Charlie Kirk Shot and killed

#5,677
#5,677
Orange_Crush said:
"Other context?"

Like the Bible that informed his comments?


Like I said to Huff, I'll be happy to debate this from a Biblical perspective, which is the perspective Charlie espoused. Is that something you're interested in?

Edited to add: Let's just start now.



So, how did Christ love the church? You can look to the garden, the night he was arrested, and the cross. He sweated blood, knowing the torture he was about to endure for the church, accepted it, and willingly died for her. That's how He loves us. That's how husbands are called to love our wives, as they willingly submit to our selfless decisions.

What is submission? Does it mean that the one submitting is seen as lesser? Do they submit because they are less capable? Dumber? Let's see. Again, we can go to the garden, where Jesus, coequal God with God the Father, said this to the Father:




Romans 12: 10 says: "Outdo one another in showing honor"



Let's just work from here. What "other" context did I use? I don't recall even quoting anything else Charlie said. I quoted the Bible and basic, traditional Christian doctrine that formed and informed Charlie's core beliefs.




What do we have here?

We have Jesus defining this concept of "submission" as a personal, free decision between equals, not mandated or enforced.

We have the context of submission within marriage given that the husband loves his wife and makes decisions for her benefit, even at his own loss, or even death. He's literally to die for her benefit. The context of the marriage is given that there is to be no rivalry or competition within the relationship. The only competition is that the other person gets the benefit.

If the household is to get a new car, we argue who gets to drive it.

"You take the new car. No. You take the new car."

Husband: "You drive the new car. That's final. I don't pull the 'submit' card often, but... You take the new car. I love you. I'll be overjoyed every time I see you in it."




That is literally how Biblical marriage is supposed to work. That's literally the context that Charlie espoused.

And let me tell you something. (And I'll gladly have you over for dinner so you can discuss with my wife, who will say this more powerfully than I do...)

After years and years of both kinds of marriage, God's plan has been the most peaceful, loving, uniting pattern we've ever experienced.

Compare:

A marriage that's a democracy of two and the tie breaking vote is who can manipulate, give silent treatment, or argue to get their way...

Or a marriage that gives each person, every day, the opportunity to serve the other in such loving ways that it builds trust, love, and commitment?


I'm not saying that Christianity is the only way to build a fulfilling marriage. I'm not saying that the Christian model hasn't been abused. I'm not even saying that the best intentions aren't failed in this model--everyone is human.

I AM saying that if you want to judge that model, judge that model and not some caricature strawman you or someone else creates just to tear it down.
Click to expand...


Do you agree with the separation of church and state?
 
#5,679
#5,679
Orange_Crush said:
Your MO is to say stupid stuff, ignore detailed arguments, and then call the poster a joke with no argument. You are a complete waste of time.

You misrepresented his argument, invented motives based in your personal incredulity and political bend, just to attack a murdered man who can't defend himself, all because you consider his legacy to be dangerous to your political side.

I am not hyperventilating. I am disgusted. By you. Are we clear enough now?
Click to expand...
You are certainly not clear.
I in no way misrepresented his argument.
His conclusion, whether or not he believed it to be true, was simply pathetic; and his motives were even worse.
 
#5,680
#5,680
volfanhill said:
If the options are gun deaths as we currently experience them and a 2A

Vs

No gun deaths and no 2A

Then I'm choosing option 1
Click to expand...
The gun grabbers want the government to be the only ones with guns because they want Trump to have the ability to suppress them.

Wait…..there’s a flaw there somewhere
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, malinoisvol, marcusluvsvols and 3 others
#5,682
#5,682
lawgator1 said:
Do you agree with the separation of church and state?
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with this? Are you asking if I'm in favor of government legislated "Handmaids Tale"? No. If that's the question, it's stupid and offensive that you think you'd need to ask, especially after I took the time to write a novel on the subject for your benefit.





Let's try to stay on track. You claimed that I've 'sanitized' Chalie's comments by quoting "other" things he's said. I have spent pages on one sentence that was stripped of the context of what was said, in that quote, before and after, so that we can judge the sentence in question in within its conversation. I literally added the context of what Charlie said in that quote.

I've added context from a Christian Biblical worldview that adds context to Charlie's most likely view on marriage, independent of an uninformed strawman.

Please point out where I have done differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#5,686
#5,686
bamawriter said:
Absolutely true, and so what? Even if everything is edited to make it appear that one side always wins, at least it encourages discourse and discussion.
Click to expand...
Agree with this. Most of these kids there to spar with Kirk would have most likely gone their entire college career never having their thoughts or beliefs challenged, because what college professor is actually going to espouse conservative ideas? Even if they couldn't keep up with Kirk in the heat of the moment, that experience could make them rethink what they believe and why they believe it. Maybe it sparks something in them that changes their beliefs, or maybe they go do some more research and believe even stronger, but with a better foundation. That's what college is supposed to be about. So maybe Kirk's motives were soundbites and profit, but someone needed to fill the void that colleges clearly weren't, and aren't, filling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Behr, marcusluvsvols, Buddy’s Bandit and 4 others
#5,687
#5,687
Orange_Crush said:
What does that have to do with this? Are you asking if I'm in favor of government legislated "Handmaids Tale"? No. If that's the question, it's stupid and offensive that you think you'd need to ask, especially after I took the time to write a novel on the subject for your benefit.





Let's try to stay on track. You claimed that I've 'sanitized' Chalie's comments by quoting "other" things he's said. I have spent pages on one sentence that was stripped of the context of what was said, in that quote, before and after, so that we can judge the sentence in question in within its conversation. I literally added the context of what Charlie said in that quote.

I've added context from a Christian Biblical worldview that adds context to Charlie's most likely view on marriage, independent of an uninformed strawman.

Please point out where I have done differently.
Click to expand...
What really shows that people have no idea what Charlie stood for and getting their info from sound bites from their liberal left wing echo chambers is that he was more of a libertarian than anything. He said that many of his personal views were his and didn't believe that government should implement his views. He believed in personal liberty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, marcusluvsvols, VolsLFC and 3 others
#5,688
#5,688
Orange_Crush said:
What does that have to do with this? Are you asking if I'm in favor of government legislated "Handmaids Tale"? No. If that's the question, it's stupid and offensive that you think you'd need to ask, especially after I took the time to write a novel on the subject for your benefit.





Let's try to stay on track. You claimed that I've 'sanitized' Chalie's comments by quoting "other" things he's said. I have spent pages on one sentence that was stripped of the context of what was said, in that quote, before and after, so that we can judge the sentence in question in within its conversation. I literally added the context of what Charlie said in that quote.

I've added context from a Christian Biblical worldview that adds context to Charlie's most likely view on marriage, independent of an uninformed strawman.

Please point out where I have done differently.
Click to expand...


We aren't on the same page. I don’t know his religious beliefs or yours and really try not to evaluate other people's religious views.

I think its very personal and this isn't the forum for that except as it relates to politics and that starts with whether religion should have a role in politics. I believe strongly that religion should play NO role in politics.

It seems that Kirk believe it should play not just a large role, but a controlling one. I disagree with him fundamentally on that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol and OHvol40
#5,689
#5,689
InVOLuntary said:
What really shows that people have no idea what Charlie stood for and getting their info from sound bites from their liberal left wing echo chambers is that he was more of a libertarian than anything. He said that many of his personal views were his and didn't believe that government should implement his views. He believed in personal liberty.
Click to expand...


Again, you are spinning his harsh positions on HIS VIEW of Christianity and how that ought to control political issues by saying that from time to time he cloaked it in something else.
 
#5,690
#5,690
lawgator1 said:
And its not hate speech to say that Kirk was a bigot, at many levels.
Click to expand...
It's not hate but it's another example of name calling. Why is the left so adept at name calling? They call conservatives Nazi's, racists, bigots, white supremacists, homophobes, transphobes...the gamut. What do conservatives call liberals? Misguided? The name calling comes so much more from the left
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, TrumpedUpVol and InVOLuntary
#5,691
#5,691
lawgator1 said:
Again, you are spinning his harsh positions on HIS VIEW of Christianity and how that ought to control political issues by saying that from time to time he cloaked it in something else.
Click to expand...
Are you lying or are you ignorant? You've not watched his dialogs with students. He had many black friends. Hell, Candice Owens helped him start TPUSA. He had gay friends. Dave Rubin was a close friend. Dave claims he and his partner had dinner with Charlie and his wife several times. You are grossly misinformed. You are a victim of your radical left wing echo chamber.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Buddy’s Bandit and Orange_Crush
#5,692
#5,692
InVOLuntary said:
Are you lying or are you ignorant? You've not watched his dialogs with students. He had many black friends. He'll, Candice Owens helped him start TPUSA. He had gay friends. Dave Rubin was a close friend. Dave claims he and his partner had dinner with Charlie and his wife several times. You are grossly misinformed. You are a victim of your radical left wing echo chamber.
Click to expand...


Are you saying he had a public personal and a private one that didn't fully match ?
 
#5,693
#5,693
lawgator1 said:
Are you saying he had a public personal and a private one that didn't fully match ?
Click to expand...
No, I'm saying he was able to separate his personal beliefs from what he thought government should be involved in. If you watched his debates you would know this. He was challenged on this many times. Ive watched 100's of his debates and he's clear on this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: appvol
#5,694
#5,694
Sea Ray said:
It's not hate but it's another example of name calling. Why is the left so adept at name calling? They call conservatives Nazi's, racists, bigots, white supremacists, homophobes, transphobes...the gamut. What do conservatives call liberals? Misguided? The name calling comes so much more from the left
Click to expand...
I think they call them libtards, Marxists, commies, the enemy, evil, America haters, etc....
 
#5,698
#5,698
appvol said:
His private beliefs were based on his Christian Beliefs. If you watch his debates with young adults on college campuses he didn’t debate them on his Christian Beliefs.

Click to expand...

The problem is, they don't want to know this. They'd rather believe the lies that their people are telling about him. It makes them feel better and absolves them of the guilt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, Behr, appvol and 1 other person
#5,699
#5,699
lawgator1 said:
And its not hate speech to say that Kirk was a bigot, at many levels.
Click to expand...
Are you using 'bigot' in the context of the following definition?

a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peradox1K
#5,700
#5,700
luthervol said:
I think they call them libtards, Marxists, commies, the enemy, evil, America haters, etc....
Click to expand...
Kamala Harris rarely was called anything like that, yet she called Trump a fascist among other things. Labor Day weekend we had the Dem Leader of the Senate saying into a megaphone F*** Trump. Now Trump definitely says outlandish things but have you ever seen him resort to such gutter language to describe a major politician?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peradox1K and InVOLuntary
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top