Charlie Kirk's Cedibility Crisis: How One Biblical Scholar Systematically Exposed His Lies/Deception

[I Have Questions]

Lol. The troll trolls. And he always wants 'five' examples.

You guys honestly don't have anything. It's almost a waste of time having a conversation (if you can call it that) with you two. The dynamic duo...of, umm...nothing. Unless there is something worthwhile here on this thread from here on out, I'm done.

Surprise me.

Regards,
MG

Have you been through the links in the OP yet? Yes or No? because that’s what the conversation is about.

[MG 2.0]

You guys honestly don't have anything. It's almost a waste of time having a conversation (if you can call it that) with you two. The dynamic duo...of, umm...nothing. Unless there is something worthwhile here on this thread from here on out, I'm done.

Surprise me.

Regards,
MG

Have you been through the links in the OP yet? Yes or No? because that’s what the conversation is about.

It's about whether or not Charlie Kirk intentionally deceives people. I don't think he does. He believes in his interpretations and applications of Bible verses. I'm not going to fault him for that. What I do know, is that the progressive left really doesn't have anything to throw at him that would cause college kids coming over to conservative to have a change of heart. He's had a huge effect on the minds and hearts of the youth in America. The young people are finally seeing that far left progressive liberal values lead nowhere.

I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Have you been through the links in the OP yet? Yes or No? because that’s what the conversation is about.

It's about whether or not Charlie Kirk intentionally deceives people. I don't think he does. He believes in his interpretations and applications of Bible verses. I'm not going to fault him for that. What I do know, is that the progressive left really doesn't have anything to throw at him that would cause college kids coming over to conservative to have a change of heart. He's had a huge effect on the minds and hearts of the youth in America. The young people are finally seeing that far left progressive liberal values lead nowhere.

I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
MG

So despite espousing the idea that more information is always better, you are point blank refusing to explore the links in the OP. You are being wilfully blind because you want to be right. When you say you believe more information is always better, you’re lying.

[Philo Sofee]

If any of you had doubts about the extent of deception in Charlie Kirk's public debates, it's time to doubt those doubts. Charlie Kirk's credibility has taken a serious hit. Biblical scholar Dan McClellan thoroughly and repeatedly refutes Charlie's public claims in these videos, leaving no room for doubt about the extent of Charlie's deceptions.


Charlie Kirk lying about abortion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bYDByjN7mg

Charlie Kirk lying about socialism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vNH7aJN5KM

Charlie Kirk lying about Deuteronomy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br3jUTf7HsI

Charlie Kirk lying about Jesus:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzjukK8AhiQ

Charlie Kirk lying about Christian Nationalism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq9-rh7rj8A

Charlie Kirk lying about immigration and the Bible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iG6EnokkC8

Charlie Kirk lying about the Bible and homosexuality:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBc56AJbvVM

Charlie Kirk lying about slavery and the Bible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgjnR6HCoQI

Charlie Kirk lying about separation of church and state:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3eyXaxlw9o

Charlie Kirk lying about the standard of moral good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWB_lNUk0Go

Charlie Kirk lying about the government:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h-P-IH4qEU

THANKS for the list! I had no idea McClellan made mince meat of Kirk so often and so bad. A real treasure!

[Chap]

It's about whether or not Charlie Kirk intentionally deceives people. I don't think he does. He believes in his interpretations and applications of Bible verses. I'm not going to fault him for that.

His interpretation of Bible verses are often incorrect, and in ways that suggest he has simply not put enough study into working out what they actually mean. That is reckless, and if people are misled by reliance on his interpretations he is responsible for misleading them, just as a person who drives a car when their windshield is obscured is responsible for the deaths or injuries they may cause.

An excellent example of one of his irresponsibly wrong claims is his statement in a discussion on abortion that "fetus means little human being in Latin". Just Google "fetus Latin" and follow the link to Wiktionary, where you will see:

Latin

Noun
fētus m (genitive fētūs); fourth declension

(rare) a bearing, birth, bringing forth
(chiefly poetic) offspring, young, progeny
(of plants) fruit, product; bearing, produce
(figuratively) growth, production
(New Latin) a fetus

This is not rocket science. But he obviously did not bother to check before making his confident assertion of a falsehood.

(Of course, as I explained in an earlier post, he is almost certainly referring to another word altogether, 'homunculus', a reference to a long obsolete notion that each male sperm contains a tiny complete human being.)

[Gadianton]

The young people are finally seeing that far left progressive liberal values lead nowhere

MG, a couple of questions if you don't mind.

1) could you provide an example of a "far left progressive liberal value"?

2) do you think that far left progressive liberals are sincere in their beliefs or are they lying about them?

[Abaddon]

Anyone have a link for an Ask Me a Question session where someone had the better argument and Kirk didn't have answers? He drew a complete blank?

Regards,
MG

Probably because the people with the better arguments/evidence realize it's a waste of time to argue with a fundamentalist. I know that's why I would've walked by.

[I Have Questions]

Anyone have a link for an Ask Me a Question session where someone had the better argument and Kirk didn't have answers? He drew a complete blank?

Regards,
MG

Probably because the people with the better arguments/evidence realize it's a waste of time to argue with a fundamentalist. I know that's why I would've walked by.

The reason MaGa 2.0 specifically asked for an Ask Me A Question example is because he knows Kirk only published the ones that he thinks have gone in his favour. Meanwhile, MaGa 2.0 refuses to even look at the links in the OP where Dan Maclellan shows Kirk to be erroneous in his statements and arguments.

[Physics Guy]

I think it’s important to keep in mind all the time that the problem with conservative ideas isn’t that they’re conservative. It’s that they are wrong.

[MG 2.0]

The young people are finally seeing that far left progressive liberal values lead nowhere

MG, a couple of questions if you don't mind.

1) could you provide an example of a "far left progressive liberal value"?

2) do you think that far left progressive liberals are sincere in their beliefs or are they lying about them?

I think most folks are doing the best with what they’ve got. I would prefer to give that benefit of a doubt to most folks unless the have gone off the rails and no longer have a sense of right and wrong and they are a danger to themselves or their community. Progressive liberals have their reasons for doing what they do politically. I would hope they are sincere in wanting to better the lot of mankind as a whole and not just a select group.

The common thread among progressive liberals would be their belief in more government rather than less. More regulations rather than less. More taxation rather than less. More spending rather than less. Essentially, more influence and control over the lives of everyday Americans. This general description can of course be broken down into granular parts.

The perfect example would be the recent court decision to hand abortion back to the states rather than federal control. States rights vs. federal control. Same with education, etc.

Charlie Kirk, although he may have been somewhat extreme in some of the things he said, essentially believed in values of free expression, less government interference and regulation, and a return to traditional values of family and faith. And following the written constitution rather than looking at the originalists original intent as being somewhat passé. I don’t fault him for that at all.

Tyler Kirk had apparently moved away from conservatives values and found Kirk’s values reprehensible. Enough to kill him over. Unfortunately there have been many on the left that are glad he was killed. Similar to the glee many leftists expressed when the United Health Care executive was shot in the back and innocently assassinated by a member of the progressive left.

Regards,
MG