how are Christians "dumb"? what worldview do you propose as true?
mao, stalin, lenin, polpot all acted in Consistency with atheism, and in REBELLION against the BIBLE.
in th.
I said "Christ kept and is still keeping it, because he said he doesn't abolish it, and fulfill doesn't mean that it stops being law."
because He said He*
"he" or "He"?
But it DOES mean we are UNDER a NEW COVENANT, NOT the OLD ONE.
Are we under both or only one? If we are still under OT law, then what did Jesus die for??
Is Jesus the only way to God? Yes or no?
that he remains holy.
that He remains Holy*
has totally the same character after someone has died.
Jesus died. Then He rose. Now He is with the Father.
but he retains his
He retains His*
spiritual separation unto God thereby forever.
You mean unto the Father?? Jesus is God, but not the Father.
I haven't pressed this form of expressing the point into texts.
....
A quick check shows that Rom. 7:14 emphasizes "the law is spiritual"
That doesn't mean we TODAY are obliged to try to fulfill it. I don't see you sacrificing bulls.
as I glean from Matthew 5-7
??
Rom. 4:16 implies Jesus is still a man "of the law",
Doubtful. Whether He is "STILL" or not, there's no such implication.
Rom. 10:4 has "Christ is the end (telos, goal) of the law",
And now it has been fulfilled. Thanks for citing a Verse directly proving that we AREN'T under it, and the New Covenant is how we can enter Heaven. No one comes to God EXECPT by Jesus.
and Rom. 13:10 "love is the fulfilling of the law" (cf. Gal. 5:14, James 1:25, 2:12) seems to cement the point.
Jesus doing all the work. Thanks for admitting that Jesus followed the Old Law so TODAY, it's on humanity to obey the NEW COVENANT.
"that people still have to follow the 613 Laws"
No, I don't teach this,
But you do teach that people still should follow the Old Covenant?
whatever he says goes, 1 Cor. 9:21.
whatever He says*
I believe it's fact that Jesus kept all of the 613 commands insofar as he
as He*
in th.
(1 Cor. 9:21). (That passage is full of paradoxes to be kept in tension: we are also "as under the law" of the Jews, 20,
20 is only mentioning people who were choosing to follow the Old Law. Not that "we" are still under it.
while still "not under the law", Rom. 6:14.) The reason we are not under the law (being the old covenant)
Thanks for ceding the point.
is that we broke it, Rom. 7:9.
But people are still breaking God's Commands, even though we are under the New covenant. So no. Jesus fulfilled the Old Law, now the New Covenant is what people should be following.
Yes, Jesus as God the Son retains His spiritual separation unto God the Father
Then you should have said "the Father", not "God".
by circumcision forever.
What? He was always a Distinct Person from the Father.
"That doesn't mean we TODAY are obliged to try to fulfill it. I don't see you sacrificing bulls."
Correct, and my point is that Israel was never obliged to try to fulfill it unless an Israelite (or new Israelite) were seeking to live with perfect righteousness,
??
(For instance, Ezekiel says that Noah, Daniel, and Job lived lives that were without fault before men,
Before men. But not before God.
and Catholics generally hold that Mary did too.)
The compromisers!
millennia of demonstrating that this couldn't happen by mere human effort led up to the revelation that only God In Human Form could do it.
True
I learned from the dispensationalists "third temple bad", because Antichrist will defile it; but having read through Revelation more closely I understand that God's temporary permission for this defilement is to demonstrate the evil of evil and to cleanse it permanently, and so I don't oppose building the temple.
But God also ""lets"" the devil and demons terrorize humanity. Guess you shouldn't oppose them, either.
Fact is that Ezekiel 40-48 is nine chadownpters about the layout and sacrifices in that temple being honorable to God, and as a literalist it seems to me that will happen again. But it can only happen the way that Abel, David, Solomon, or Paul sacrificed animals, namely by faith in God, both in what He's already revealed about his plan of salvation and what He has yet to reveal. (Going back one step from Abel, it appears that God himself, in the person of Jesus, sacrificed two animals because Adam and Eve were given skins, and probably a fellowship meal too for the insides.) Saying the third temple is likely to happen is not related at all to pressuring people to keep laws (including sacrifices) because a sacrifice of faith is voluntary but a sacrifice of legalism is held to be obligatory.
Matthew 5-7 shows that the law is more than the literal commands like "do not murder", it's spiritual and about even unrighteous anger and lust of the heart.
I grant Rom. 4:16 is debatable, I listed it because, in my understanding of interpretation, the present tense is significant because Jesus says to the Sadducees that it is. The present is not in the phrase "is of the law" but it's in "Abraham; who is the father of us all", and Gal. 3:16 shows that Jesus is uniquely the Seed of Abraham. We could argue that the seed "of the law" only applies when they are alive, which is the debatable point; but I listed it because it's a potential support despite being debatable, and it supports the other witnesses that are clearer.
"And now it has been fulfilled. Thanks for citing a Verse directly proving that we AREN'T under it, and the New Covenant is how we can enter Heaven. No one comes to God EXECPT by Jesus."
Yes, we're not under the old law because we broke it, and we enter heaven by the free gift of Jesus that is His to share by His keeping it, and no other way. As I said, looking up destroy, abolish, fulfill, might be interesting, and with you I would take the effort even though I don't take the effort with those who aren't clearly committed to Truth. As a preview, "fulfill" in Greek translates three words about telos (goal), four about pleroma (fulness), and two generic words. I've previously done a study here on the "telos" function as being a final ongoing state and not just a conclusion that passes and fades. I would suspect that detailed study wouldn't teach that what is "fulfilled" is destroyed or abolished thereby; it's sure not true of fulfilled prophecy.
"TODAY, it's on humanity to obey the NEW COVENANT. But you do teach that people still should follow the Old Covenant?"
I don't teach that it's "on" us, that we "should", that we "have to" in a pressure sense, or that that was ever true of anyone. We could teach that without the pressure sense we "should" keep all the Mosaic physical and spiritual laws fitting to cultural context, but that would only be to prove that we haven't, and can't in ourselves. The teaching of "should" often leads to false guilt and legalism. The Ten Words say instead "thou shalt", "you shall", not "you should". Not because it's "on" us by pressure, but because we are enabled to grow into the life of the Ten Words. Always have been.
But I do teach that we "get to" obey the Ten Words and the Mosaic law. When people are asked to summarize the law of Christ in one or two commands, they typically go with the Golden Rule and the Shema, loving God with everything. But guess what, those are both Mosaic commands and not of the Ten Words! So I use odd ones like "no stumbling block before the blind" as a good example, because that's also an obscure command but its spiritual meaning, to be transparent with people and not hide traps for them, is clear and certainly part of Christian life. When Jesus says all the [613] commands hang on these two, He's saying they all connect to the same love principle in different applications of life.
Thks for info.
[....
....
.........]
spiritual separation unto God thereby forever.
You mean unto the Father?? Jesus is God, but not the Father.
I haven't pressed this form of expressing the point into texts.
....
A quick check shows that Rom. 7:14 emphasizes "the law is spiritual"
That doesn't mean we TODAY are obliged to try to fulfill it. I don't see you sacrificing bulls.
as I glean from Matthew 5-7
??
Rom. 4:16 implies Jesus is still a man "of the law",
Doubtful. Whether He is "STILL" or not, there's no such implication.
Rom. 10:4 has "Christ is the end (telos, goal) of the law",
And now it has been fulfilled. Thanks for citing a Verse directly proving that we AREN'T under it, and the New Covenant is how we can enter Heaven. No one comes to God EXECPT by Jesus.
and Rom. 13:10 "love is the fulfilling of the law" (cf. Gal. 5:14, James 1:25, 2:12) seems to cement the point.
Jesus doing all the work. Thanks for admitting that Jesus followed the Old Law so TODAY, it's on humanity to obey the NEW COVENANT.
"that people still have to follow the 613 Laws"
No, I don't teach this,
But you do teach that people still should follow the Old Covenant?
whatever he says goes, 1 Cor. 9:21.
whatever He says*
[According to Romans 14, the person who decides he wants to keep more laws, who does so out of conviction and gratitude without any legalistic hope of payment, is to be accepted just as the one who does not so decide. So it's not a requirement, it's an option among expressions of Christianity among the nations. (Incidentally, less than half of the 613 laws can be kept literally in the absence of a temple, so Rabbinical Judaism has always taught that those laws don't matter as long as Jews say the right words in lieu and hope for the rebuilding; that's an annulment of more than half of Moses. But our righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees, and so I have already kept all 613 laws because I did so in Christ since he gave that life of obedience to me. So we have a benefit over those who count the 613 scrupulously.)]
I believe it's fact that Jesus kept all of the 613 commands insofar as he
as He*
[had part in carrying out their application (e.g. some commands are primarily upon women and so the man's part is only to ensure the command is fulfilled by the woman). Skil seems to think otherwise, so I commend my belief to him as a possibility to be considered. I have lots of evidence but we would need to start with what he's willing to accept and to define, so the question of openness to possibility needs to come early in the discussion.]
P
Well duh. The more poison in your system the worse of an effect it has. If you drink more and more mercury, it will have worse and worse of an effect on your body.
still keeping it
Verse?
because he said he doesn't abolish it, and fulfill doesn't mean that it stops being law.
Except Jesus said otherwise
There's no evidence the old covenant is removed
There's no evidence the new covenant between Christ and men replaces this
we're bound to act all Mosaic
legalistic
But you seem pretty legalistic on that people still have to follow the 613 Laws.
yes, it might be logically possible that Christ kept the same covenant given to Israel…
But instead of even opening your mind to the logical possibility
So do you know these are facts or don't you? Are these facts or just a "logical possibility"??
in th.
You and I have a very different understanding of that verse. You're pretty obsessed with the outward appearance of devotion and obsessed with
enforcing specific marks of belief,
Like that Jesus is God and the Resurrection happened?
but beyond avoidance of the most obvious and egregious sins
there's not much to suggest that your inner life is actually godly,
That's say-able of literally everyone online who hasn't doxed themselves. Useless statement.
and you doubt the power of God to save anyone who might have a different interpretation than yourself.
"If evolution were true, explain why atheists gravitate to it"
Why would being true repel them? You act like an atheist would deny that the two of us are communicating in English, because it is true and atheists are allergic to any form of truth.
It is true that many atheists latch on hard to the furthest stretches of what evolution might imply (i.e. pure, unaided abiogenesis) because it allows them to bypass the largest claim for the existence of God (namely that if there is no God, then there is no universe).
But it is not true that just because many atheists latch on to it that it must be the opposite of the truth. Evolution is derived from observation of large amounts of data, which I know you haven't examined in any degree of honesty -- and by that I mean without having AnswersInGenesis at the ready. The only other conclusion if there is no evolution is that God is more like the Norse deity Loki than the Canaanite deity Jehovah, deliberately planting evidence of a lie just to make people disbelieve.
2 Timothy 3:5 . You claim being a Christian, yet you wish to deny the Genesis Account's power and truth value.
If evolution were true, explain why atheists typically gravitate toward it and not some other belief. If God used evo, they would be repelled by it. They are super repelled by YEC.
So the sword/tank?
He’s shilling against it.
On what aspects? Is he claiming the Trinity is false? That Jesus didn't exist?
He would do a better job by promoting evolution and gorillion year old earth-ism. Worst. Shill. EVERRRRR!!
Yes, which is why he lies about it.
That would mean he makes fact statements that contradict what he believes.
Great job
No grand conspiracy behind the quote.
Get f'd.
I do hope I never get [TERM UNUSABLE DUE TO EPHESIANS 4:29]'ed by "Karmelo Braagabillus Onni-krung" or "Muhammad Mustafa Ali Khamed Hassan the 50 billionth".
You didn’t even TRY to reply to what I said.
Again, there's no graaaand conspiracy in the comment of his that I quoted.
So you believe that begging the question and circular reasoning are two different fallacies?
So you beat your wife? Not playing your game.
The two aren't even comparable or in the same category.
No, that’s not how I present it.
Well that's what others will believe you presented it as. Case study: this exchange.
People with triple digit IQs naturally make these conclusions.
After how long? And people are unique, you know. Some may or may not.
Iron sharpens iron. Why, do you want to be waste metal in a scrap heap? Or an effective sword/tank?
divided by religion
Okay, then import infinity muslims into your home. And if they blow you up, and you complain, then youre a RAYYYYCISSSSSSTTTTTTTSTSTSMSMSMSMSPSPSPS.
Behaves identical to the known paid shilling campaigns. That’s the “somehow.”
Mmmm yes, because people are paid to shill for the True Worldview. Sorry, but the world HATES Christianity, sinful man would rather go down rather than pay people to spread the Word. And, not identical at all. Why would he be paid, why not free? People shill for free too.
First paragraph. Entire page. You were wrong. Take it gracefully.
"Because it's only the third intergalactic object ever discovered and because it's going so close to Mars while behind the sun that it could swing suddenly (but won't) so there's hypeability. The real conspiracy is that intergalactics prove young universe simply by their low count. Nobody's talking about that! Everyone's trying instead to get ahead of how intergalactics can prove a crazy Oort cloud or dark matter or other invented gods to patch gaps in the astrophysical model." ~SR
Wow, much conspiracy. Such evidence. (dogememe.jpg)
You have no idea what the fallacy even is.
So you believe that begging the question and circular reasoning are two different fallacies?
Behaves identical to the known paid shilling campaigns
The way you present it is as if it names SR by name in the article. Nobody will ever, organically, get the conclusion "oh behavior".
Pay attention.
(There are so many bases he is doctrinally sound on. Pretty sure he's sound on all of em.) <-- Outdated, replies in OP thread have now shown why TS believes and says that.
Did you mean ‘false’?
Things can be claimed AS statements of fact, whether the person knows or does not know if the info is false or true.
"No grand conspiracy behind the quote."
Pulled it out of thin air, made it up, completely out of context, irrelevant to the discussion, not even close to anything anyone said remotely related to the topic. So yeah, the conspiracy is “You made up [EPHESIANS 4:29!] for absolutely no conceivable reason.”
Again
Thanks for admitting you didn’t even try. You’re done here.
The two aren't even comparable or in the same category.
They’re both fallacies. And you purposely misrepresented what I said. Try again with some effort.
Well that's what others will believe
Nah, it’s not.
Case study: this exchange.
Your single data point is not representative of anything other than
your individual mental illness.
Nonexistent.
After how long?
About five seconds.
And people are unique, you know.
Objective data metrics aren’t.
.. Sorry, but the world HATES Christianity, sinful man would rather go down rather than pay people to spread the Word. .
[You are making your best guesses, AT BEST. I doubt you are 100% sure on your theory.]
First paragraph. Entire page. You were wrong. Take it gracefully.
P
He’s shilling against it.
On what aspects? Is he claiming the Trinity is false? That Jesus didn't exist?
[and more]
P
.
" Why the Standard Definition Masks the Lack of Functional Innovation
.. defining evolution as changes in allele frequencies oversimplifies the concept and ignores the need for new functional genetic information. It critiques common examples of genetic change—gain, selection, and loss—as insufficient to explain creative biological innovation, favoring a design-based interpretation instead.
One of the most commonly cited definitions of evolution in modern biology is simple: “Evolution is a change in the allele frequencies of a population over time.”
(Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (3rd ed., 2013), p. 5) Textbooks echo this idea widely: “Evolution is defined as a change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations.” (Campbell Biology, 11th ed., Urry et al., Pearson, 2017, p. 488) At first glance, this seems harmless—perhaps even intuitive. Populations change over time, and those changes involve genetics. What’s the problem? The problem is this: such definitions are tautological. They define evolution as “change,” and then treat all change as proof of evolution. They collapse a deep explanatory question into a mere operational description. And most importantly, they mask the actual nature of those changes—whether the change adds new biological functions (actual evolution), merely shifts existing traits (design), or degrades what already exists (design). 2. Three Categories of Genetic Change The standard definition obscures a crucial distinction: not all allele frequency changes are created equal. We must ask: what kind of change is taking place? Genetic variation can be divided into three broad categories: 2.1 Supposed Gain-of-Function Mutations (i.e. evolution) These would be truly evolutionary in the Darwinian sense—mutations that add new, specified functional information to the genome. If evolution is to build from bacteria to Beethoven, it must do this countless times. However, no clear examples exist of this in observed microbial evolution. Several case studies often cited as gain-of-function collapse under scrutiny: Nylonase (Flavobacterium): Arises from a frameshift mutation of a pre-existing gene. Function is crude and inefficient. (Source: Negoro, S. (2000). Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology) Rifampin Resistance (Mycobacterium tuberculosis): Point mutation in rpoB alters binding site for antibiotic. Results in degraded specificity and reduced fitness. (Source: Telenti et al., Lancet, 1993) Penicillin Resistance (Staphylococcus aureus): Production of β-lactamase, usually through gene acquisition (not mutation). Mutations that do occur only increase expression. (Source: Livermore, D. M., Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 1995) Tetracycline Resistance (E. coli): Caused by overexpression of efflux pumps or loss of repressor function—none of which introduce new functions. (Source: Levy, S. B., Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1992) Vancomycin Resistance (Enterococcus): Resistance arises from horizontal gene transfer of the vanA cluster. No novel mutation involved. (Source: Arthur & Courvalin, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 1993) In summary, no known mutation in these examples introduces a truly novel function. All involve degradation, overexpression, or acquisition of pre-existing information—not innovation. So let me translate this – there is currently NO CLEAR DNA EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EVOLUTION. 2.2 Selection Among Existing Variation In some cases, allele frequencies shift due to selection pressures favoring certain pre-existing traits. For example, an organism may already carry alleles better suited to high temperatures or antibiotic exposure. The environment then selects these alleles. This is genuine adaptation, but not evolution in the creative sense. It merely shuffles or amplifies existing options. No new functionality is introduced into the genome. It’s like picking your warmest coat on a cold day—you haven’t invented anything new, just chosen from what you already had. 2.3 Loss-of-Function Mutations By far the most common mutations are loss-of-function mutations. These may confer short-term advantages by disabling or breaking existing systems—especially under artificial laboratory pressures. Examples include blocking membrane channels to prevent antibiotic uptake, disrupting metabolic genes, or deactivating regulatory systems. “The great majority of beneficial mutations are loss-of-function mutations… They adapt an organism by breaking or blunting a pre-existing system.” (Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves, 2019, p. 182) “Most real mutations are deleterious, and only a very few beneficial mutations represent a gain of new functional information.” (John Sanford, Genetic Entropy, 2005, p. 23) 3. The Design Hypothesis Explains the Data Design theory predicts exactly what we see: Genomes were originally rich in functional, specified information. Over time, mutations tend to degrade that information or repurpose existing parts. Natural selection fine-tunes what is already there—but it does not create new, integrated systems. Far from supporting evolution, the data points toward degeneration over time—a slow erosion of original function. This explains why beneficial mutations are overwhelmingly destructive and why observed changes never add genuine complexity. “Evolution has become in many respects a theory driven by its definitions. It is one thing to say that species change; it is another to define that change as evolution.” (— David Berlinski, The Deniable Darwin, 2009, p. 16) 4. Conclusion Yes, allele frequencies change. But unless we ask what kind of change, we are only playing with semantics. The standard definition of evolution—“change in allele frequencies”—is an operational metric, not an explanatory mechanism. When all change is labeled “evolution,” the term loses explanatory power. Most importantly, the types of changes we observe—selection among existing traits and loss-of-function mutations—do not support Darwin’s vision of ever-increasing complexity. They support a design-centered model of descent with degradation, not ascent with innovation"
don't
"I believe js control wikipedia! This somehow proves that SR out of BILLIONS of humans is a wiki editor or some paid person!!" < proceeds to cite a WIKI ARTICLE>
glib
"JayEyDeeEff exists therefore that somehow means that SR is part of that org!!!!" That sauce is so weak it's basically water.
pretending
How far do I have to scroll to see the quote(s)?
literally a fallacy (circular reasoning)
Massively hypocritical, given you JUST used that EXACT fallacy by linking articles that in no way prove SR out of BILLIONS is "paid". Again, you have Zero sauce, you can only assume in blind faith those apply to him.
contradicts the Bible
It is good to see that you know that beliefs contradicting the Bible are objectively false and weak and a bad thing.
u/commanderofcheese Thoughts on this one?
They like to scare us because it entertains them. They hate us you know. They want to exhaust us, tire us, divide us, fatigue us, demoralize us, sadden us, scare us, enrage us, make us apathetic. And make us cuss and swaer at each other.
Correct.
Plenty of TPUSA people have Isreal/hamas low on their list too. What's most important is their belief in, and service to, the Lord JESUS CHRIST!
To put a finer point on it: because the implications are disturbing to your subconscious, then for your psychological protection your subconscious interferes with and diminishes the comprehension of your conscious mind.
Sounds like why atheists insist on rejecting God.
One can seek the comforting lies or the disturbing truth, but not both. It is the mark of a higher consciousness to clearly understand which of those is being sought.
Correct. Hosea 4:6 .
Upvoted
So at what point will you counter any of my claims? Are your arguments not developed enough yet? Btw, don't take these as hostile :>
Plenty of times in the Bible, there are uncomfortable facts.
I am not rebuting you primarily based on emotion (there is some), but primarily because there are mile-wide (lel) logic holes and what seems to me like logic stretches.
Yes, most people tend to operate more on emotion than on logic. I like your big fact posts though, I read through quite a few of them. Keep it up! ^_^
your mission
More like waking ppl up and spreading truth, much like yours.
That is, none of the argument concerns the features and benefits of his agenda. If you were a fan or agreed with a lot of what he said, that’s fine and you can keep being a fan. We’re here to talk about the context which underlies it all.
Ok, good.
I feel like I never go looking for trouble, as it were. It’s more like it just presents itself to me and I can’t let it pass by without speaking up about it.
Based.
never even bothered looking into the Charlie Kirk event in the first place.
Would be good to.
I barely knew who he was
Me neither. D:'>
Turning Point USA was a Salem Witch initiative from inception.
So they hijacked his organization?
Charlie Kirk- why a public execution?
Similar reasons that evil generally tries to murder 'good' people. Similar reasons they tried urdering Trump live on tv. Including "WE OWN YOU PLEBS!! YOU HAZ NO POWERZ HERE!!".
You can read my comment on the above as to why it was a public execution. The only other event which shares certain particular characteristics is the assassination of JFK. We’ve seen much evidence along the way that the Salem Witches were behind that. I don’t believe I’ve ever addressed it explicitly and it’s too long to go into here, but it was the public performance of an occult ritual murder.
Just because the murder was done a certain way doesn't mean the people were owned or controlled by the same group. If a haitian kills, cooks, and eats two stray cats using the exact same methods, did he own either? Nope, he grabbed them.
that They are not allowed to murder Their enemies....
..... but that’s different. I believe I know the reason but it’s beyond the scope of this post.
Doubtful, but ok.
Unpopular view, right? I’ve said over and over that you will get nowhere near the truth if you seek popularity.
Ludicrous view. He was a happy and logical man, not a frothing at the mouth unwholesome aggravating person.
how much good work the Peoples Temple did. Before it didn’t.
But Charles kept on bringing forth good, good, good. Even in death he is indirectly bringing forth good.
entirely scrubbed genealogy for Charles James Kirk (10/14/1993-9/10/2025), nor with that of the equally well scrubbed Erika Lane Kirk (Frantzve) (11/20/1988-).
Indeed weird.
Further emphasizing this anomaly is that Erika Lane is a devout Catholic,
So a compromiser. Catholics tend to believe strange unBiblical stuff.
never with their faces shown
Protecting privacy.
Is there any truth to any of it? Potentially, and I encourage you to look, but we’re here to talk about things no one else talks about, aren’t we?
Yes. Based.
It turns out that every place name in the former British Empire with “kirk” in it is either named after a church or copies from a place in Britain named after a church. Except one.
So then Charlie is WAY WAY WAY WAY MORE likely to be GOOD based on name similarity than "bad" based on the same measurement.
Your name is Primate98. Therefore, you must be a literal monkey. 98 of them, in fact.
Microsoft
Is evil and beckons to the bellowing of the deepstate. They bow to the behest of the baddies.
fake sinking of the Titanic:
So if the Titanic never sank, where is it now? In a secret dry dock?
Or do you mean the WAY it was sunk (like dynamite, not iceberg)????
We expose the latest news on the (fake) sinking of the Titan submersible,
What do you mean "fake sinking"? You mean the titan sub is fully intact? Or that no one died? Both? Or another one (say what it is)?
Believe it or else, mention of the Titanic here is not just some anomalous tangent. If I ever get around to another part of this Charlie Kirk material, we will see It again in a most unexpected way.
ok
As to the connection of Charlie to the Salem Witches through Zionism
Then you should accuse every Zinist on the planet of being a Salem wtch.
Zionism was one of Charlie’s most prominent features, though, and many connect it to the reason he was killed (abandoning it, to be specific).
So you slander Charlie Kirk but do a 180 and "redeem" him. How indian of you, saaar. Many people support "Zinism" whatever that means for many reasons. People can be ignorant of other views. Don't act like everyone knows everything.
As I said, we’ll have to be brief, so I’m just going to give you a chain of connections and we’ll see what falls out. You can read up on the specific relationships on the wiki pages. From Charlie promoting Zionism, we get: Christian Zionism -> Scofield Reference Bible (1909) -> Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921) -> Dwight L. Moody (1837-1899) -> Edward Norris Kirk (1802-1874) -> Mount Vernon Church, Boston (1842).
"OHMYGOODNESS YOU CAN LINK BELIEFS TOGETHER THIS SOMEHOW PROVES DEAD CHRISTIAN WHO LOVED EVERYONE WAS SECRETLY A BAD GUY!!!!" snorts another hit of LSD
There are two superpowers.
There is Jesus and there is the devil.
There's the United States and there's Moody's Bond Rating Service.
How do you know they're so powerful and not yet another puppet?
If you found all this surprising, so did I. Thanks very much for reading!
Yes, I find it surprising that you, a rightwinger, can believe doublethink. That's a leftist trait. For context see 1984.
That is, none of the argument concerns the features and benefits of his agenda. If you were a fan or agreed with a lot of what he said, that’s fine and you can keep being a fan. We’re here to talk about the context which underlies it all.
Ok, good.
I feel like I never go looking for trouble, as it were. It’s more like it just presents itself to me and I can’t let it pass by without speaking up about it.
Based.
never even bothered looking into the Charlie Kirk event in the first place.
Would be good to.
I barely knew who he was
Me neither. D:'>
Turning Point USA was a Salem Witch initiative from inception.
So they hijacked his organization?
Charlie Kirk- why a public execution? (r/conspiracy 9/23/2025)
Similar reasons that evil generally tries to murder 'good' people. Similar reasons they tried urdering Trump live on tv. Including "WE OWN YOU PLEBS!! YOU HAZ NO POWERZ HERE!!".
You can read my comment on the above as to why it was a public execution. The only other event which shares certain particular characteristics is the assassination of JFK. We’ve seen much evidence along the way that the Salem Witches were behind that. I don’t believe I’ve ever addressed it explicitly and it’s too long to go into here, but it was the public performance of an occult ritual murder.
Just because the murder was done a certain way doesn't mean the people were owned or controlled by the same group. If a haitian kills, cooks, and eats two stray cats using the exact same methods, did he own either? Nope, he grabbed them.
that They are not allowed to murder Their enemies....
..... but that’s different. I believe I know the reason but it’s beyond the scope of this post.
Doubtful, but ok.
Unpopular view, right? I’ve said over and over that you will get nowhere near the truth if you seek popularity.
Ludicrous view. He was a happy and logical man, not a frothing at the mouth unwholesome aggravating person.
how much good work the Peoples Temple did. Before it didn’t.
But Charles kept on bringing forth good, good, good. Even in death he is indirectly bringing forth good.
entirely scrubbed genealogy for Charles James Kirk (10/14/1993-9/10/2025), nor with that of the equally well scrubbed Erika Lane Kirk (Frantzve) (11/20/1988-).
Indeed weird.
Further emphasizing this anomaly is that Erika Lane is a devout Catholic,
So a compromiser. Catholics tend to believe strange unBiblical stuff.
never with their faces shown
Protecting privacy.
Is there any truth to any of it? Potentially, and I encourage you to look, but we’re here to talk about things no one else talks about, aren’t we?
Yes. Based.
It turns out that every place name in the former British Empire with “kirk” in it is either named after a church or copies from a place in Britain named after a church. Except one.
So then Charlie is WAY WAY WAY WAY MORE likely to be GOOD based on name similarity than "bad" based on the same measurement.
Microsoft
Is evil and beckons to the bellowing of the deepstate. They bow to the behest of the baddies.
fake sinking of the Titanic:
So if the Titanic never sank, where is it now? In a secret dry dock?
Or do you mean the WAY it was sunk (like dynamite, not iceberg)????
We expose the latest news on the (fake) sinking of the Titan submersible,
What do you mean "fake sinking"? You mean the titan sub is fully intact? Or that no one died? Both? Or another one (say what it is)?
Believe it or else, mention of the Titanic here is not just some anomalous tangent. If I ever get around to another part of this Charlie Kirk material, we will see It again in a most unexpected way.
ok
As to the connection of Charlie to the Salem Witches through Zionism
Then you should accuse every Zinist on the planet of being a Salem wtch.
Zionism was one of Charlie’s most prominent features, though, and many connect it to the reason he was killed (abandoning it, to be specific).
So you slander Charlie Kirk but do a 180 and "redeem" him. How indian of you, saaar. Many people support "Zinism" whatever that means for many reasons. People can be ignorant of other views. Don't act like everyone knows everything.
As I said, we’ll have to be brief, so I’m just going to give you a chain of connections and we’ll see what falls out. You can read up on the specific relationships on the wiki pages. From Charlie promoting Zionism, we get: Christian Zionism -> Scofield Reference Bible (1909) -> Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921) -> Dwight L. Moody (1837-1899) -> Edward Norris Kirk (1802-1874) -> Mount Vernon Church, Boston (1842).
"OHMYGOODNESS YOU CAN LINK BELIEFS TOGETHER THIS SOMEHOW PROVES DEAD CHRISTIAN WHO LOVED EVERYONE WAS SECRETLY A BAD GUY!!!!" snorts another hit of LSD
[Finally, it remains for yet another post to analyze the movie you have certainly already heard brought up in this context, Snake Eyes. You’re told “it’s predictive programming” or “it’s all scripted” or “we’re in the Matrix” or “it’s synchromysticism” or some other such nonsense. My post will explain how the movie came to be, but as a necessary part of that explanation, Charlie would have to have been identified as a toddler, later to be groomed. That only seems reasonable if he was one of Them to begin with, and here we have located a Kirk born all the way back in 1802.
debook later.]
There are two superpowers.
There is Jesus and there is the devil.
There's the United States and there's Moody's Bond Rating Service.
How do you know they're so powerful and not yet another puppet?
[You mean the deepstate? Is moodys bond service a real corp or just your nickname for the powers that be (TPTB)?]
If you found all this surprising, so did I. Thanks very much for reading!
Yes, I find it surprising that you, a rightwinger, can believe doublethink. That's a leftist trait. For context see 1984.
Yes, because masons would promote MAGA and never promote leftism. And because "mAsoNs aRe christians!!". Dumb.
Was the overview page an AI result? You do know ai hallucinates right?
I do not know if it is real or fake. The needle has been moved back and forth for me on it multiple times in both directions. Still agnostic about it.