Erika Kirk Delivers Powerful National Address, Says Movement Will Not Die

[FireDragon76]

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment.

Edit: sorry. I was groggy when I responded.

Jesus is saying here loving your neighbor is analogous to loving God, the two are tied together in Christian theology and ethics. The Greek word for "like" is homoios, and in the first century context, it carries the weight of analogy, which is more than simply a resemblance in the modern sense; it implies ontological or metaphysical participation. This is why Jesus says in Matthew 25, whatever you did to the least of these, you did to me.

 

[Servus]

When Jesus said love your neighbor, he didn't mean to put up with, condone or support wickedness and the wicked.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Jesus is saying here loving your neighbor is analogous to loving God, the two are tied together in Christian theology and ethics. The Greek word for "like" is homoios, and in the first century context, it carries the weight of analogy, which is more than simply a resemblance in the modern sense; it implies ontological or metaphysical participation. This is why Jesus says in Matthew 25, whatever you did to the least of these, you did to me.

Would you be loving your neighbor by sharing the gospel even though you know they would find it offensive? Or is loving your neighbor affirming their beliefs that you believe will send them to Hell?

 

[FireDragon76]

Would you be loving your neighbor by sharing the gospel even though you know they would find it offensive? Or is loving your neighbor affirming their beliefs that you believe will send them to Hell?

We should always seek to share the Gospel in a way that is contextually sensitive. Aiming to be offensive for its own sake is not compatible with Christian ethics, nor is offense an automatic sign of holiness.

I do not necessarily believed non-Christians go to Hell, that's not how I think of salvation working. I accept Karl Rahner's idea of the "Anonymous Christian" or Justin Martyr's notion of the logos spermatikos.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

We should always seek to share the Gospel in a way that is contextually sensitive. Aiming to be offensive for its own sake is not compatible with Christian ethics, nor is offense an automatic sign of holiness.

I do not necessarily believed non-Christians go to Hell, that's not how I think of salvation working. I accept Karl Rahner's idea of the "Anonymous Christian" or Justin Martyr's notion of the logos spermatikos.

I agree that we should not aim to share the gospel in an offensive way. We are to speak the truth in love. But sometimes loving someone is telling them the difficult truths in an attempt to save their souls. A parent scolds their child out of love, not hate. A doctor tells their patients to change their harmful lifestyles because they care, not because they hate. We are called to love what God loves, and hate what God hates, and God hates sin because it destroys those He loves. Was Charlie Kirk perfect, no. But his courage to promote conversations between ideological opposites was not motivated by hate, but his love for his country knowing that unity cannot happen without discussion.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree that we should not aim to share the gospel in an offensive way. We are to speak the truth in love. But sometimes loving someone is telling them the difficult truths in an attempt to save their souls. A parent scolds their child out of love, not hate. A doctor tells their patients to change their harmful lifestyles because they care, not because they hate. We are called to love what God loves, and hate what God hates, and God hates sin because it destroys those He loves. Was Charlie Kirk perfect, no. But his courage to promote conversations between ideological opposites was not motivated by hate, but his love for his country knowing that unity cannot happen without discussion.

Charlie Kirk didn't typically engage in actual dialog with people he disagreed with, more often than not he engaged in rhetorical tricks in an attempt to "own the libs". Actual dialog has to involve openness and humility, and Kirk rarely demonstrated that. What's worse, the media machine he operated often sought to reduce his interlocutors to spectacles to be used and consumed for political ideological purposes.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Charlie Kirk didn't typically engage in actual dialog with people he disagreed with, more often than not he engaged in rhetorical tricks in an attempt to "own the libs". Actual dialog has to involve openness and humility, and Kirk rarely demonstrated that. What's worse, the media machine he operated often sought to reduce his interlocutors to spectacles to be used and consumed for political ideological purposes.

I completely disagree.

 

[Chesterton]

Charlie Kirk didn't typically engage in actual dialog with people he disagreed with, more often than not he engaged in rhetorical tricks in an attempt to "own the libs". Actual dialog has to involve openness and humility, and Kirk rarely demonstrated that. What's worse, the media machine he operated often sought to reduce his interlocutors to spectacles to be used and consumed for political ideological purposes.

He sets up a tent, provides a microphone, and anyone who wants can step up and discuss whatever they want. You don't get more actual dialogue than that. If the people he spoke with often made fools of themselves that's on them.

 

[FireDragon76]

He sets up a tent, provides a microphone, and anyone who wants can step up and discuss whatever they want. You don't get more actual dialogue than that. If the people he spoke with often made fools of themselves that's on them.

That's an intellectually dishonest framing of how most people encountered Charlie Kirk, which was as an algorithmically mediated presence on a screen, and Kirk and his billionaire backers counted on that algorithmic outrage loop.

Defenders of Kirk really need to do a better job looking at Kirk in his wider context, and not merely focusing on the idealized image they have of him as some kind of chivalrous knight defending "truth".

 

[Chesterton]

That's an intellectually dishonest framing of how most people encountered Charlie Kirk, which was as an algorithmically mediated presence on a screen, and Kirk and his billionaire backers counted on that algorithmic outrage loop.

Defenders of Kirk really need to do a better job looking at Kirk in his wider context, and not merely focusing on the idealized image they have of him as some kind of chivalrous knight defending "truth".

I don't know what you mean by a "presence on a screen", I've only ever seen him debate live in real time. He started as an 18 y.o. nobody, and built his organization through talent and hard work.

 

[BPPLEE]

I don't know what you mean by a "presence on a screen", I've only ever seen him debate live in real time. He started as an 18 y.o. nobody, and built his organization through talent and hard work.

I suspect most of his critics on this forum only know what they've read and heard in their echo chambers about him and have no sense of who he really was or what he did

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Mere disagreement is not hate speech. Being a conservative Christian is not hate speech.

No, Her husband's killer was caught. Before she said evil doers. She's full of hate. A real Godly person, would be hoping, that all people would be saved. And wouldn't be threatening every one, that had nothing to do with her husbands death.

 

[Pommer]

When Jesus said love your neighbor, he didn't mean to put up with, condone or support wickedness and the wicked.

I generally don’t get involved in cross-Christian doctrinal disputes, but this will be a fun thread to watch (should any other people sharing your faith, notices and cares to comment).

 

[Larniavc]

“The evildoers responsible for my husband’s assassination have no idea what they have done. They killed Charlie because he preached a message of patriotism, faith, and of God’s merciful love. They should all know this: if you thought that my husband’s mission was powerful before, you have no idea. You have no idea what you just have unleashed across this entire country and this world,” Kirk declared.

WATCH: Erika Kirk Delivers Powerful National Address Two Days After Her Husband’s Murder

The late conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika, delivered on Friday evening her first public comments since her husband was murdered by a far-left activist in Utah earlier this week. Erika and the couple’s two young daughters traveled from Salt Lake City, Utah to their home in...

trendingpoliticsnews.com

Amen.

Going on tele to make a speech would be the last thing I would do if my spouse was murdered.

 

[RileyG]

No, Her husband's killer was caught. Before she said evil doers. She's full of hate. A real Godly person, would be hoping, that all people would be saved. And wouldn't be threatening every one, that had nothing to do with her husbands death.

She's been traumatized. How is that full of hate?

She's grieving.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I suspect most of his critics on this forum only know what they've read and heard in their echo chambers about him and have no sense of who he really was or what he did

I point you to post #46. This goes both ways; though, again, regardless of who he "really" was, I cannot bring myself to have any regard for a person who is on record saying the hateful things that Charlie Kirk has said.

 

[Vambram]

I point you to post #46. This goes both ways; though, again, regardless of who he "really" was, I cannot bring myself to have any regard for a person who is on record saying the hateful things that Charlie Kirk has said.

Charlie Kirk did not say anything hateful.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Charlie Kirk did not say anything hateful.

Quoting myself from the last time I had this conversation:

"If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified."

"If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?"

"The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered." (Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded)

"The American Democrat party hates this country. They wanna see it collapse. They love it when America becomes less white."

"America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that."

"We’ve been warning about the rise of Islam on the show, to great amount of backlash. We don’t care, that’s what we do here. And we said that Islam is not compatible with western civilization."

"Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America."

"The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different."

Now, you may agree with some - or even all - of those opinions (which, notably does not necessarily make them true). But that doesn't mean that they aren't unkind.

 

[Vambram]

Quoting myself from the last time I had this conversation:

I don't see anything hateful there.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I don't see anything hateful there.

And therein lies the problem.