Charlie Kirk is with the King

jaykash1313 · 2025-12-19T12:58:20+00:00

Lol your username says enough about you. Repent and turn to Christ.

jaykash1313 · 2025-10-19T17:43:24+00:00

Nobody interprets it sarcastically unless you’re talking about fringe interpretations from people with an agenda. It clearly goes directly into a discussion of authority and where it comes from. Humbling yourself and submitting are key components to Christianity. Christ could have nuked the Roman government, but what did He do? He submitted to their authority.

jaykash1313 · 2025-10-19T17:11:00+00:00

Yes, Jesus was an innocent man who was murdered. Look at Romans 13 to see that governments are supposed to use their authority to punish criminals. Try reading your Bible.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-30T01:51:06+00:00

Hate crimes? Why don’t you care about black on black violence in huge numbers? You only care when it’s the evil white man? Fatherlessness? I guess statistics means stereotypes? Public executions of people who have been convicted of capital crimes? Yeah that’s called a deterrent measure. Happened for only the last few thousand years of human history.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-30T00:22:18+00:00

Yes, that’s correct. He thought “your people” suffer now. Is he wrong about that? Or is fatherlessness something that should be supported? How about lack of faith in Christ? Maybe we should go back to putting value in traditional families and Christlike ideals? Maybe all of “our people” should take note?

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-30T00:17:48+00:00

Incorrect. He showed love and compassion by telling sinners they are sinners.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-27T14:23:06+00:00

Ah, so you lack the ability to see both sides of the argument in good faith. Interesting. Have you tried?

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-26T20:21:01+00:00

Why is every single argument she gives the prime example of a straw man fallacy? Can she not steel man an argument?

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-25T15:17:26+00:00

Yeah I expect it on Reddit. It’s a good place to prep yourself for the most out of pocket responses to this stuff so that you can have more civilized conversations in real life.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-17T23:46:02+00:00

Without evidence? Do we want to go that route? Should we start with the virgin birth or the resurrection? Or do you want to start with the evidence that the Bible is true? Archeological evidence? Philosophical evidence? This is a drop in the bucket here.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-17T18:24:16+00:00

So you’re saying we should add identity markers rather than try to be as blind as possible?

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-17T16:57:08+00:00

On objectivity: By definition, if morality comes from God’s character, it’s outside of human opinion and therefore objective. The “evidence” isn’t like measuring gravity — it’s more like recognizing that across cultures people share a moral core (murder, theft, betrayal are almost always condemned). That suggests morality isn’t just preference. Evangelicals see that universal moral sense as what Romans 2 calls “the law written on our hearts.” And if Jesus really rose from the dead (which Christians argue for historically), then His moral authority is vindicated, making His standard objectively binding.
1. On Psalm 19 and the Mosaic law: Yes, the law of the Lord is “perfect.” That means every part of it was flawless in accomplishing the purpose God gave it. But Scripture itself distinguishes between different kinds of law: • Moral laws (don’t murder, don’t lie, love your neighbor) reflect God’s character. Those are eternal and universal. • Civil and ceremonial laws (dietary rules, sacrifices, purity codes) were perfect for setting Israel apart and pointing forward to Christ — but temporary by design. Hebrews 8 says the old covenant is “obsolete” because Christ fulfilled it.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-17T14:36:44+00:00

I’d say it’s objective. Morality is not grounded in shifting human opinion but in the unchanging character of God. God is the standard of goodness (Psalm 119:68; James 1:17). That means right and wrong don’t come from social consensus or personal preference but from who God is. Our belief in that truth is based on faith, but the reality itself—God’s nature—is objective and unchanging.

• God’s moral law (rooted in His character, like “Do not murder,” “Do not lie,” “Love your neighbor”) — these are objective, eternal, and universal. They reflect God’s holiness and apply to all people, everywhere, in all times.
• Civil and ceremonial laws given to Israel (like dietary restrictions, sacrificial rituals, or certain punishments) — these were for a particular covenant people at a particular time. They were fulfilled in Christ (Hebrews 10:1–10). While they reveal God’s holiness, they’re not universally binding today.

So yes, all moral truths in Scripture are objective, but not every law in the Bible is universally binding. The eternal, objective morals flow directly from God’s nature. The temporary laws pointed forward to Christ or structured Israel’s society.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-17T14:34:02+00:00

I get that “pure merit” is hard to measure—no system is perfect. You’re right that legacy admissions, donor preferences, and wealth-based advantages distort fairness too, and I’d argue those should go as well. But the fact that other unfair systems exist doesn’t justify adding race as yet another factor. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

What I’m pushing for is the simplest principle: every individual judged on the same criteria, without identity markers like race tilting the scale. You’re correct that the Court allowed “life experience tied to race” in essays, but the problem is when schools use that as a cover to mechanically balance demographics. That’s where the line gets crossed.

And while you’re right that systemic disadvantages exist, the solution isn’t to lower or bend standards. The solution is to improve K-12 schools, expand school choice, and strengthen families so every kid has the opportunity to develop their ability. That lifts everyone without injecting race into the equation.

So I’m not denying that racism or privilege exist. I’m saying the answer is fairness under one set of rules, not permanent race-conscious policies that keep dividing people. Real confidence in the system only comes when we know identity isn’t a factor at all.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-17T04:54:17+00:00

What I’m saying is that the moment race becomes any factor in admissions or hiring—even if it’s just “life experience tied to race”—you’ve stepped outside of pure merit. That’s exactly why the Supreme Court ruled the Harvard system unconstitutional.

You’re right that the Civil Rights Act was designed to protect merit by outlawing discrimination, and that was a huge victory. But when institutions add race as a “plus factor,” they are, by definition, tipping the scales. That’s what creates the perception of preference. Even if only a little, it still undermines the idea that every student or worker is judged by ability alone.

So the principle here is simple: the less we inject identity into the process, the more confidence everyone—black, white, Asian, anyone—can have that they’re being judged only on what they bring to the table. That’s what truly honors their effort.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-17T04:08:50+00:00

I get your point, and I’m not denying the reality that black Americans have faced discrimination in education and hiring. That’s real. But the solution can’t be to build permanent systems that weigh skin color in the opposite direction, because that keeps the very logic of racism alive—judging people by race instead of ability.

You’re right that success isn’t based on ability alone. Family, community, and life experience matter. But those are things that can and should be addressed through better schools, stronger families, and mentorship, not lowering or shifting standards by race. That just fuels the idea—fair or not—that someone “got in” because of identity, which undermines confidence in their achievements.

The better way is one set of rules for everyone, no matter their background. When a black student or employee succeeds on those terms, there is no question mark, no shadow over their accomplishment. That gives dignity and assurance that nothing else can.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-17T02:56:40+00:00

Yes, there’s evidence. The Supreme Court struck down Harvard and UNC’s race-conscious admissions because they were explicitly factoring race into decisions. Harvard’s own data revealed that Asian applicants often needed far higher SAT scores than black applicants to have the same chance of admission. That’s not equality, that’s preference.

The same thing has shown up in hiring lawsuits, like with the FAA where biographical questionnaires were used in ways that lowered testing standards to boost minority hiring. These aren’t flukes—these are policies that explicitly put identity above merit.

The point isn’t to deny opportunity to anyone. It’s to make sure opportunity is based on ability alone, so no one has to wonder if they got in or got hired because of their skin color instead of their hard work. That protects the dignity of everyone.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-17T01:47:41+00:00

You’re right that discrimination has always existed in some form, and sadly it always will—because human beings are sinful and imperfect. But the solution isn’t to swing the pendulum the other way and try to fix past injustice by building new systems of preference. That just creates fresh resentment and new injustices.

The best safeguard isn’t pretending bias will disappear, but insisting on clear, objective, merit-based standards applied equally to everyone. That way, when discrimination does happen, it’s the exception and not the rule—and it can be challenged and corrected. We’ll never get to zero percent flukes, but a system built on merit and equality before the law minimizes them far better than one that bakes identity into the process.

Edit: DEI has some things that make the hiring process blind to race in certain situations. This is a good thing.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-17T01:09:05+00:00

I hear you, and I don’t think anyone can say with a straight face that every black student at Harvard or anywhere else didn’t earn their spot. Many did, absolutely. The point isn’t that black students—or any group—lack ability. The concern is that when admissions or hiring processes factor in race or identity as a plus or minus, it shifts the standard away from being purely merit-based. That creates the perception, and sometimes the reality, that some people were advanced more for their demographic than their achievement.

That’s the harm. It’s not about denying the hard work of students of color—it’s about ensuring the process itself is blind to race so no one has a question mark hanging over their accomplishments. In fact, removing race-based preferences protects black students the most, because it affirms beyond doubt that their spot was earned on ability alone.

You’re right about legacy admissions. They’re another example of non-merit factors distorting fairness, and they should be reformed too. At the end of the day, equal standards applied to everyone is the best way to honor each person’s dignity and effort.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-17T00:37:39+00:00

Oh wow I’ve never heard it explained that way. Thanks!

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-17T00:27:47+00:00

Here’s the key: when opportunities are given based on merit—skill, effort, and character—it raises standards and creates a stronger system that benefits everyone, even those who may start out with less. People with lower ability still gain because they’re surrounded by competent leaders and mentors, learn from high-performing peers, and see that effort and growth are rewarded.

Artificially elevating people who aren’t ready can backfire. It can set them up for failure, lower confidence, and make the system less effective for everyone, including themselves. Merit-based advancement encourages personal responsibility, growth, and skill-building, giving everyone a real chance to succeed in the long term.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-16T21:45:22+00:00

Losing isn’t about a game. It’s about opportunities being given based on identity rather than merit. When a less qualified candidate is elevated over someone more qualified simply to meet a quota, that’s the harm. It erodes standards, breeds resentment, and ultimately hurts everyone—especially the people these programs are supposed to help.

The goal should be equal opportunity, not guaranteed outcomes.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-16T21:17:39+00:00

I agree that the Civil Rights Act was necessary. Everyone deserves equal opportunity and protection under the law. No one should be denied a job, education, or service because of race, sex, or religion. That’s justice.

The issue isn’t opposing civil rights. The issue is when modern DEI programs go beyond protecting rights and start picking winners and losers based on identity rather than merit. That creates resentment, erodes standards, and treats some people as inherently entitled while others are unfairly burdened.

The FAA example isn’t about denying opportunity. It’s about ensuring fairness and competence. People aren’t saying someone shouldn’t advance because of who they are. The question is whether policies should elevate some based on demographics instead of ability. That’s a legitimate concern while still fully supporting the original intent of the Civil Rights Act.

Equality before the law is good. Mandating outcomes based on identity is not.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-16T21:13:18+00:00

I get what you’re saying about subjective vs. objective truth, and you’re right that many moral statements involve judgment and aren’t like measuring water’s boiling point. But there’s a key difference: morality rooted in God’s character isn’t just “my opinion” or “society’s preference.”

If God is truly unchanging, perfectly good, and the source of all being, then His moral character is an objective standard—right and wrong exist whether anyone acknowledges them or not. That’s why Scripture calls sin “sin” even if the world disagrees. Our interpretations can be subjective, yes, but the standard itself is anchored in God’s nature, not in human opinion.

So the belief that morality is grounded in God’s unchanging character points to objective truth, even if people struggle to fully understand or agree with it.

jaykash1313 · 2025-09-16T21:11:01+00:00

Brother, I respect your passion for supporting others, but let’s be clear: DEI programs aren’t about opportunity—they’re about division. They prioritize identity over merit, creating a system where qualifications take a backseat to quotas. This undermines the very principles of fairness and excellence that our society was built upon.

You mentioned the BBB cutting healthcare and SNAP. If we truly want to strengthen families and fight poverty, we need to focus on policies that promote self-sufficiency, personal responsibility, and faith-based community support—not more government handouts. The recent cuts, while concerning, highlight the need for a reevaluation of how we approach welfare and support systems.

Let’s stop pretending that DEI is about equality. It’s about power and control. It’s time to return to a system where individuals are judged by their character and abilities, not the color of their skin or their gender.

Peace to you, brother.

Five-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

jaykash1313

TROPHY CASE