redraven said:

Sure, although I mentioned this quite a bit in the 'Charlie Kirk' thread I started.

Kirk spoke favourably about Russia. He said that putin had shown 'great restraint'. He insulted Zelensky. He wanted Ukraine to concede land. These comments are unChristlike and morally indefensible.

Here's an opinion piece I had which may provide you with some insight. I've deliberately omitted the opening and closing lines
because they may be considered too graphic for this forum, though to me they are accurate.
Charlie Kirk suggested that Putin had shown "extraordinary restraint".
Putin is a pedophile who has abducted 20 thousand Ukrainian children, murdered tens of thousands of innocent Ukrainians - many who have been tortured and burned alive. Putin's army is responsible for raping numerous women, castrating male soldiers and gouging their eyes out.
Yet according to Charlie Kirk, Putin showed extraordinary restraint.

Heres another one:

American Trump mouthpiece Charlie Kirk
was assassinated in an act of violence
that should be condemned. Having said this,
Mr. Kirk made many comments that were
deeply offensive and objectively untrue.
One such comment was his claim that Ukraine
was 'not a not a democracy', a view that misrepresents
reality. Charlie Kirk was in over his head on international
affairs. He was a Trump yes man. He naively
inspired a lot of animosity. Mr. Kirk
should not have been killed, but his views
were far too dogmatic and distorted by Trump
and Putin talking points. Mr. Kirk believed the Bible
was the ultimate truth. The Bible indicates that lying is sinful
and this is how Mr. Kirk spoke about Ukraine.
He had a large platform and used it irresponsibly.
Some people talk too much and study too little.

Click to expand...

Login to view embedded media

redraven said:

No, I'm not obsessed - I do find it extremely hypocritical for him to claim 'Christianity' given his comments on a number of issues.

Click to expand...

redraven said:

I was hoping his supporters would have the ability to recognize and admonish his unChristlike behaviour, yet it appears that is probably asking too much.

Click to expand...

There are two separate questions here: 1) Was he a Christian? 2) Did he behave and teach in a Christlike way, or in accordance with the teachings of Jesus.

People differ in how to evaluate question 1, but as my church tradition evaluates it, if he was baptized and intended to accept Jesus' forgiveness for sins and to follow the teachings of Jesus, then he was a Christian. As far as I know, Charlie Kirk was a Christian.

On 2, he probably did follow Jesus' teachings in some ways and failed to follow Jesus' teachings in other ways. I suppose we could analyze that, but I don't see the point of it. He wasn't that important a figure, and he didn't represent any Christian churches in any official capacity, and he's dead now.


If your interest is primarily in Ukraine -- and the various churches' support or lack thereof for Ukraine -- then perhaps pick some churches or living church leaders, and analyze them. I wouldn't pitch it as "Bishop so-and-so isn't Christian", because Bishop so-and-so is almost certainly baptized, but you could argue that Bishop so-and-so is teaching about Ukraine in ways that conflict with the values of Jesus, and then make your argument.

Michie said:

I think it’s obvious at this point you are just interested in promoting your channel. Not interested.

Click to expand...

Partially correct.
I would like my channel to have greater viewership, but that doesn't negate from the debate I was bringing up.
Using the same logic of doing something for promotion - this is exactly what Kirk did - he would engage in 'debates'
and post them to social media for profit.

Nothing is wrong with this at all.

I am more focused on the actual debate, and remmeber if anyone agreed to it they would be able to use the content for their own purposes - meaning it is about equal promotion - not exclusively about me.

I stand by my belief it is quite unlikely anyone wants to debate me to defend Kirk. I say this because I suspect it would be uncomfortable for them defending him on the specific points I've raised and they'd realize it is not a debate worth getting into.

Robban said:

Hi,
LIstened to your vid, you mentioned Ukraine twice, care to shed a little light on what is on your mind.

Otherwise it would easily seem you are holding something back.

Click to expand...

Sure, although I mentioned this quite a bit in the 'Charlie Kirk' thread I started.

Kirk spoke favourably about Russia. He said that putin had shown 'great restraint'. He insulted Zelensky. He wanted Ukraine to concede land. These comments are unChristlike and morally indefensible.

Here's an opinion piece I had which may provide you with some insight. I've deliberately omitted the opening and closing lines
because they may be considered too graphic for this forum, though to me they are accurate.
Charlie Kirk suggested that Putin had shown "extraordinary restraint".
Putin is a pedophile who has abducted 20 thousand Ukrainian children, murdered tens of thousands of innocent Ukrainians - many who have been tortured and burned alive. Putin's army is responsible for raping numerous women, castrating male soldiers and gouging their eyes out.
Yet according to Charlie Kirk, Putin showed extraordinary restraint.

Heres another one:

American Trump mouthpiece Charlie Kirk
was assassinated in an act of violence
that should be condemned. Having said this,
Mr. Kirk made many comments that were
deeply offensive and objectively untrue.
One such comment was his claim that Ukraine
was 'not a not a democracy', a view that misrepresents
reality. Charlie Kirk was in over his head on international
affairs. He was a Trump yes man. He naively
inspired a lot of animosity. Mr. Kirk
should not have been killed, but his views
were far too dogmatic and distorted by Trump
and Putin talking points. Mr. Kirk believed the Bible
was the ultimate truth. The Bible indicates that lying is sinful
and this is how Mr. Kirk spoke about Ukraine.
He had a large platform and used it irresponsibly.
Some people talk too much and study too little.

Yttrium said:

Are you saying that Biden't corrupt pardons justify Trump's corrupt pardons?

I disagree.

Click to expand...

I don't think they justify them. However, it does annoy me when people talk about how awful Trump's corrupt pardons are if they didn't raise similar complaints against Biden's.

Every time a President offers corrupt pardons I hope it will finally incentivize people to get rid of, or at least restrict, the pardon power, but despite it being something both Democrats and Republicans complain about, there doesn't seem to have been much legislative movement in that direction.

redraven said:

I made this which I hope is informative to others in this discussion:
Login to view embedded media

Click to expand...

Hi,
LIstened to your vid, you mentioned Ukraine twice, care to shed a little light on what is on your mind.

Otherwise it would easily seem you are holding something back.

Valletta said:

No president before ever faced as much waste and fraud with SNAP as there is today. The Biden administration did not do due diligence in signing up new people.

Click to expand...

Another diversion to the point. Trump 1 used SNAP emergency allocation to fund the government. Trump 2 refused to...and only partially did so when a court ordered him to do so.

Trump has no qualms with using hunger as a bargaining tool.

Fervent said:

The problem is you're railing against a dead man, so there's really no accountability to be had. It's just a bit weird that you seem borderline obsessed with Charlie Kirk in particular. I'm not sure why anyone would even bother trying to defend him, regardless of how they may feel about him.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I'm speaking matter of factly about his comments.
No, I'm not obsessed - I do find it extremely hypocritical for him to claim 'Christianity' given his comments on a number of issues.

I was curious whether he would have any support in a forum like this who may be interested in debate. It's perfectly fine if there is no further
discussion.

I was hoping his supporters would have the ability to recognize and admonish his unChristlike behaviour, yet it appears that is probably asking too much.

pasifika said:

Thank you for the beautiful verses you quoted. But if you have not taught or understand this, then let me tell you, the old covenant law (10C) was given only to show Sin and Not Love. Romans 3:20, Gal 3:19-

Click to expand...

Well let's see what Paul is saying here in (Rom. 3:20) Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sights for by the law is the knowledge of sin. The deeds of the law is referring to the animal sacrificial laws, all those sacrifices can never remove sins, so they could never be justified. This is true because the blood of Jesus can only justify us. The animal sacrificial laws was added because people continue to sin, and the wages of sin bring for death. So instead of God killing people every time they sin, the Lord gave Moses a law to use, animals. So by the other law (Ten Commandments, Statutes and Judgement) is the knowledge of sin.

Now didn't Paul say in Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. You wouldn’t know what sin was if there was no law.

To sum up what going on here in Galatians, Paul is explaining that Christ came from Abraham seed, and remove the animal Sacrificial law. But in the days of Abraham that animal Sacrificial law never was on the table, and was not needed for Abraham to obey and have faith in God. But the Commandments was always on the table. Now pay attention, the law that is being spoken of here came four hundred and thirty years after this covenant. But God’s holy commandments have been around forever even before man was created.

Remember that Satan was kicked out of heaven because iniquity (sin) was found in him. And what is sin? The transgression of the law (commandments). Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Now we have just read the biblical definition of sin, the transgression (breaking) of the law (commandments.) It doesn’t matter what you or I think sin is, it’s what God says sin is that counts. (1John 3:4)

(v.19) Wherefore then serveth the law? A question is being asked here. Then why should we serve this law? It was added because of transgression, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; the law that we are talking about here was added because of sin. But we now know that sin is the transgression of the law.

How do you add a law if sin is the transgression of the law? Because there are two sets of laws, you have God’s holy commandments which abided forever, and you had the animal sacrificial law which was added because of sin, but it was only good until the seed should come to whom the promise was made, and that seed was Jesus.

(v.24) Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. This animal sacrificial law was only a schoolmaster.

In the days of Jesus, the religious leaders were constantly questioning Jesus in order to test Him and on this occasion a lawyer asked Jesus what is the great commandment?
Matthew (22:35) Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, (36) Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus reply was the 1st great commandment was to love God and the 2nd was to love ones neighbor. These were given as a commandment for man to love.

Matthew (22:37) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (38) This is the first and great commandment. (39) And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

One should note that by following the 1st and 2nd great commandment they will be adhering to the 10 commandments issued by Moses. If they love the Lord they won’t have any other Gods before him, or make any graven images or take his name in vain, they will remember his Sabbath and if they love their neighbor they will honor their Father and Mother and they won’t kill or commit adultery or steal or bear false witness nor will they covet. This is why Jesus goes on to state that on these two commandments hang the law and the prophets. Because by fulfilling these two commandments one fulfills the law.

(40) On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jesus stated that these 2 commandments where the 2 great commandments however the following verses will show that these commandments were not new and that the Jews and Jesus was speaking to were aware of them. These were the same ones issued to Israel by Moses.

Deuteronomy (6:5) And thy shall love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

Leviticus (19:18) Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Now that it has been established that man was commanded to love one needs to examine the scriptures to get an understanding of the love required in these great commandments.

In the following verses Moses is telling the Israelites that God chose them strictly out of His love for them.Deuteronomy (7:7) The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: (8) But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.

(9) Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;

Note in verse (9) Moses states a condition that God requires in order for Him to keep covenant and have mercy. And that is an individual must love God and keep His commandments. The scriptures will show that there is only one way to love God and that is by keeping His commandments.

Note that Jesus states in the following verse that in order to love Him one has to keep His commandments.

John (14:15) If ye love me, keep my commandments.

Jesus further defines the love He requires when He states in the following verse that those who have His commandments and keep them are those that love Him. One does not have to guess at Jesus definition of love He made it clear.

John (14:21) He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

Jesus also reinforced what was said in Deuteronomy verse (9) by adding that those that love Him will be loved by the Father. How does one love Jesus? by keeping His commandments and Moses said God will keep covenant and have mercy with those who keep His commandments. So therefore by following Jesus one shall receive love from Him as well as mercy from the Father.

Note in these scriptures it did not say those who profess their love for Jesus or those that claim that Jesus knows what in their heart. Jesus made a clear and direct statement if one has His commandments and keeps them they are the ones who love Him. The statement that Jesus made as well as the condition Moses gave in Deuteronomy verse (9) were based on behalf of an individuals actions not their feeling or emotions or conditions. To exhibit love towards Jesus one must engage in a specific action and that action is being obedience to the word of God. And one will see that they are to be obedient regardless of their feeling or the surrounding circumstances.

Jesus states again in the following verses what is required of an individual to receive His love.

John (15:9) As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. (10) If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

Notice Jesus use the word if ye keep my commandments, so what happen if ye do not keep his commandments. The above verse shows to be loved of Jesus one needs to be obedient. Jesus also states in verse (10) that He was obedient to the Father by keeping His commandments and therefore abides in His love.

FreeinChrist said:

The topic is not communism or Cuba or Baptista.

Click to expand...

The relevant point being: If American continues to abuse the rights of it's citizens, there will be political consequences. Batista faced a revolution due in part to the brutality of his security forces. The Trump Administration is not the Batista regime....yet. However, if we, the citizens, don't defend our fellow citizens who happen to be Latino, we are well on our way to living in a state where arrest are arrest are made at the whim of a president.

At least from the perspective of a Natural Historian(myself), Adam's story is most closely represented by a group of people who lived about 13,000 years ago within 100km of the shield volcano that is the source major rivers(like in genesis 2:10). The area itself would have been a mix of carefully selected food trees left over from Natufian culture and fertile areas of light soil(glacial dust) covered in wild wheat that can be worked much easier than a modern farm. In the span of a normal life the area went from being paradise to a grassy ghost forest. Someone, as few a one person and his family, decided to cultivate wheat, which i interpret as genesis 3:17.

The main issue is finding exactly when and where it happens because all the great hunter gatherer settlements of 13,000 years ago are abandoned around the same time for hundreds of years then reoccupied by expert farmers and shepherds who just appear in mass 11,700 years ago. In that 1300 year exodus farming was invented. Which is a good place for a historical Adam. Finding exactly where and when it started is still possible. It's just not going to be a settlement, so that complicates it quite a bit. Still I have faith that with LIDAR and other technologies we will be able to survey the land for the features of an Adamic clan.(that area is still very barren, 1000s of tells unsearched)

eleos1954 said:

Many of the pardon's Biden gave are questionable as well it's not a one sided thing.

Click to expand...

Not sure which is questionable. His pardons mainly were granted to people that had already served out their sentences and had led good lives. The pardons restore any civil liberties they had lost. His commutations were for nonviolent offences where people were on house confinement.

photovoltaic cell

eleos1954 said:

Decide for yourself ...
Pardons Granted by President Joseph Biden (2021-2025)

Click to expand...

Why? I didn't make the claim...you did.

CoreyD said:

The universe is the heavens, isn't it.
It's not heaven where birds and airplanes traverse.
What is the heavens of heavens, or heaven of heavens mentioned in these verses? Deuteronomy 10:14; 1 Kings 8:27


Resided. The waters are no longer there since the floodgates of the heavens burst open. Genesis 7:11,

Click to expand...

Seems like they are still there. Most translations say "windows of the heaven(s)" Malachi 3:10 KJV — Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

CoreyD said:

I would guess the water was somewhere above the Mesosphere.
It's only a guess as I don't know.

Click to expand...

Then the waters could have been much further, and possibly were the material with which God made the stars and planets and galaxies?

CoreyD said:

Can you give me a rough idea where the sun, moon and stars traverse?

Click to expand...

The sun and stars don't technically "traverse" with respect to earth, as far as we can tell. but they are in outer space, above earth's atmosphere.

CoreyD said:

You speak as though you believe the firmament is a solid dome, rather than a region of atmosphere.
Am I reading you correctly?

Click to expand...

No. Nor do I believe the firmament stops at the edge of earth's atmosphere.

redraven said:

It's about holding him accountable as a 'Christian' based on his behaviour and rhetoric.
Specifically his comments on a number of areas like Ukraine were both inaccurate,
deeply offensive and unChristlike. I also have part Ukrainian heritage. I follow the war closely.

I'll go back to my point of accountability: Christianity teaches that one must be responsible in their words and actions to behave like a Christian. The things Kirk said often contradicted this.

In summary, it's about accountability. You can call yourself a Christian as he did, but if you behave in a way that does not reflect this, it's not believable.

Accountability. Kirk supporters are welcome to debate me in videotaped format on this subject. I suspect it is unlikely to happen as the subject would be uncomfortable for them.

Click to expand...

The problem is you're railing against a dead man, so there's really no accountability to be had. It's just a bit weird that you seem borderline obsessed with Charlie Kirk in particular. I'm not sure why anyone would even bother trying to defend him, regardless of how they may feel about him.

Fervent said:

What is it about Kirk that has you interested in demeaning him?

It might be more effective if instead of focusing on Kirk personally, you shift your focus to Turning Point since that at least is an ongoing movement rather than being something that is past and not relevant moving forward.

Click to expand...

It's about holding him accountable as a 'Christian' based on his behaviour and rhetoric.
Specifically his comments on a number of areas like Ukraine were both inaccurate,
deeply offensive and unChristlike. I also have part Ukrainian heritage. I follow the war closely.

I'll go back to my point of accountability: Christianity teaches that one must be responsible in their words and actions to behave like a Christian. The things Kirk said often contradicted this.

In summary, it's about accountability. You can call yourself a Christian as he did, but if you behave in a way that does not reflect this, it's not believable.

Accountability. Kirk supporters are welcome to debate me in videotaped format on this subject. I suspect it is unlikely to happen as the subject would be uncomfortable for them.

Servus said:

Where is racial profiling found in communism?

Click to expand...

Listen, brother, I may have let my eagerness to make a point overshadow having a constructive debate in a respectful manner. I apologize for that. Have a blessed evening.

essentialsaltes said:

President Trump has pardoned a long list of political allies accused of trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election, according to Justice Department Pardon Attorney Ed Martin.

A proclamation published on Martin's personal X accountlate Sunday listed 77 people who received "full, complete, and unconditional" pardons, including Rudy Giuliani, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and Sidney Powell, a former Trump attorney who spread conspiracy theories about ballot fraud after Trump lost the 2020 election.

The pardons are largely symbolic as none of the names listed were ever charged with federal crimes. Dozens of people listed were charged in multiple swing states that were the center of unfounded claims of election fraud, including Georgia, Nevada, Arizona and Wisconsin.

Nevertheless it continues to send the message -- break the law for me and you get a pardon.

NO MAGA LEFT BEHIND

View attachment 372987

Click to expand...

He can't protect them from state courts.

rjs330 said:

Its cute you believe him.

Click to expand...

He can't do anything on his own. He needs the backing of the City Council. He also has the backing of several present and past NYPD officials.

The Barbarian said:

The key is that each group should have representation proportional to their proportion of the population.

Click to expand...

That supports gerrymandering.

Michie said:

Russiagate is one of the most significant scandals in American history, and it totally shatters the media-manufactured myth of Barack Obama.

Click to expand...

It sure is - in Trump's mind.
But that mind is clouded by NPD - and should not be trusted.
Rather than this "Trumped-up" tactic, it's time for the 25th on Trump himself.
He's not fit for office.

durangodawood said:

Thats absurd. As much as Im an environmentalist, its people who need representation in congress. Not grass and ants. No people are entitled to more powerful representation than others just because of where they live

Click to expand...

Well of course it would have to include people otherwise who would vote to the candidates? Hey look i didnt say my idea was perfect. It would need some tweeks somehow, but it would stop gerry mandering and make things more even. Maybe something along the lines of a gride and the grids would have to have so many people per square mile based on total population. Just brain storming. Some portions of the grid would be bigger while others would be smaller. If you have 20 representatives then you get 20 grids. And each of those grids have to have the same amount of people in them. Squares or rectangles. Like an excel spread sheet.

Servus said:

So you think America should become a communist nation because it doesn't evolve racial profiling? Or how about communism doesn't evolve knitting? Let's talk about knitting instead. What are your thoughts about knitting? Are you for or against knitting?

Click to expand...

You like knitting? So does my wife! But she sure does not approve racial profiling!

You haven't answered the above issues.
John clearly said the events were starting soon, in 4 different ways.
"near", "soon", he "Shared in their tribulation" - and he wanted them to obey his message.
That's NOT possible for THEM if we narcissistically assume it's all about US!

John wrote in a genre called apocalyptic symbolism which was common to 200 BC to about 200 AD.
Have you read any of the other works of the period? I've read snatches - years ago.
Enough to be convinced by those theologians that show it's a style that comments on the period the author lives in.

It's like dressing up the day's political events in the language of comic book heroes.

It's not a linear timeline of the future, it's a waltz around certain themes.
It's not a timeline, it's a circular thematic sermon.
And sermons often encourage us to consider the promised return of the Lord!

This does so by not just theologically asserting the promise of the Lord's return in judgement and salvation - as Paul might.
It does it by picturing it. But if you look closely - we see the Lord's return in judgement at a number of different points!

EG: In the end of Chapter 6, and multiple times, from multiple different points of view, at the end.
How can it be a timetable of the future if it's got Jesus returning at the end of Chapter 6, and multiple points at the end?
That doesn't make sense.

Anyone approaching it with today's trendy interpretive goggles of "What do me, myself, and I all think this means for the next decade?" is going to end up a bit...