Charlie Debate Throwback: Charlie on the Bible

00:00:03 Speaker 1: My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro American student organization in the country, fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start at turning point. You would say, college chapter. Go start attning point. Yould say high school chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade, most important decision I ever made in my life, and I encourage you to do the same. Here I am Lord, Use me. Buckle up, everybody, Here we go. The Charlie Kirk Show is proudly sponsored by Preserved Gold, leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends and viewers. 00:01:09 Speaker 2: So my sense today is on immigration. 00:01:11 Speaker 3: I think that immigration contributes a lot to America. So my parents did come here legally, and they right now are in the process again and it takes a long time. No, they came here legally like they came with the RISA, and now they're renewing it and it's a different process right now. 00:01:25 Speaker 2: But so I'm really religious. I'm Catholic. My parents grew me up that way. And in Matthew two. 00:01:31 Speaker 3: Thirteen through fifteen, it talks about how Jesus had to flee Nazareth or no Bethlehem. Sorry, he had to flee because someone was going to die and they were looking to kill him. 00:01:40 Speaker 2: And he had to flee. 00:01:41 Speaker 3: His own country and leave everything behind because an angel spoke to Mary Ann Joseph that they should leave. So a lot of people do that. That's why they immigrate to the United States. A lot of people have to leave everything behind because not everyone just wants to pack up all the things and leave. Right now, I personally would hate if I had to sell my car, my house, leave my parents, leave my friends, and leave everyone. So I just want to know what your stances on that, just because in the Bible it talks about that. 00:02:08 Speaker 1: Right. So, first of all, Jesus actually didn't emmigrate. He stayed within the confines of the Roman Empire, because Egypt was actually other under Roman jurisdiction. That's a separate point. But there are plenty of verses that says you should welcome the stranger, and so I will grant you that. I guess the first point, the first point I would have to ask is should immigration always benefit the home country? 00:02:28 Speaker 3: I think so yes, And that is one thing that I looked into. So there are immigrants right now working here, correct, and they get some of their paycheck cut off right because of Social Security and all those benefits. 00:02:38 Speaker 2: But they don't get those benefits because. 00:02:40 Speaker 1: They're do you mean legal or illegal immigrants? That distinction is very important. 00:02:44 Speaker 2: Illegal you get those benefits. 00:02:46 Speaker 1: So let's just be clear. If they have a social Security number, how did they get that the right way? They stole it. You don't. You don't get a social Security number as an illegal period. It does not happen. They stole it. So that's an act of things. And so they stole an American social Security number to be able to work here, which drives down wages, which drives down opportunity costs. But even beyond that, we just have to look at their action. They were not invited to come to this country. They broke in line, they cut in line, and we should not reward line cutters or border jumpers. We should reward people like your parents that actually came here legally to this company. 00:03:25 Speaker 2: So yeah, I understand that point, I really do. 00:03:30 Speaker 3: But sometimes people generally need to leave their country because in like my mother's case, for instance, there is like a terrorist attack on my family and that's the reason my mom had to come. 00:03:39 Speaker 2: And thankfully she did get it immediately. 00:03:41 Speaker 3: But now I've heard of so many stories where people have to wait like ten years, twenty years, even thirty years. Like my grandma right now is trying to get the process, and thankfully she is now, but it's taken her about ten years now, and she makes enough money in her country and she just wants to come here as a tourist. That's the main reason. And I do understand that. I think that My main point is that how we should implement more money into the immigration system because Trump's zero tolerance policy. That just felt cruel because there's a lot of people here that are doing well and zero tolerance they just had to leave the country. 00:04:13 Speaker 1: I feel like that was yeah, but it's not their country though, And that's the So let me just here's if I went to Mexico without being invited or allowed, and I took a job and the Mexican government found out, what would the Mexican government do to me? I'm not sure they would send me back to America. 00:04:32 Speaker 2: And why was the reason you left the US first? 00:04:35 Speaker 1: So reason? That's an interesting thing. Is there ever a legitimate reason in your opinion to commit a crime? 00:04:43 Speaker 4: No? 00:04:44 Speaker 1: Well, then the reason doesn't matter because under that say, so, can you rob a bank because you wish you had more money? No? 00:04:50 Speaker 2: You work harder. 00:04:52 Speaker 1: Then why doesn't that moral standard applied immigration? 00:04:55 Speaker 3: Because the system is it isn't doing its job. That's why I think we should implement more money, because there is some people like I do get it. You know, some people come here and then I do admit some of them can make crime. 00:05:04 Speaker 2: But not all of them. 00:05:05 Speaker 1: No, No, but they're all criminals if they came illegally, that's the distinction. By definition, they're breaking federal law eight USC. Thirteen twelve. Just their presence here is against the law. Would you be okay welcoming in five hundred million people into America? 00:05:20 Speaker 2: That's why we implement the system to undercent eamil. 00:05:22 Speaker 1: No, you got to ask, do you think five hundred million people would be too many people? 00:05:26 Speaker 2: Five hundred million? I don't even think that would fit the United States? 00:05:28 Speaker 1: I agree, And that's the point is that if everyone, all of a sudden declared that their life was in danger, we'd have to let in, like all of Nicaragua, all of Honduras, almost all of Venezuela, the standard all of a sudden starts falling apart. And we find that people lie about this, they deceive it. Here's my perspective. Why don't we try to empower those people to make the countries they're coming from greater and stronger. Else this problem will actually never be fixed at the root level. That makes sense. 00:05:55 Speaker 3: It does make sense, and I wish it was that easy. 00:05:58 Speaker 2: So for instance, I am partpar and in Peru. 00:06:02 Speaker 3: So they were having a presidential election, and the president who was going to win was better for the country and would help out a lot more. But since it's corrupt, they made the other president win. They sent him death threats, nearly almost killed him. He had to fake his death and leave, and they jailed her. They jailed her completely and they let the guy win. That is why it's corrupt. It's hard to fix a country when there's no help towards it. So Peru was they were rooting for the good president. They were rooting to build their system back up, but the other president it was rigged. 00:06:33 Speaker 2: It was completely rigged. 00:06:34 Speaker 1: So does it make it better or worse if millions of people leave that country for Peru? 00:06:41 Speaker 2: Can you like, what do you mean by three million. 00:06:43 Speaker 1: People left Peru? Does Peru get greater or weaker? Stronger weaker? 00:06:51 Speaker 2: Neither? I mean, it's in a weak state right now. 00:06:53 Speaker 1: I mean, it's pretty obvious. I'm trying to even say that mass immigration is bad for everybody. It's bad for America, and it's bad for the country that people are leaving from. The only difference is that they send back American money through remittances that actually subsidize this entire thing. Let me ask one final question. If somebody comes into America without invitation and they are illegal, what do you think the penalty should be. 00:07:16 Speaker 3: I think it's humane to look at their case and why they had to leave everything they've ever known. 00:07:21 Speaker 1: We believe that we should send them back to their country of origin. 00:07:28 Speaker 3: I just want to make one more final point, so I do understand that. But my final point is that do you agree that we shouldn't pument more money to the immigrations. 00:07:36 Speaker 1: Vice now I think we should have no immigrants in the country for the next ten years. We have way too many people in this country. And I'll prove it to you here in California. Your hospitals are overrun, your schools are overrun. Do you guys agree that you have a crowded state right now? We are a California is a cluttered state with social services that are being strained, and we need a pause on all immigration in my opinion, to metaphorically digest the major meal that we just ate, or else we are going to have a major major assimilation problem, cultural problem, cohesion problem, all sorts of issues. And I know this is a provocative thing to say, but immigration is something that you use as a way to benefit the homeland. You don't have to have immigration. 00:08:24 Speaker 3: But just as an example, my parents came here, like I said, legally zero dollars, and they have benefited so much to the country. They have made so much, like one hundreds and thousands dollars. 00:08:33 Speaker 2: Good. 00:08:34 Speaker 1: That's the American dream. 00:08:35 Speaker 2: It is, and it's just like a hard thing. 00:08:37 Speaker 1: And I want American boor and young people from UC Riverside to also have that American dream and not have to compete against foreigners for that. Thank you for your time. 00:08:46 Speaker 2: Can I say one point? 00:08:47 Speaker 1: We have a long line? Thank you really quick though. Okay again, what is it? Yeah? 00:08:50 Speaker 2: Sorry, okay, I understand the American dream is hard. 00:08:53 Speaker 3: My parents, my mom was pregnant working two jobs one day and she sacrificed everything, and now she has more money than. 00:08:59 Speaker 1: That American Praise God. That is the American dream. Thank you very much, thank you. 00:09:07 Speaker 5: Imagine being a young woman just finding out that you're pregnant, not knowing where to go or what to do, not even knowing exactly what is going on in your body, while the whole world tells her it's just a clump of cells. You and I we both know the truth. We know it is a baby. And once she has an ultrasound that you provide and she sees the truth of the baby growing inside of her, you help her choose life when you join us in providing ultrasounds with preborn and she sees her baby, and here's her baby's heartbeat. You will double the likelihood that she will choose life, and one hundred percent of what you give goes to providing ultrasounds one hundred percent preborn. Separately, fund raises for administrative cost two hundred and eighty dollars can save ten babies, twenty eight dollars a month can save a baby a month all year long. And a fifteen thousand dollars gift. I know there's some of you out there that can afford this fifteen thousand dollars gift will provide a complete ultrasound machine that will save thousands of babies for years and years to come. Call eight three three eight five zero two two two nine or click on the preborn banner at Charliekirk dot com. Today again, that's eight three three eight five zero two two two nine, or click on the preborn banner at Charliekirk dot com. 00:10:22 Speaker 6: I want to talk about the debate of abortion, so I know that it's something very controversial. Some people are pro choice, some people are pro life. Before I start, I want to make sure that I understand your opinion fully, so I don't take you know what I've heard online. What is your stance on abortion? 00:10:40 Speaker 1: Life begins at conception. 00:10:42 Speaker 6: Okay, so where do you so conception? So is that when sperm enters the egg? 00:10:47 Speaker 1: Is that during s when new DNA is formed? 00:10:49 Speaker 6: Okay, when new DNA is formed. So the egg by itself, you don't think is anything? Sorry, the egg of a woman by itself? 00:10:56 Speaker 1: Do you think it's Okay, it's something, but it's not a life correct? 00:10:59 Speaker 7: Okay, that's okay. 00:11:00 Speaker 6: So my question is when you talk about abortion and why you think you so, why you support it, Why you don't support it? 00:11:07 Speaker 7: Sorry, why you don't support it? 00:11:09 Speaker 6: What do you use as your evidence? You use scientific evidence? Do you talk about the Bible? 00:11:13 Speaker 1: Do you use both mainly scientific and self evident reason? 00:11:17 Speaker 7: Okay? So are you someone who's a follower of the Bible. 00:11:21 Speaker 1: I am, but that's not relevant to this discussion. But we could talk about it if you like. 00:11:25 Speaker 6: I find irrelevant because when I'm going to talk about abortion, there's quotes in the Bible that I think support pro choice in my opinion. 00:11:36 Speaker 7: Bible Exodus. 00:11:41 Speaker 6: Exodus twenty one twenty two through twenty five, when men strive together and hit a pregnant woman so that her child come out, so miscarriage. But there's no harm to the woman, the one who hit her shall surely be fined as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as a judge and to determine. But if there is harm to the woman, you shall pay life for life, foot for foot, burned for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. So I know that that can be interpreted different ways. The Bible is interpret them any ways, different there's different types, different interpretations. But this says if a person causes a miscarriage through a woman, that they will pay for the abortion. So they they will pay, another one will punish them. 00:12:26 Speaker 1: That is not what this law says. But let me us ask, are you a Christian? 00:12:29 Speaker 7: Yes? 00:12:30 Speaker 1: Okay? Then continue So so if you believe in the inerrant word of God, yes, okay, good? 00:12:37 Speaker 6: Yes, So it says that as the woman's husband shall impose on him and he shall pay as the judges determined. So the judge is determined, and it's talking about the husband. So therefore it's talking about a person, not God himself, not his judgment. So it's saying, if someone has an abortion, we have the right to choose. 00:12:55 Speaker 1: What to do to them, right and you say it was a miscarriage, not an abortion. 00:12:58 Speaker 6: It says when man strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that's causing her to lose the baby, that's outside cause, outside cause. Therefore, it could mean abortion, because some people find that a breasive abortion is through violence such as hitting, because not everyone has access to medical. 00:13:17 Speaker 1: Was it the intent for them to kill the baby? 00:13:19 Speaker 7: It's unclarified, so that I cannot tell you. 00:13:22 Speaker 6: However, what I will say is that it says that it's the judges determine, the husband determines, So God's not making the choice for us what to do with the person who does that to someone's child does that to their own child. But it does say that if the woman is. 00:13:39 Speaker 7: Harmed her herself, not the child. 00:13:42 Speaker 6: Then they are liable by God their life for her life, their foot for her foot. So what I'm saying is, if somebody needs an abortion for health care. Let's say a woman baby's not gonna make it, and if the baby stays in her womb, she will die, and they refuse her an abortion, refuse her that healthcare and she dies. 00:14:01 Speaker 7: Should the doctor be liable under God? 00:14:05 Speaker 1: First of all, this those instances don't happen. So let's just be clear. No, see, you guys are so propagandized by this that only happens in a very rare case of the breaking of the uteriation. 00:14:14 Speaker 7: It does happen. 00:14:15 Speaker 1: But no, but where the baby is already dead. And that's the point, is that the baby is already dead. That's a removal of a carcass of the baby. 00:14:22 Speaker 7: No, it's not. 00:14:23 Speaker 1: That's incorrect. No it's not. No, it's not. A removal of a carcass of a baby is not an abortion. Those are two technically different things. It is not a DNA. It is not a DNA. Is something completely different. But then, if you want to talk about scripture, do you think we are bound to all six hundred and thirteen levitical laws? 00:14:43 Speaker 6: Yes, if you're a follower of the Bible, you cannot pick and choose what you follow. 00:14:46 Speaker 1: Oh, so you eat kosher? 00:14:48 Speaker 2: You cannot? 00:14:49 Speaker 1: Do you eat kosher? 00:14:50 Speaker 6: No? 00:14:50 Speaker 1: Well, I thought you were a bound to all six hundred thirteen laws. 00:14:53 Speaker 7: I'm not perfect. I'm sinner. Everyone hears a sinner. 00:14:56 Speaker 1: But well, are we bound to it? Do you think Christians should eat kosher? 00:14:58 Speaker 7: Choose to follow the Bible? You cannot pick and choose what. 00:15:02 Speaker 1: You of course, but we do believe in a new covenant, old covenant. So there's three types of Old Testament laws. Right, there's ceremonial, there's civil and moral. So ceremonial laws we do not honor. Civil we consider moral. 00:15:14 Speaker 6: We update it because do humans decide what to follow in God? 00:15:17 Speaker 1: Because Christ is actually it's not us, it's not humans. So Paul actually authored in the Book of Colossians, that's a human right inspired by the Holy Spirit which wrote the Bible. The ordinances of Moses are nailed to the cross. Secondly, Christ, our Lord, repeated nine out of ten of the nine out of ten of the ten commandments, and he said, all the laws of the Prophet hang upon the two teachings of Leviticus nineteen and Deuteronomy six. But now I equally have to challenge you with scripture in Luke one, when Elizabeth came in contact with Mary and both were babies, what did it say that John the Baptist did. 00:15:56 Speaker 7: I cannot tell you that he leapt? 00:15:59 Speaker 1: Okay, do non babies leap? 00:16:05 Speaker 7: I don't understand the question. I'm gonna be honest. 00:16:07 Speaker 1: Isn't it a baby? Then? Worthy of protection if they're leaping. 00:16:12 Speaker 7: I suppose yes. 00:16:14 Speaker 1: And it was the Greek word breathos, which literally means baby intentionally used throughout hold on and Jeremiah says, I knew you before you're in the womb. In some I think one thirty nine, it's one of the most intricate verses about the detail of our formation process as human beings. And finally, because of science, because of biology, we know that human life begins at that spark of new DNA, and God says, do not murder, and it's incumbent on Christians that therefore protect that life. 00:16:41 Speaker 6: Okay, so my biggest question is I'm not saying that all abortion is valid. I feel like that's up for everyone to decide. But in the most even if it's very small percentage, in the very small percentage, that a baby is alive, but it has to be aborted for the sake of the mother. 00:16:58 Speaker 1: What do you think the section? What is a C section? 00:17:02 Speaker 7: A sea section is when you cut the mother's Wait. 00:17:04 Speaker 1: Why don't they do that instead of the abortion. 00:17:06 Speaker 7: Because it could be equally as dangerous. 00:17:08 Speaker 1: Wrong, it's much safer than an abortion and quicker. 00:17:10 Speaker 7: Do you have evidence? 00:17:11 Speaker 1: I mean yes, it's it's it's self evident. Can you tell me, I mean again, I there's plenty of people, he has, plenty of people that are in medicine can tell you. But like to be very clear, think about it. Every hospital is equipped to do sea sections. You have to go to a specific place for an abortion and a C section. One third out of everyone in this audience was born by C section. Se sections save lives, they do not terminate lives. And so when they say we must abort the baby thanks to modern technology, that's actually a false choice. You could take the baby out of the environment and try to save its life as a cesarean section. 00:17:45 Speaker 6: What if when the sea section happens, the baby's not able to survive on its own no matter what. 00:17:50 Speaker 1: Okay, Well, then that's a separate circumstance. It's like saying, if the baby has a heart attack after the sea section, that's not a reason not to terminate it. What do you mean if you have to give everybody a chance at life, you don't kill the baby in the womb just because you think that it's going to well, it could hurt the mother. You take it out of that environment. 00:18:09 Speaker 6: Okay, but what I'm saying is if they take the baby out and they know it's not gonna survive, regardless, how they. 00:18:15 Speaker 1: Know that post twenty two weeks. You don't know that. There's miracles that happen every day in the neonatal life, in the neonatal intensive care unit, there's miracles that happen every day in niicu's And I. 00:18:27 Speaker 6: Agree, there's definitely they don't know one hundred percent for sure, but there's definitely probability through science, through biology that they know, hey, this is more likely gonna happen. 00:18:35 Speaker 1: We don't do morals on probability. 00:18:39 Speaker 7: We're not saying it's morality. 00:18:41 Speaker 6: I'm saying probability of a baby's gonna survive or doesn't matter. 00:18:44 Speaker 1: You don't terminate a life based on a probability of survival. Oh you do. Interesting? You guys murder people based on probability of survival. Interesting. So somebody on a ventilator should just be murdered. I mean, it's such an incredible morality. 00:19:00 Speaker 6: Which we keep someone on a ventilator for the entirenent of everything else. 00:19:04 Speaker 1: Then it depends there's two different things. There's no more and not yet. Once you reach the level of no more. Human interventions can improve this person's life or bring them back to a full life. That is a separate moral decision than not yet. When a human being is at not yet, which they are in the womb, you must do everything you can to make sure they get life. When a human being is that no more, it's a completely separate moral dimension and decision. To make no more and not yet are the ways to look at pro life decays. That makes sense. 00:19:30 Speaker 7: Yes, that makes sense. Well, thank you for debating with me. 00:19:32 Speaker 1: Thank you very much. 00:19:33 Speaker 7: Don't agree to disagree. 00:19:36 Speaker 5: Hi, folks, Andrew Colvett here, I'd like to tell you about my friends over at why Refi. You've probably been hearing me talk about y REFI for some time now. We are all in with these guys. If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call. Maybe you're behind on your payments, maybe you're even in default. You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore. Why will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay. They tailor each loan individually. They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back. We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt. Many of them don't even know how much they owe. Y REFI can help. Just go to y refi dot com. That's the letter why then refi dot com And remember y Refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to yrefi dot com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. 00:20:35 Speaker 4: I have a friend named Thomas Sheety. He is the founder of an organization called Atheist for Liberty. He is openly conservative, but he's mostly interested in atheist activism and normalizing atheism in all sex, including the Conservative movement. He seems to be under the impression that a lot of concerntism, including you, are more hesitant to work with atheist organizations. Is there any truth to that? 00:20:58 Speaker 1: Yes and no. I mean, if you an atheist and you want to be part of the conservative movement, go ahead, but you must be an honest atheist and acknowledge that morality is definitionally subjective. Without a belief in God, you cannot be an atheist and believe an objective morality. It is an impossibility and true atheists will acknowledge us. At some point you have an ought claim, well, things ought to be a certain way. We as Christians, are we that believe in the divine we have is claims that there murder is wrong, whereas an atheist will say, well, murder ought to be wrong, because you can't have an objective definition if there is not a divine eternal power over you. So look, if an atheist wants to fight alongside of us to end abortion or to try and end the massacring of our kids, that's called gender affirming care. And or if an atheist wants to march alongside of us to say no men in female sports, they're more than welcome to be able to do that. But atheists for liberty is an interesting phrase because I don't believe you can have liberty without God, because liberty is not man's idea, it is God's idea. That's just my own personal belief, and it's also the belief of everything that built this nation. But yes, I'm I know a lot of good atheists. The question, though, is how do you know they're good. It's because you're appealing to a moral authority above just the secular material realm, one that is transcendent we would believe given by God. 00:22:18 Speaker 4: Well, I don't believe in objective morality. I do know there are planet of atheists who are moral objectivist? 00:22:23 Speaker 1: Or are you an atheist? Sorry interrupt, but oh yeah, yeah, okay, cool? Please, so let me just can I ask you a question? And I don't mean I know this is your first time at the mic, so I'm just going to try to be tender in doing this. I appreciate. So you don't believe in objective morality, right, I personally don't. Okay, was the Holocaust objectively wrong? Objectively no? 00:22:38 Speaker 4: But it have been better if it didn't happen because most people won't want that to happen. 00:22:42 Speaker 1: So that's that's where we that's where we are on different planets, and that's okay. I'm not trying to make fun of you. I'm trying to be graceful in the way that we're going about this. Do you think Hitler was objectively evil? 00:22:56 Speaker 6: No? 00:22:56 Speaker 1: Because of the subjective But I just hope all of you guys unders and he's being an honest atheist to your credit, because as an atheist, you're not allowed to say anything is objectively right or wrong. I come from a worldview that when you butcher six million people, that is objectively wrong, no matter what. And it's very important. It's a very important truth claim because when you do not have objective truth anchoring your society, then it becomes a power struggle. If you do not have truth, then power will reign. Whoever you get the most amount of power then ends up having the most amount of say over society. We believe what is objectively right, true, good, and beautiful should be transcendent over society. Your thoughts, So, do. 00:23:38 Speaker 4: You believe objective morality specifically comes from the Bible? 00:23:41 Speaker 1: Yes? And no. It's in nature and the Bible explains nature. So objective morality can be discovered in many different cultures and societies, pointing towards what we believe is the ultimate objective truth. Jesus Christ C. S. Lewis explain this the best in his book Abolition of Man, which is that almost every religion talks about a certain way to live, a dow or a path that we should be on. And so more more simply than just the Bible, we believe in what the founders believed, which is an ethical monotheism that there is one God. He has a general way that he wants you to live. For example, murdering is bad, kidnapping his wrong, defense of the innocent, and we should do our best to try to live alongside of that path. 00:24:24 Speaker 4: Okay, well, I think those are very interesting examples. You bring up the Founders, you bring up Hitler. But Hitler was this heelp proclaim Catholic, and he called Nazism and Christian movements. 00:24:33 Speaker 1: Yeah, I would be careful saying that he was. He was not. That's okay, I call himself a Catholic, he said. 00:24:38 Speaker 4: He specifically said in nineteen twenty seven, our movement as Christian, they had on the belt buckles God on our side. Yet they then swear to the Almighty God. Atheists were not trusted to be in the SS. 00:24:49 Speaker 1: Even if I grant you that, despite the fact that he killed a lot of pastors and priests, and there of course you can pervert things in the name of God, no one denounces that. Just as a side note, though far more people died under the banner of atheism than Christianity in the twentieth century, Mao was an atheist, Stalin was an atheist. Paul Pott was an atheist believing in no God actually led to the destruction the murder of well over one hundred million people. And that's fine. So again, if atheists want to come alongside us as conservatives and fight for what is good, that is great. But I will never acknowledge that atheists can tell me what is objectively good. They can only give me a preference. They cannot tell me what is right, and preferences eventually will lead you towards moral and societal decline. 00:25:34 Speaker 4: Okay, So I think you just listened a bunch of communists, and it's worth acknowledging the vast majory of atheists are not communists, just like the basst majority Christians are not theocrats who don't support the divine right. It's also worth acknowledging that the founders were actually inspired by Enlightenment values, not by the Bible. America was founder is the second nation. We were the first quote unquote gallis constitution. 00:25:56 Speaker 1: Again, I've done this so many times, so I don't know if we want to waste our time doing this. But fifty five out of fifty six of the signers of the declaration were Bible believing church attending Christians. Nine out of thirteen of the states of the time of ratification require a declaration of faith in order for you to serve in the states we were. Our birth certificate, which is a Mayflower compact, said explicitly we are here to spread Christianity throughout the land. It was the first great Revival that led to the American Revolution of Jonathan Words and Jonathan Mayhew and George Whitfield that preached all across the Eastern seaboard. John Adam seamlessly said, the Constitution is written solely for a moral and religious people. It's wholly inadequate for the people of any other. We were a Christian nation that was able to embrace the idea of a free society. God has mentioned four times in the Declaration of Independence. Not only that, Jesus Christ is mentioned in the Declaration Dependence, where it says we appeal to the divine judge of the Universe, which of course is a direct appeal to Jesus in the Book of Revelation. Yes, there were rationalists Enlightenment values that informed some of the founders, but it irrefutably was a Christian nation. Maryland was Catholic, Pennsylvania was Quaker, almost every state had their own specific type of Christian preference. The idea of an atheist or not believing in any god was an idea that was so foreign to the Founders. Even Thomas Jefferson, the great Deist, he revered the Bible, albeit with some significant edits. However, the idea of believing in no cosmological or no axiological or no teleological or no optological being would be a concept that our founding fathers and not just find foreign, they would find it extraordinarily dangerous. Why because the French Revolution was happening simultaneously as the American Revolution, which was explicitly atheist. They actually recreated their own gods and had They said, we are going to appeal to what the God of reason. And this is my final contention, is that when I talked to atheists, the French Revolution is a great example. They literally tried to change the Gregorian calendar to a ten day week. They went and imprisoned people of faith, they put priests in jail, all these different sorts of things. They said, we are going to appeal to the God of reason. Well, how did that work out? It worked out with the guillotine and the slaughter of tens of thousands of people. The French Revolution was one of the greatest disasters in human recorded history. Contrast that with the American Why did the American Revolution create the greatest nation ever to exist in the history of the world? And the French Revolution resulted in a lot of blood and even the killing of their own once leader, Maximilian rob Spiere, it's because we were anchored on Christian ideas. If you are not anchored on Christian ideas, then don't be surprised and all of a sudden, there is no fruit to the harvest that you're trying to create. 00:28:21 Speaker 5: Before he ever stepped behind a microphone, Charlie understood something important. Leadership begins with learning. He didn't chase a diploma or a title. He chased truth. Through Hillsdale College's free online courses. He studied the great works of the Classics, the principles of the American Founding, and the life changing truths of the Bible. Those ideas didn't just inform him, they shaped his character, strengthened his convictions, and prepared him for the challenges ahead of One of the courses he took was the Genesis Story, taught by Hillsdale Professor doctor Justin Jackson. This free online course explores the relationship between God and man, what happens when that relationship is broken, and the path toward reconciliation. Real college course, rigorous, thoughtful, and accessible to anyone willing to learn. You can take the very same course completely free. Grow stronger in your faith, gain clarity about humanity and your place in the world. Prepare yourself for a life with courage and conviction. Visit Charlie for Hillsdale dot com to enroll today. That's Charlie for Hillsdale dot com. Learn Deeply, Lead, boldly, Carry it forward. 00:29:27 Speaker 8: I'm an atheist, so I disagree with your religious claims. 00:29:30 Speaker 1: Do you believe in absolute truth? 00:29:34 Speaker 8: I'm not sure you can provide me this positive evidence that there is absolute truth. So the question, the answer would be, I'm not. 00:29:39 Speaker 1: Sure, are you? Are you absolutely not sure? 00:29:41 Speaker 8: I'm not sure if I'm absolutely not sure. See, this works if you say no, but it doesn't work if you bought them out in the I don't know a question. 00:29:47 Speaker 1: Right, No, But saying you're not sure, you are not even sure. If you're not suret so at some point you're just always have to make a truth claim. 00:29:54 Speaker 8: Yet, No, you can just be not sure about everything all the way down. I don't see why you can't. And my answer would be, I think truth is instrumental list in theory. I think it's the thing we choose pragmatically for the purposes of discussion. I think you can say, yeah, I think truth exists pragmatically. Regardless of that, I don't see how you get to God. 00:30:08 Speaker 1: Are you alive? Huh? Are you alive? 00:30:11 Speaker 8: I think I'm alive. 00:30:12 Speaker 1: Yeah, I think you're a life. 00:30:13 Speaker 8: Yeah. 00:30:15 Speaker 1: Is the sun? Is the sun shining? 00:30:17 Speaker 8: I think it's shining. 00:30:18 Speaker 2: Yeah. 00:30:19 Speaker 8: From my frame of reference, it is shining. Notice Notice how none of this I mean, so, notice how you've gotten no steps closer to proving God. 00:30:28 Speaker 1: No, I'm asking questions. Man, OK, yeah, but are you sure we did it? Yeah? 00:30:32 Speaker 8: I'm sure. Are you sure I'm sure in the practice God, I'm I'm sure in the pragmatic insd in the pragmatic instrumentalist sense, absolutely sure. I see truth as a utility. 00:30:43 Speaker 2: So there is a truth that's absolute. 00:30:45 Speaker 8: No, it's it's instrumentally. No, absolutely sure in the instrumentalist sense of the word truth. This is a philosophical tradition that dates back hundreds of years. Instrumentalism, Yeah, which, of course we don't subscribe to obviously. 00:30:57 Speaker 1: So do you believe that murder is objectively wrong? 00:31:00 Speaker 8: Epistemologically objective or ontologically objective? 00:31:03 Speaker 1: Morally? 00:31:06 Speaker 8: See you didn't answer the question. 00:31:07 Speaker 1: But both both epistemologically and ontologically. But for the purpose of discussion. 00:31:11 Speaker 8: From wait, okay, so by what you mean? No, I don't think it's objective. 00:31:15 Speaker 1: Was Hitler a bad person objectively? No? 00:31:19 Speaker 8: If you mean by by the way, by the way, wait wait wait, wait, wait. 00:31:24 Speaker 1: Wait, no, but he's being honest at its core, atheists cannot wait? 00:31:29 Speaker 8: Can I make the claim? 00:31:30 Speaker 1: Now? 00:31:31 Speaker 8: Notice who here is relying on feelings and knocked facts. Your argument is I feel that Hitler was objective? 00:31:36 Speaker 1: No I know? 00:31:37 Speaker 8: No, no, you feel that way. Can you provide me evidence of how you know? Can you provide me evidence that morality is objective? 00:31:42 Speaker 1: No? Of course I can't, because well, first of all, morality is both reason and revelation, and it's built within to us that murder is wrong. 00:31:50 Speaker 8: Yeah, okay, where's your evidence of that? 00:31:52 Speaker 1: I'm sorry? 00:31:53 Speaker 8: Is that a that's a claim, not evidence? That's a claim. 00:31:55 Speaker 1: Okay, we could we could spend multiple hours. But in the Western tradition, So notice. 00:32:00 Speaker 8: You're saying by tradition, by by my standards, but all claims of non truth value hold on. 00:32:05 Speaker 1: Yes they are. We believe that truth was revealed to us. 00:32:08 Speaker 8: We believe claim. 00:32:09 Speaker 1: But by God, hold on. But let me let me we can get there. You can keep on interrupting us. Okay, but let me prove to you how silly your viewpoint is and how self evidently wrong? Is it objectively wrong to kids? 00:32:22 Speaker 8: When you say objective? What I mean by objective? Once again? Once again? 00:32:38 Speaker 1: Can I ask you something? 00:32:40 Speaker 8: And I don't know. I just notice how you still haven't given me dispositive evidence and real he's objective. You're merely saying, my answer is I feel that way. Sure, I feel that way. 00:32:49 Speaker 1: It's objective. It's objectively wrong to the laws of nature of nature, the self evident nature of existence. 00:32:55 Speaker 8: Where is your proof that itself? Show me the logical proof that it's self evidence? 00:32:58 Speaker 1: Okay, it's it's in your reason that God gave you, in the consciousness gave it to me. 00:33:02 Speaker 8: Prove that God gave it to me. 00:33:03 Speaker 1: Okay, But again, your existence is proof of that. You're again, we can get back down to the first principle of this. 00:33:11 Speaker 8: But we can, but you don't want to because you know it doesn't look good. No, it looks actually really good because because built with built within. 00:33:18 Speaker 1: Again, interrupting does not make you right, so you keep repeating your point. No I don't, So let me ask you a question in closing. Since you can't objectively say that Hitler was bad or that child is wrong. So how did the universe come into it existence? I don't know, okay, but science says that it was a big bang or a beginning point, right, okay, So using logic, which you believe, this is the column cosmological Again, you keep interrupting using using logic, if space, time and matter had a starting point, then logically shouldn't something outside of space, time and matter have started those things. 00:33:53 Speaker 8: How do you know that cause is personal? How do you know that cause is worth praying to? 00:33:56 Speaker 1: That's anything, that's not the question. 00:33:58 Speaker 8: Wait, okay, sure there is a cause. 00:33:59 Speaker 1: Oh that God, because it's outside of space. 00:34:03 Speaker 8: You believe in different things about that? Do you think that God is personal? 00:34:06 Speaker 1: That's not That's not what we're debating. We are arguing about. 00:34:08 Speaker 8: God is religion. 00:34:11 Speaker 1: Hold on, no, No, we're not debating. We're debating whether not there's a God or not. 00:34:14 Speaker 8: No, the Christian God. I said religion. That you're a religious person. You said Christian in nature, you follow a religious tradition. 00:34:19 Speaker 1: Hold down, you said you're an atheist. 00:34:20 Speaker 8: We know God, God historically a Quinnas even defines it this way, is a personal God. You still haven't gotten to. 00:34:25 Speaker 1: Me to prove that. I'm happy to get to that. 00:34:27 Speaker 8: Okay, then get to it. 00:34:28 Speaker 1: Look, here's here's what I find with atheists. They don't want to worship or acknowledge God because many atheists think they are God. And you and body that really, well. 00:34:37 Speaker 8: I didn't know you were a mind reader, Charlie. This is news to me. 00:34:39 Speaker 1: It's not a mind reader. I can tell by your behavior. I will say this. I hope that you give your life to Jesus Christ. I hope you do. 00:34:46 Speaker 8: I hope you can find evidence. 00:34:48 Speaker 1: I hope you can find you know what's interesting, there is evidence, there is evidence that Jesus. Hold on last thing, do you believe Jesus Christ was a real historical figure? 00:34:55 Speaker 5: Yes? 00:34:55 Speaker 1: Do you believe that the Gospels are historically accurate and we improve them with archaeological evidence. 00:35:01 Speaker 8: Some parts are some parts are some parts are metaphors, some parts are allegory, some parts are literal. It depends. Some parts are attempts at history. Which book or gospel. 00:35:10 Speaker 1: Using rational analysis? Why would the disciples lie about the resurrection of Christ? 00:35:16 Speaker 8: Okay, we can talk about this people. They can be mistaken mistakenly wrong about it. 00:35:19 Speaker 1: So they would be mistakenly wrong up to the point where they get. 00:35:22 Speaker 8: Mart The whole point of being the whole point of being mistakingly wrong about something is you believe it's true. 00:35:26 Speaker 1: All the way up until the point of death. 00:35:28 Speaker 8: The whole point of being mistakenly wrong about something. 00:35:30 Speaker 1: I just want to make sure I understand your position. Your position is that the twelve disciples who knew Christ best, saw him die, and then they all believed the mistaken conspiracy for the rest of their life. Yes, spread all of them together as a conspiracy. 00:35:43 Speaker 8: Yes. Yes, there is no first tund account from the five hundred that gospels are all written by these people. People have died for crazy claims in the past that we know aren't true. These are all facts about him. 00:35:53 Speaker 1: It's not correct. Okay. One of the Gospels was written by one of his closest associates, Matthew. The next collector Luke was a fact fire that was hired. 00:36:01 Speaker 8: I didn't say the Gospels weren'tritten by them. I said there's no evidence from the five hundred that he appeared to. There's no first hand accounts. 00:36:06 Speaker 1: Again, that's not correct. Thank you for your time. We'll get the next oation you can. We will pray for you. Thank you. 00:36:15 Speaker 8: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charliekirk dot com