doubtingmerle said:

I am sorry to hear that you find talk of decency amusing.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand. It is the left.

GoldenBoy89 said:

But I’m really intrigued by this reversal on Harris from the right. Last year she was the most liberal politician ever and now the suggestion is she’s not very liberal and maybe even (gasp!) homophobic.

Click to expand...

I too am surprised by this sudden embracing of DEI by the right who claimed to be so offended by it before.

Tropical Wilds said:

He literally said that Charlie Kirk is looking down at him angry because, unlike Charlie Kirk, he hates his enemies, and that would disappoint him.

Click to expand...

Your statement is literally false. Show the exact time during Trump's speech at the Charlie Kirk memorial service where trump ever used the word "enemy" to describe another human being. I will wait. I find it interesting that you even quoted Trump's statement but the word 'enemy's is completely absent then say Trump "literally" said he hated his "enemies."

RileyG said:

Fun fact: It is speculated James Buchanan might have been gay. But it has never been proven. There's also rumors about Lincoln's sexual orientation. It really hasn't become a political issue, regarding sexuality, until the late 20th century, eh?

Click to expand...

Then there’s JFK.

BPPLEE said:

Non responsive

Click to expand...

More than you deserve since you're being more than a little dishonest. I don't waste my time with people who aren't honest.

chevyontheriver said:

Is she telling us she is homophobic?

Click to expand...

Are you telling us she’s not very liberal?


Because that’s what democrats have been saying about her since like 2019.

BPPLEE said:

Yeah, it disputes what you’re trying to say about me. I would vote for Mayor Pete if he was conservative on most issues

Click to expand...

And he's not, as is evidenced by the fact that he's a gay democrat.

Clare73 said:

Where is that in Scripture?

Jesus had two distinct natures, human and divine, in one person. just as the Trinity has three distinct persons in one Being.

Click to expand...

Just as with "hypostatic union", nowhere in Scripture does it explicitly state, "Jesus had two distinct nature's, human and divine..." They both mean the same thing!

Yarddog said:

Yes I did.

Click to expand...

So where was all the vile lies and hate preaching?

BPPLEE said:

I don't know if she's homophobic or she's accusing most Democrats and Independents of being homophobic.

Click to expand...

Conservatives wouldn’t vote for him but I doubt you’d say that makes them homophobic.

BPPLEE said:

I mean she must be talking about people who would vote for her otherwise.
That's not the right
And you agree with her?

Click to expand...

I agree the mixed race woman would have a very hard go at a national election with a gay running mate, thrown into the race just 100 days before Election Day.

But I’m really intrigued by this reversal on Harris from the right. Last year she was the most liberal politician ever and now the suggestion is she’s not very liberal and maybe even (gasp!) homophobic.

o_mlly said:

Nope, no claim made requiring examples.

Click to expand...

Which means there's nothing to discuss.

o_mlly said:

If you do not know what rational skepticism is then you're not really a scientist, right?

But the bold and underlined typeface? Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. So I'll assume this whiny-like childish response may only be the result of a present cytokine storm.

Click to expand...

Grow up please.

BCP1928 said:

Why should they not?

Inhabitants of the region have been called "Palestinians" since Roman times.

That's all very well, but it doesn't answer the question: The indigenous people of the other former Ottoman provinces got their own countries and eventually independence. Why not the indigenous people of the former Ottoman Palestine?

Click to expand...

The phrase ‘from the river to the sea’, Hamas uses in its charter, encompasses the entire geographical area comprising the State of Israel and the "Palestinian" territories. Where is there still room for a Jewish state?

In the period before the founding of Israel, from 1900 onwards, European Jews and Arabs immigrated to the region in equal numbers. This is evidenced to this day by the "Palestinian" surnames, most of which originate from Egypt, Iraq or Syria. And that is why no genetic test will ever identify someone as "Palestinian".

When the renowned Arab-American historian from Princeton University, Professor Philip Hitti, spoke out in 1946 before the Anglo-American Committee against the partition of "Palestine", he said:

"There has never been anything like Palestine in history."

Click to expand...

At that time, fewer people lived in the entire region than live in the greater Jerusalem area today. Until at least 1930, there were fewer than a million in total. The immigration boom was as great among Arabs as it was among Jews.

The British simply separated the part of their mandate territory that lay east of the Jordan River. This later became Jordan, which already accounted for two-thirds of the territory. They wanted to divide the part west of the Jordan River pretty much fifty-fifty. That was the partition plan of 1947. From the British (and UN) point of view, they wanted to give at least one-fifth to the Jews. The Jews said 'thank you' and founded Israel.

The Arabs did not want that. For them, it was their land. They did not accept a Jewish state in their caliphate. That is why Israel was attacked by all the surrounding Arab states on the night of its founding in 1948. And that is why Israel, where one in five people are now Muslim, still feels existentially threatened. This is not about occupation or colonialism. That is what the propaganda wants us to believe, like a magician at a children's birthday party. The fact is that it is deeply ingrained in the "Palestinian" soul that the region of "Palestine", including what is now Israel, is their land.

The idea of a "Palestinian" nation is based, among other things, on Mohammed Amin al-Husseini. The then Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. And member of the SS. He was the mentor of Yasser Arafat, who later became the long-time leader of the PLO, the "Palestinian" Liberation Organisation. Previously, "Palestinians" were all those who lived in the region of "Palestine". This included Druze, Bedouins and Orthodox Christians. It was a name based on origin. In 1967, Arafat and the PLO made it a unique selling point. According to their definition, "Palestinians" were now only those who were Muslim and rejected the State of Israel.

Israeli Muslims, who today make up 20% of the Israeli population, were and are traitors in their eyes. The same applies to Israeli Bedouins and Druze who fight against the "Palestinians". The Arabs who today call themselves "Palestinians" are the remnants. The legacy of immigration from all Arab countries. They had to create their own existence.

The "Palestinians" do not even have a word for "Palestine". Or for themselves. They say filastin. If the Arabic language is indigenous to the region, why does it not have its own word for it? Language is always a fingerprint of society. It reveals a great deal about the ethnicity, people or group that speaks it.

"Palestinians" are not an ethnic group. Today, they can be described as a people, but that is something different by definition. They do not have their own language. They do not have their own history. They do not have a culture that clearly distinguishes them from others. What they might call "Palestinian culture" applies to all religions and ethnic groups living in the region of "Palestine". This includes Jews, Druze, Christians, and Bedouins. What sets them apart is not "Palestinian", but Arab. There is no "Palestinian culture" because "Palestinians" in the modern sense have only existed since 1964.

When "Palestinians" refer to "Palestine" as "Falestine", it is an exonym. However, if they were native to the region, should they not have an endonym? They do not have an internal name, a self-designation, or an endonym for the region. This is because they never possessed, shaped, or influenced the region in a way that would have given rise to an endonym. "Palestine" was not named after the "Palestinians"; rather, the "Palestinians" are Arabs who named themselves after the region. The Arabs immigrated there as a result of Islamic expansion. However, it was always ruled, governed, and owned by others. Ultimately, and for the longest period of time, it was ruled by the Turks, who are not Arabs.

After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, the victors decided to give a small part to the Jews. And the Arabs could not accept that.
The Arabs living there had to reinvent themselves, give themselves an identity. And a name. And that is why "Palestinians" call themselves "falestine". They had to resort to an old word, a Roman one, a Latin one, an exonym, like everyone else. They don't have their own word for it. Not even all the letters.

ARBITER01 said:

I just wanted to let you know, I think your outlines on scripture are superb, but some folks on here are not able to receive/believe them.

Until The Holy Spirit reveals some of these truths to people, they will continue to follow what it is they currently understand,... or want to believe in.

Rather than waste a whole heap of time trying to assert a point that people are continuing to reject, it might be prudent to pull back. This message board is not all that conducive to actually helping many people learn anymore. If the political sections on here were removed the whole thing would fall apart from non-use. Just saying.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the observation. However, I do believe that God's word will not return onto him empty. I am a simple sower and the germination and growth is God's

BCP1928 said:

Why should they not?

Inhabitants of the region have been called "Palestinians" since Roman times.

That's all very well, but it doesn't answer the question: The indigenous people of the other former Ottoman provinces got their own countries and eventually independence. Why not the indigenous people of the former Ottoman Palestine?

Click to expand...

One might wonder why so many refuse to show respect to the "Palestinians" and take them at their word.

To the credit of the "Palestinians", it must be said that for more than a century they have been consistent in word and deed, rejecting any proposal to establish another Arab state on the territory of the defunct Ottoman Empire if that additional Arab state must have a border with the only sovereign state of the Jewish people.

British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin provided the clearest diagnosis of the priorities of the "Palestinian" Arabs in February 1947, when none of today's excuses, settlements, occupation, Netanyahu, existed. He stated

"For the Jews, the essential principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. For the Arabs, the essential principle is to resist to the utmost the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine."

Click to expand...

Beavin's words remain as accurate as they are prophetic, even nearly eight decades later.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the so-called refugee issue. Unlike other refugee groups, who were essentially told to move and accept the new borders and sovereignties established after the collapse of empires, the Arab refugees of the 1948 war, which was fought with the stated goal of preventing a Jewish state, were allowed to hijack an organization, UNRWA, to create an ever-growing group of people who call themselves "refugees" and refuse to settle until they achieve their goal of a Jewish state.

Today, UNRWA erroneously counts over six million such "refugees", while "Palestinian" leaders themselves speak of eight to nine million. Their demand is that all of them, children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of the original refugees, have an individual "right of return" to settle in Israel. With eight million Jews and two million Arab citizens, the implementation of this settlement project would make Jews a minority in an Arab state, even though Arab states have a disastrous record of treating their Jewish minorities and launched ethnic cleansing against nearly a million Jews when they dared to consider themselves equal.

The figures on the flight and expulsion of Jews from Arab states are shocking: of the more than 250,000 Moroccan Jews, only about 2,000 remained in the country. Tunisia was home to 100,000 Jews; today there are 1,000. In 1948, there were 75,000 Jews living in Egypt and 135,000 in Iraq; today there are fewer than 20 in each country. In Yemen, there were about 60,000; today their number is estimated at 50. The Syrian Jewish community was decimated from 30,000 to fewer than 15. In 1948, there were still 140,000 Jews living in Algeria and 38,000 in Libya. Today, there are no Jews left in either country.

Unfortunately, the only state of "Palestine" that the "Palestinians" have enthusiastically accepted is one that could best be described as Schrödinger's "Palestine". Is "Palestine" a state that takes responsibility for invading Israel to commit a horrific massacre? Is "Palestine" a state that recognizes that the millions of people already living in this "Palestine" are not, and cannot be, fifth-generation "Palestinian refugees"? Is "Palestine" a state that ends the myth that millions of "Palestinians" have the right to settle not in this state, but in another state, Israel, of which they were never citizens, the so-called "right of return"? Is "Palestine" a state that surrenders and ends the war? No, for all these adult purposes, "Palestine" is not a state. The cat is dead.

But is "Palestine" a state in order to harass Israel in international forums (the entire case before the ICC was based on this idea)? Yes, then "Palestine" is very much a state. The cat is alive.

Why hasn’t Arab representative government ever been established in "Palestine", either in 1948 or during the next 19 years of Arab rule? Adherents to a separate "Palestinian" identity were a mute minority in Judea/Samaria and Gaza during the 19 years of Jordanian and Egyptian rule, until Israel took control from the Jordanians and the Egyptians in 1967. Suddenly a separate "Palestinian" peoplehood appeared and claimed it deserved nationhood and 21 other Arab states went along with it.

Centuries before Muslims and Arabs even existed, the Romans imposed the name "Palestine" on the Jews and ancient Israel. They banned circumcision and restructured and renamed the province of Judea as "Syria Palaestina". For they remembered the Peleset, the Philistines: by giving the region the name of their historically documented enemies, they set an example. A humiliation. And so the name "Palestine" for the region came into being in the first place.

At the time of Jesus, there were no Arabs living in the Holy Land; like the Bedouins, they only migrated there after the Romans expelled most of the Jews, filling the vacuum that was created! Islam did not emerge until around 800 years later.

There is no mention of "Palestine" in the Qur'an. The region is referred to in the Qur'an as the land promised to the sons of Israel (Sura 5:20-26). Sura 26:59 states that the land will be inherited by the Jews

So it was. And We awarded it ˹all˺ to the Children of Israel. Sura 26:59

Click to expand...

Furthermore, there are other passages in the Qur'an that confirm Israel as the permanent home of the Jews (e.g. 2:251; 7:137; 10:93; 17:104; 21:70-71; 28:5-6).

How can the "Palestinians" have the right to establish a state on the Jewish land of Israel, which Allah has granted and bequeathed to the Jews?

The Arabs' claim to the land of Israel is false and constitutes an attack on the Quran, on the Jews and their land. The Quran states that this land belongs to the Jews.

Just a few decades after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (70 CE), at the end of the first century CE, flourishing Jewish communities existed once again in Caesarea, Ashkelon, Acco, Beth Shean, and elsewhere. After the suppression of the Jewish revolt under Bar Kochba (132-135 CE), the Romans devastated the Jewish cities and settlements in their province of Judaea and sold many Jews into slavery, but Jewish settlement of the land continued, with Tiberias now becoming the spiritual center. It was there that the Jerusalem Talmud was completed at the end of the 4th century.

Bro.T said:

Well. allow to explain this way, Jesus brought grace when he came in the flesh, but example of grace was in the days of Noah. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. (Genesis 6:8), And Noah and his family was saved. Not save from eternal life, but saved from the flood. This is why Jesus had to come. Paul says in Hebrews 9: 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 26 for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Now Paul said in (Rom. 3:23-25) (v.23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (v.24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

(v.25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.

So the bible tells you to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2 :36-38). And by doing so you come up under his precious blood and then you are saved from your sins that are past, not present or future sins but for sins that are past. We were all locked under death by Adam’s sin, even the second death, which is the lake of fire. But when Jesus became (he was God in the beginning) man and died for the sins of the world, he gave us access back to the tree of life (himself) which Adam had caused us to lose. That’s what grace is, our free gift our access back to the tree of life but that’s another lesson for another time.

So by coming under the blood of Jesus being baptize, you are saved from your past sins. And if you are saved now, it is on a day to day basis. Because for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 23:3), and if you continue to live you will sin again.

When the bible speaks of laws we no longer have to keep, it is speaking of the sacrificial laws and Priesthood laws. These animal sacrificial laws were a school master pointing us to the fact that Jesus would be sacrificed for our sins. Since Jesus died we are no longer under a school master, (required to offer up bulls and goats for our sins). 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.(Gal 3:24)

Now we must believe (have faith) Jesus died for us (Hebrews 10:4,9-10) 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 9 then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This doesn't mean we don't have to obey God's moral laws of conduct. That would be like a man getting paroled from prison and then ignoring the same laws that sent him to prison in the first place. Jesus only died once, so if we willingly break God's law, after accepting Jesus, our reward will be eternal damnation

It is the willful sinning that you need to put in check. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. (Hebrew 10: 26, 27)

Click to expand...

Bro.T said:

Well. allow to explain this way, Jesus brought grace when he came in the flesh, but example of grace was in the days of Noah. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. (Genesis 6:8), And Noah and his family was saved. Not save from eternal life, but saved from the flood. This is why Jesus had to come. Paul says in Hebrews 9: 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 26 for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Now Paul said in (Rom. 3:23-25) (v.23) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (v.24) Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

(v.25) Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.

So the bible tells you to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2 :36-38). And by doing so you come up under his precious blood and then you are saved from your sins that are past, not present or future sins but for sins that are past. We were all locked under death by Adam’s sin, even the second death, which is the lake of fire. But when Jesus became (he was God in the beginning) man and died for the sins of the world, he gave us access back to the tree of life (himself) which Adam had caused us to lose. That’s what grace is, our free gift our access back to the tree of life but that’s another lesson for another time.

So by coming under the blood of Jesus being baptize, you are saved from your past sins. And if you are saved now, it is on a day to day basis. Because for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 23:3), and if you continue to live you will sin again.

When the bible speaks of laws we no longer have to keep, it is speaking of the sacrificial laws and Priesthood laws. These animal sacrificial laws were a school master pointing us to the fact that Jesus would be sacrificed for our sins. Since Jesus died we are no longer under a school master, (required to offer up bulls and goats for our sins). 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.(Gal 3:24)

Now we must believe (have faith) Jesus died for us (Hebrews 10:4,9-10) 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins. 9 then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

This doesn't mean we don't have to obey God's moral laws of conduct. That would be like a man getting paroled from prison and then ignoring the same laws that sent him to prison in the first place. Jesus only died once, so if we willingly break God's law, after accepting Jesus, our reward will be eternal damnation

It is the willful sinning that you need to put in check. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. (Hebrew 10: 26, 27)

Click to expand...

Herer is a point by point rbuttal of your arguments.

1. Grace existed before Christ but only in a limited form (Noah saved from flood, not eternal salvation).​

• Claim: Noah’s grace was only temporal (deliverance from the flood). True grace (salvation) came only when Christ died.
• Rebuttal:
  • Romans 4:3 – “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” → Salvation by grace through faith existed before the cross.
  • Hebrews 11 lists OT believers (Noah, Abraham, Moses) as saved by faith—looking forward to Christ’s sacrifice.
  • The cross was the basis of salvation for all ages (past, present, future), not just after Christ appeared (Heb. 9:15).

2. Jesus’ death justifies us only for past sins; future sins require new forgiveness daily.​

• Claim: Baptism saves from past sins only; salvation must be renewed daily because we continue to sin.
• Rebuttal:
  • Hebrews 10:14 – “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.” → Christ’s sacrifice covers all sins (past, present, future).
  • 1 John 1:7 – “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” (present, ongoing action).
  • Romans 8:1 – “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” → Security is not conditional on day-to-day cleansing but abiding in Christ.

3. The laws we are freed from are sacrificial and priesthood laws; moral law must still be kept.​

• Claim: Jesus removed sacrificial law but moral law (e.g., Ten Commandments) is still binding.
• Rebuttal:
  • Romans 6:14 – “Ye are not under the law, but under grace.” → Believers are freed from the law’s authority as a covenant.
  • The moral imperatives are fulfilled through the Spirit’s law of love (Romans 13:8–10, Galatians 5:22–23), not by re-imposing the Mosaic law.
  • We will obey the Sermon on The Mount because we have been saved and love our Father and our Elder Brother. This is not the cause of our salvation but it's effect.

4. If you sin willfully after knowing the truth, there is no more sacrifice (Heb. 10:26).​

• Claim: After baptism/faith, if one sins deliberately, eternal damnation is certain.
• Rebuttal:
  • Context of Hebrews 10:26 = rejecting Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice and returning to animal sacrifices, not ordinary stumbles in Christian life. I person is depending on something other than Christ and putting their faith in it and this will lead to certian death.
  • 1 John 2:1 – “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” → There is continued provision for forgiveness even after conversion. But it is not salvific it is that we have love him and are sorry for our disobedience.
  • John 10:28–29 – Jesus says no one can pluck believers from His hand. → Security in Christ is not lost with every sin, but only by ultimately rejecting Him. Even if it is a partial rejection so that we can depend in part upon our own behaviour.

5. Grace = access back to the Tree of Life (Christ).​

• Claim: Grace is defined narrowly as restored access to eternal life.
• Rebuttal:
  • Ephesians 2:8–9 – “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” → Grace is God’s unmerited favor, not simply access to the Tree.
  • Titus 2:11–12 – Grace not only saves but also “teaches us to deny ungodliness.” → Grace is broader than access—it is God’s ongoing empowerment.

Summary​

The argument has five major flaws:

1. Misunderstanding OT grace → OT saints were saved by faith in the coming Christ, not just temporal deliverance.
2. Limiting Christ’s atonement to past sins only → The cross covers all sins, once for all.
3. Keeping the Moral moral law as binding → The Spirit fulfills the law through love.
4. Misreading Hebrews 10:26 → It warns against apostasy, not daily sins.
5. Redefining grace too narrowly → Grace is broader: unmerited favor + empowerment, not only restored access.

BPPLEE said:

Yes, apparently they matter more than principles

Click to expand...

What principle is that?

Clare73 said:

Like your choice is involved in either your natural birth or your spiritual rebirth?. . .
Who made that rule?. . .where does Scripture present that unregenerate man must be the originator of his choices?

Click to expand...

He participates in, he doesn't originate the choice. That choice is a gift that comes from God but it's one that we can resist and refuse. It would be impossible to participate in choosing our natural birth, but not so at all with our spiritual birth. Just as mans choice caused his death, so God strives to elicit from us the right choice, for life, now-and continue in that choice daily.

Pelagius, supposedly, taught that we didn't need grace to come to God or to live righteously. The church teaches that we need grace for both. We can't begin to turn to God without it, and we cannot overcome sin without it..

Clare73 said:

Scripture presents no choice to be made by spiritually dead men (Eph 2:4) in order to be spiritually reborn (Jn 3:3-8).
Scripture presents rebirth (Jn 3:3-5) as an act of the sovereign Holy Spirit, whose choice is as unaccountable as the wind (Jn 3:6-8).

And spiritual rebirth, with its changing of disposition from unbelief to belief, is a guarantee of salvation (Eph 2:8-9).
The changed disposition, being disposed to God, therefore freely chooses what it prefers, the things of God.

Click to expand...

ALL men must turn to God and be reborn. That's simply man's purpose, the reason he was created. Some will and some will not go along with the program.

Clare73 said:

And?

Click to expand...

And yet you keep insisting that man makes a free choice. But at least now you're acknowledging that God really just wants to make Christian automatons in your theology, so He can send those to heaven, and the same for those He sends to eternal torment, also without their choice in the matter.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Yes, votes tend to matter quite a bit in elections. Is this news to you?

Click to expand...

Yes, apparently they matter more than principles

Michie said:

Two days after his death, on September 12th, Charlie’s wife Erika stood alone behind his broadcasting chair, whispered a prayer, and addressed the whole world. She only spoke for a little over 10 minutes, but it was dynamic. After a decade of cultural girl-powerbrokers like Barbie, JLo, Megan Rapinoe, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, this grieving widow would obliterate lies and stereotypes with an entirely different vision of female power: a woman aflame with faithful love.

Charlie’s target audience was the youth, and he was reaching them. Statistics show that conservatism, including valuing children and family, is steadily on the rise among young men. But those same studies show an inverse relationship with young unmarried women, who are leaning decidedly left. Conservative victories are shadowed by the most essential human dilemma: without young women, you’re facing extinction. Even Charlie’s winsome reason has not changed the trend. Unfortunately, studies also show heightening anxiety, isolation, and depression for these young women, despite record achievements. They are in turmoil.

Charlie welcomed students to bring their turmoil to the microphone for debate. When I was young enough to be Charlie’s target audience, had he come to my college, he would have found me already conservative and devout, not disagreeing with him on most core issues. But underneath my convictions, the turmoil was there. If I had stood across from him and asked my burning question it would have been something like, “So our culture is in the grip of a fight to the death over truth and lies. What’s my place in that, as a woman?”

Continued below.

Erika Kirk shows us how to reach young women

The Bible tells us that without vision, the people perish Prov 29 18 , and today s young women are certainly perishing

www.christianpost.com

Click to expand...

Amen

Aseyesee said:

Understand, for me this is allegorical ... geared for one purpose ... that we might know Him ...

Click to expand...

I can't see how this story can be seen as an allegory, for me it is literally true.

chevyontheriver said:

It didn't matter to the Biden Administration which picked many LGBT folks for a variety of positions. But it somehow mattered to Kamala Harris. Because votes.

Click to expand...

Yes, votes tend to matter quite a bit in elections. Is this news to you?

Here's a sampling of what other Christian Music musicians have said about Charlie Kirk’s assassination.