The Charlie Kirk Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rock
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 94K
  • Politics 
mynameisbond said:
Jesus never addressed the subject. He was concerned with far more important things: love of God, love of neighbor above self, and leading those who need help finding their way along the path of life.
Click to expand...
I'm hardly a theologian, but if you're a Christian isn't the New Testament and its teachings supposed to replace or supersede the Old Testament? After all, what's the point of having the Son of God come to Earth if everything stays the same as it was before, right? Yet so many Evangelicals I know are very much Old Testament Christians in many respects, starting with the "eye for an eye" philosophy of living.
 
JCTarheel82 said:

Dozens of House Democrats voted Friday to oppose a resolution honoring Charlie Kirk and condemning political violence following his assassination last week in Utah.

The overwhelming majority of those 58 lawmakers represent one of the minority caucuses — the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), Congressional Hispanic Caucus or Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus — and many said they voted “no” because they didn’t want to extol Kirk’s most controversial political views, which frequently targeted minority communities.
Click to expand...
I posted this earlier, but Trumpers are so damned desperate to turn Kirk into some kind of national saint, not just for them but to force everybody to acknowledge his greatness and sainthood and all that. And it's not working and not going to work because everyone outside the cult can read for themselves all of the ugly and divisive and yes, bigoted and sexist stuff he's said over the years, and while they will condemn his murder they will never agree to canonize him as Trumpers wish. It really is as if they want to create a Trumper version of MLK or JFK or RFK or some such. And it's very telling that what's really important to them is that everybody - not just them but everybody else too - has to agree to celebrate Kirk's life and elevate him to MLK status.
 
Last edited:
mynameisbond said:
Jesus never addressed the subject. He was concerned with far more important things: love of God, love of neighbor above self, and leading those who need help finding their way along the path of life.
Click to expand...

I think this framing is misleading. First and foremost, the historical Jesus was an apocalypticist and, for that reason, he was preoccupied with the impending destruction of the existing gentile order and the establishment of a new one.
 
UNCatTech said:
No, the U.S. Senate has not passed a resolution condemning the murder of former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman. The U.S. House of Representatives unanimously adopted such a resolution in June 2025.

Here's the resolution, there's nothing to disagree with since they didn't add in anything that was controversial or disagreeable. Additionally she was an elected official:

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,
June 25, 2025.

  • Whereas, on June 14, 2025, a gunman entered the home of Minnesota State Senator John Hoffman and shot and critically injured him and his wife, Yvette Hoffman;
    Whereas the gunman then entered the home of Minnesota State House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and assassinated her and her husband Mark Hortman;
    Whereas the gunman had documents that listed dozens of lawmakers targeted for assassination;
    Whereas the law enforcement officers of Brooklyn Park and Champlin saved additional lives by intervening with their bravery and rapid response to the attack;
    Whereas Speaker Emerita Hortman was a formidable public servant who served her community and the people of Minnesota with deep devotion, compassion, and strength;
    Whereas acts of political violence have no place in the United States of America and represent a grave threat to our nation;
    Whereas swift condemnation of political violence by elected officials is necessary to preserve and protect American democracy;
    Whereas when these violent acts expose division, we must persevere in the pursuit of democratic principles, resolving our differences through debate and civil discourse; and
    Whereas political violence not only attacks the life and liberty of our representatives, it also attacks the right of the people to be represented: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives, in this moment of tragic loss—

(1) strongly condemns and denounces the attacks on Minnesota state legislators in Brooklyn Park and Champlin, Minnesota on June 14, 2025;

(2) honors the life of Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman for her devotion to public service and her tireless efforts to serve the people of Minnesota, and the life of her husband, Mark Hortman;
(3) honors Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette Hoffman, who were shot and critically injured, and wishes their full and speedy recovery;
(4) honors the courageous law enforcement officers who saved additional lives with their rapid response to the attack and successfully apprehended and charged the suspected perpetrator on June 15, 2025;
(5) calls on all community leaders and elected officials to publicly and unequivocally denounce acts of political violence; and
(6) calls on all people in the United States to unite in this moment of pain and tragedy and reaffirm our commitment to a safe, civil, and peaceful democracy where violent rhetoric and acts are not tolerated.


This on the other hand:
RESOLUTION
Condemning the assassination of Charlie Kirk and honoring his life and legacy.

  • Whereas Charlie Kirk was horrifically assassinated on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University while speaking to a large group of college students;
    Whereas Charlie Kirk was a devoted husband, father, and Christian;
    Whereas, in 2012, Charlie Kirk founded Turning Point USA, a conservative campus advocacy group that quickly became one of the fastest growing college campus chapter organizations in the country; and
    Whereas Charlie Kirk frequently engaged college students of all political backgrounds in open debates and discussion, encouraging civil discourse on college campuses and among college students: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate—

(1) condemns the assassination of Charlie Kirk in the strongest possible terms;

(2) extends its deepest condolences and sympathies to Charlie Kirk’s family, including his wife, Erika, and their two young children; and
(3) honors Charlie Kirk’s commitment to the constitutional principles of civil discussion and debate between all people of the United States, regardless of political affiliation.

Number 3 isn't agreed upon. Many see it as a lie, I'm sure that many others did too. They shouldn't vote yes on a lie.

My personal opinion, they should have voted yes, if for no other reason than to avoid the right using it as you are. The real problem here is that they included the third statement. Just keep it honest.
Click to expand...
Would the 96 Dems have voted for that same resolution simply substituting Kirk’s name for Hortman?

You know the answer is no and that should tell you everything you know about the Dem party of 2025.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I'm hardly a theologian, but if you're a Christian isn't the New Testament and its teachings supposed to replace or supersede the Old Testament? After all, what's the point of having the Son of God come to Earth if everything stays the same as it was before, right? Yet so many Evangelicals I know are very much Old Testament Christians in many respects, starting with the "eye for an eye" philosophy of living.
Click to expand...

It's complicated. Ask Augustine, and the point of the New Testament is that it reveals what was theretofore concealed in the Old. For that reason, the so-called Old Testament does not lose its relevance provided that a reader adopts a Christological perspective.

Put later Christian exegesis aside, and Jesus thought the capital-S Scripture was--duh--the Jewish Tanakh (i.e. the Hebrew Bible). When Jesus riffs on the decalogue in Matthew, the point is not that what he says supersedes the Hebrew Bible, but that he's participating in a widespread Pharisaic "game" that sought to expand the fences, so to speak, around the Torah to ensure compliance with its moral instruction.

"Eye for an eye" likely never was a normative value in Israelite culture. The mishnah was constantly developing workarounds for literal interpretations of Deuteronomy.
 
Ramrouser said:
Would the 96 Dems have voted for that same resolution simply substituting Kirk’s name for Hortman?

You know the answer is no and that should tell you everything you know about the Dem party of 2025.
Click to expand...
OK, now I understand what point you were trying to make.

You mean if the Republicans had just drafted a bland, generic "violence is bad" resolution for Charlie Kirk -- the kind that has garnered unanimous approval from Republicans and Democrats dozens and dozens of time in the past -- would somehow be rejected by Democrats? Well, unfortunately we will never know because Republicans are too snowflakey to draft a normal resolution and put it to vote. Instead, they had to lie about Kirk and claim he was basically Jesus, Jr. in their resolution.
 
breepf said:
I think this framing is misleading. First and foremost, the historical Jesus was an apocalypticist and, for that reason, he was preoccupied with the impending destruction of the existing gentile order and the establishment of a new one.
Click to expand...
What a guy! All the more reason to kick religion to the curb.
 
Calheel said:
OK, now I understand what point you were trying to make.

You mean if the Republicans had just drafted a bland, generic "violence is bad" resolution for Charlie Kirk -- the kind that has garnered unanimous approval from Republicans and Democrats dozens and dozens of time in the past -- would somehow be rejected by Democrats? Well, unfortunately we will never know because Republicans are too snowflakey to draft a normal resolution and put it to vote. Instead, they had to lie about Kirk and claim he was basically Jesus, Jr. in their resolution.
Click to expand...
It also said that Hortman was a good public servant, etc. Would the 96 Dems had supported a basic statement t about Kirk? Answer: NO
 
Ramrouser said:
It also said that Hortman was a good public servant, etc. Would the 96 Dems had supported a basic statement t about Kirk? Answer: NO
Click to expand...
It did not say she was a "good" public servant. It said she was a "formidable" public servant. If the Republicans had simply drafted a resolution that said Kirk was a "formidable" public speaker, it absolutely would have passed unanimously -- just like these kind of non-statement resolutions always pass unanimously.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
I'm hardly a theologian, but if you're a Christian isn't the New Testament and its teachings supposed to replace or supersede the Old Testament? After all, what's the point of having the Son of God come to Earth if everything stays the same as it was before, right? Yet so many Evangelicals I know are very much Old Testament Christians in many respects, starting with the "eye for an eye" philosophy of living.
Click to expand...
They’re Old Testament believers; they aren’t Christian anything.
 
Zoo_View said:
They’re Old Testament believers; they aren’t Christian anything.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're trying to shit on Judaism, but it's so fucking irritating when anyone knocks Christians for religious beliefs that supposedly come from the Jewish Bible: "they're not Christians; they're (still) Jews!"
 
Ramrouser said:
Would the 96 Dems have voted for that same resolution simply substituting Kirk’s name for Hortman?

You know the answer is no and that should tell you everything you know about the Dem party of 2025.
Click to expand...
Your premise is simply wrong.

Unfortunately for you and the maga party, most people see Charlie Kirk for what he was, not the Saint that the maga party wants him to be.

I've read more and watched more videos of him, he wasn't devoted to encouraging civil discourse, he liked to steam role young college students, I can't really find any where he tried the same tactic on someone who was a seasoned agile debater. He made plenty of incorrect assertions to the bible that really don't read as he stated them, he was a fraud and not deserving of any honor.

And it seems he's another nepo baby that is only where he is because of daddy's money and some other rich sponsors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top