The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 94K
  • Politics 
TarSpiel said:
I'm teaching an online version of "Intro to the Hebrew Bible" this semester, first time I've ever done it, and we started with the Babylonian Exile. Probably one of the best moves I've made teaching that material...everything unfolds so well if you start there.
Click to expand...
I was honestly surprised to learn that the patriarchs go completely unmentioned in what scholars regard as the solidly pre-exilic prophetic books. I think there might--might--be one mention in Hosea of a figure who might--might--be a patriarch.

Besides the history of the exile (which the Hebrew Bible primarily relates from the perspective of the exiles, and not the Judeans who fills the power vacuum), the notion of etiology really snapped so much of the Bible into focus for me.
 
Batt Boy said:
I'd suggest Peter Enns. You know there are people who believe the Bible works other ways than a rulebook.
Click to expand...
Enns' critique sounds like just another cope that follows a well-worn path that cul-de-sacs in faith. Christians hold the Bible up as a collection of claims they believe are true about their god. Its not merely a book about morality or philosophy. It makes existential claims about supernatural beings and realms. What I'm responding to with my previous comment is whether the Bible does a good job justifying the incredible claims it makes. Because billions of Christians believe those claims.

If you admit from the outset that it contains contradictions, ambiguity and errors (and thus shouldn't be held to the standard of inerrancy...or even internal consistency) then you better have a way to determine objectively which parts are false and which parts are true. If you don't, then you don't have a good reason to believe any of it -- ESPECIALLY when it makes claims that have no evidentiary basis like miracles, divinity, spirituality, etc.

Does it have value as a book of fairly well-preserved ancient writings? Absolutely.
Does it have value as a book of moral teachings that we can use today? Minimal.
Does it have value as a book that provides justification for believing the supernatural claims it makes? No way.
 
mynameisbond said:
Traditional denominations (both Catholic and Protestant), by and large, don't foment Christian Nationalism. It is mainly confined to evangelicals.
Click to expand...
How do you define Southern Baptists..as a "traditional domination" or as "evangelical"?

And what about rural Methodists, charismatics, and a host of other smaller denominations?
 
Ramrouser said:
Yeah, ok. Does a random YouTuber draw 200k for a memorial service with a streaming audience of 100M?
Click to expand...
Why did you misrepresent this? We know Trump is obsessed with numbers, but this forum is literally on the Internet... I posted it without looking at realistic numbers (lone/online) or even the size of that stadium?
Ramrouser said:
No, because they don't exist. You're likely referring to out of context quotes of a small portion of one of Kirk's comments that you read about on BlueSky. Kind of like what Stephen king did with the "stoning gays" comment (for which he apologized).
Click to expand...
which ones do you think are out of context?

The ones I'm talking about are really racist.

You first and I will share.
 
Last edited:
thebruinbleedstarheelblue said:
Why did you misrepresent this? We know Trump is obsessed with numbers, but this forum is literally on the Internet... I posted it without looking at realistic numbers (lone/online) or even the size of that stad

which ones do you think are out of context?

The ones I'm talking about are really racist.

You first and I will share.
Click to expand...
Post a full video of what you contend is a racist podcast. Every video that I’ve viewed show Charlie saying race doesn’t matter and is merely a social conscript.
 
Trumpers are so desperate to have a widely accepted and respected hero/idol/secular saint/role model like MLK or JFK or RFK for others to follow and admire. What they miss is that all of these people are still admired and respected today for their inspiring and eloquent speeches promoting equality and tolerance and respect and hope and the more positive and optimistic human emotions and experiences - they all drew on the best in us. Kirk will never reach that status because if you look at what he actually said for most of his life and career it's just the opposite - negative, bigoted, sometimes hateful and mocking, narrow-minded, with little respect actually given to opponents, in spite of what they claim. MLK is still revered decades after his death, my guess is that Kirk will be mostly forgotten even by his supporters within a few years at most.
 
Ramrouser said:
Post a full video of what you contend is a racist podcast. Every video that I’ve viewed show Charlie saying race doesn’t matter and is merely a social conscript.
Click to expand...
i will only post what I will watch and I don't have three hours to post three videos.

However OMB just gave you 15 minutes a video up there and whether he's talking about black pilots or black women, pretty racist.

And I know his pilot points are pretty dishonest because black pilots would have to take a different certification than white pilots for this to be nothing more than race baiting the simple folk.
 
Ramrouser said:
Great , two liberal Karens with highly edited clips of Charlie.
Click to expand...
The originals were edited by TPA... and they still gave us those sound bites.

What part of the actual video we missing out to where it's not racist?

Nobody deserve to die that way for their words, but we don't need to pretend like he was a good person... he was a shitty person.

Also TPA was a dishonest organization.

Do you really think Charlie and TPA representative Christian values?

Are you also concerned to fly on planes with black pilots?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top