, 2025, our current pope was elected on the second day on the fourth ballot. Since the white smoke appeared from the Sistine Chapel, about 40,000 or more people entered St. Peter's Square in less than an hour, according to local news.

I, you, we all hope that Pope Leo XIV can continue the work of Pope Francis. Also considering that he took the name "Leo" as his papal name, I have a good feeling that he could be progressive. It has been chosen 13 times before. The first one, Leo I, and the last one before him, Leo XIII, were great reformers. Leo I was mostly famous for his meeting with Attila the Hun and his "Leo's Tome" while Leo XIII was mostly famous for his encyclical "Rerum Novarum".

Pope Leo I, or also known as Leo the Great, the pope from 450 to 461, was very influential in early church history. His Leo's Tome, a document sent to Flavian of Constantinople, explains the position of the papacy in matters of Christology. It was a topic of debate at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 and later accepted as the doctrinal explanation of the nature of Jesus Christ until now.

Pope Leo XIII, the pope from 1878 to 1903, was also a great reformer. His Rerum Novarum (literally means "of revolutionary change") supports workers' rights and considered a foundational text of modern Catholic social teaching. From that Pope Leo XIII was known as the "pope of the workers". Beside of that, he firmly reasserted the scholastic doctrine that science and religion coexist. He was also a great diplomat, improving the church's relationship with modern nations at that time.

Pope Leo XIV is very capable to commit to many social issues that the word are currently facing now like climate change and wars. I believe that his election was a geopolitical move by the Vatican, because his birthplace, the United States, is currently getting worse in social issues because of the current government. I believe that it was the intention of the cardinals who elected him. All the best for him. 🇻🇦✝️

[www-coolschool]

Reality bends and reforms once again. The crisp autumn day in Dallas, 1963, transforms into a different path as JFK survives to serve his full term and beyond.

"The Kennedy Doctrine reshaped American foreign policy," a political analyst explains. "His successful negotiation of the Vietnam Peace Accords in 1965 prevented the war from escalating."

You observe how the Space Race evolved differently. Kennedy's extended commitment to the space program led to a joint US-Soviet Moon landing in 1968, fostering an era of unprecedented scientific cooperation.

"Can you believe we already had lunar colonies by 1985?" a NASA engineer remarks, looking at photographs of the Kennedy-Korolev Lunar Base. "The President's vision of space exploration as a unifying human endeavor really changed everything."

Walking through this altered America, you notice how the civil rights movement progressed with presidential support.

The Kennedy-King Civil Rights Act of 1966 passed with far less resistance than in your timeline.

"They say his survival changed his brother too," someone comments. "Bobby Kennedy's presidency from '68 to '76 really built on Jack's legacy."

The streets are filled with signs of a different era - sleeker cars running on alternative energy, earlier environmental protection laws, and a more robust public transportation system inspired by Kennedy's urban development initiatives.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Ian Millhiser at Vox:

On Thursday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Trump v. United States, the case where former President Donald Trump claims that he is immune from prosecution for any “official acts” that he committed while in office. It is, frankly, very difficult to care about this case or to spend mental energy teasing out what the justices may say in their opinions. That’s because Trump has already won.

Trump’s arguments in this case are exceedingly weak, and it is unlikely that even this Supreme Court, with its 6-3 Republican supermajority, will hold that Trump was allowed to do crimes while he was president. Trump’s immunity argument is so broad that his lawyer told a lower court that it would apply even if he ordered the military to kill one of his rivals. (Though Trump does concede that he could be prosecuted if he were first impeached and convicted.) But this case was never actually about whether the Constitution allows a sitting president to avoid prosecution if he uses the powers of the presidency to commit crimes. Trump’s goal is not to win an improbable Supreme Court order holding that he can assassinate his political adversaries. It is to delay his criminal trial for attempting to overturn President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election for as long as possible — and ideally, from Trump’s perspective, until after the 2024 election.

And the Supreme Court has been his willing patsy. As a general rule, federal courts only permit one court to have jurisdiction over a case at a time. So once Trump appealed trial Judge Tanya Chutkan’s ruling that, no, presidents are not allowed to do crimes, Chutkan lost her authority to move forward with Trump’s criminal trial until after that appeal was resolved. Special prosecutor Jack Smith understands this problem as well as anyone, which is why he wanted the Supreme Court to bypass an intermediate appeals court and rule immediately on Trump’s immunity claim last December. The justices denied that request. After the appeals court ruled, they also denied Smith’s request to resolve the case on an much more expedited schedule.

[...]

The legal arguments in the Trump v. US case, explained in case anyone actually cares

Trump’s lawyers seek to blur the line between civil lawsuits — the president actually is immune from being sued for official actions taken while in office — and criminal prosecutions. Under the Supreme Court’s precedents, all government officials, from a rookie beat cop all the way up to the president, enjoy some degree of immunity from federal lawsuits filed by private citizens. If you follow debates about police reform, you’ve no doubt heard the term “qualified immunity.” This is a legal doctrine that often allows police officers (and most other government officials) to avoid liability when they violate a private citizen’s rights. As the Supreme Court held in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

The purpose of this immunity is to protect government officials from the kind of liability that might deter them from performing their jobs well. Harlow argued that qualified immunity ensures that the stresses of litigation won’t divert “official energy from pressing public issues.” It prevents lawsuits from deterring “able citizens from acceptance of public office.” And the Court in Harlow also warned about “the danger that fear of being sued will ‘dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible [public officials], in the unflinching discharge of their duties.’” Yet, while qualified immunity often prevents civil lawsuits against police and other government officials from moving forward, it’s never been understood as a shield against criminal prosecution. Just ask Derek Chauvin, the police officer convicted of murdering George Floyd. The Supreme Court has also ruled that a short list of government officials — prosecutors, judges, and the president — have “absolute immunity” from civil suits. This is because people who hold these three jobs are unusually vulnerable to harassment suits filed by private litigants. Prosecutors perform duties that require them to antagonize potential litigants: criminal defendants. And judges’ duties necessarily require them to rule in favor of some parties and against others — who might then turn around and sue the judge.

[...]

The best defense of the Supreme Court’s behavior in this case

The Court’s decision to delay Trump’s trial for months, rather than expediting this case as Smith requested, cannot be defended. That said, in an op-ed published in the New York Times shortly after the Supreme Court decided to delay Trump’s trial, University of Texas law professor Lee Kovarsky made the strongest possible argument for giving the justices at least some time to come up with a nuanced approach to the question of whether a former president is sometimes immune from criminal prosecution.

Trump, Kovarsky argues, should not be given immunity from prosecution for attempting to overturn an election. But he warns that “American democracy is entering a perilous period of extreme polarization — one in which less malfeasant presidents may face frivolous, politicized prosecutions when they leave office.” For this reason, Kovarsky argues that “the Supreme Court should seize this opportunity to develop a narrow presidential immunity in criminal cases” that would prevent a future president from, say, prosecuting President Biden for the crime of being a Democrat. The problem with this argument, however, is that even if the current Supreme Court could come up with a legal framework that would allow Smith’s prosecution of Trump to move forward, while also screening out any future case where a president was prosecuted for improper reasons, there’s no reason to think that a future Supreme Court would hew to this framework. Kovarsky is arguing that the Court should use the Trump case to establish a precedent that can guide its future decisions. A precedent like Roe v. Wade. Or like Lemon v. Kurtzman. Or like Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Or like United States v. Miller. Or like any other precedent that this Supreme Court has tossed out after that decision fell out of favor with the Republican Party.

Donald Trump won the delay battle in Trump v. United States, even as the court hasn't issued a ruling yet on whether or not he has total presidential immunity.

[probablyasocialecologist]

The complex, planned control of a huge country required automation. After discussions that took place from 1956 to 1957 at the Institute of Economics in Moscow under the leadership of academician K. Ostrovityanov, a troubled mode of commodity production under socialism was officially adopted, contradicting Karl Marx’s writings on the practice of economic planning. State-owned enterprises worked according to the plan and, at the same time, for profit. This doctrine divided the country’s economists into Marxists (advocates of a non-commodity economy), who denied the commodity nature of production under socialism, and restorers of capitalism (promoters of a commodity economy). The ideological struggle between these economists received a new impetus with the awareness that cybernetics were needed to solve economic problems. Yet, while cyberneticists were busy solving the complex problem of automating economic management, the party nomenklatura, afraid of losing the privileges that came from planned, manual control, imposed economic “reforms” from the 1950s through the ’90s. At the same time, a shortage of goods in the consumer market was created in the short-term interests of the nomenklatura by fixing prices, which led to increased speculation and corruption. The system of equilibrium prices—a necessary feedback mechanism of the consumer market that plays an important role in optimizing the supply structure—was excluded from the economic planning process. This doomed the ruble to defeat by the dollar. The reforms aimed at giving more and more rights to enterprises, allowing them to focus on profit, intensified the chaos in public administration and ultimately led to the collapse of the country in 1991, with the restoration of capitalism and the transfer of management of the country’s development to global capitalist forces. How do we explain why the nomenklatura ended up choosing to dismantle socialism? It is necessary to note that Stalin eliminated the party maximum in 1932. According to the academic E. S. Varga, the abolition of the party maximum contributed to the disintegration of Soviet society into layers with huge differences in income and the personal enrichment of appointed party nomenklatura. Their example was followed by the bureaucracy and the lower strata, becoming expressed in careerism, intrigues against competitors, theft, and corruption. The contradiction between the officially proclaimed communist morality and the real ideology of the ruling circles led to a widening gap between the elites and the working people, and encouraged cynicism and careerism in society.