Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is pretty weak evidence in support of the claim but that Kimmel is saying the shooter is MAGA. What he does imply, however, is that MAGA is desperate to avoid any implication that the shooter is one of them.
Kimmel: "I don't think the murderer who shot Charlie Kirk represents anyone".
I imagine there were many folks like me who had not been Kimmel viewers before the controversy but watched the comeback out of curiosity to see what was going to happen without intention of becoming a regular viewer.
That's great, but that's from his "comeback" speech. I wouldn't call it an apology, but he actually seemed to show some contrition, which to be honest I didn't really expect. I guess it was part of his deal with Disney to get back on the air. I do agree with him though, I don't think the murder represents anyone. The problem with the murderer is that he seemed to buy into left wing attempts at dehumanization and the spin they put on twisting Charlie Kirk's words to make it sound like "hate speech".
I heard his ratings were like three or four times greater than normal. I didn't watch it myself.
I didn't watch the show. I think the Robinson guy was in a relationship with a trans and he didn't like Kirks' anti-trans statements. But to murder someone though, it seems to me he had some psychological issues. Same with the guy who burned down the Mormon church.
I didn't watch it either, I just picked it up on the news and social media. You are correct the murderer was in a relationship with a trans person, but I'm not so sure Kirk made "anti-trans" statements. Unless you count him saying that trans behavior is sinful, as Kirk was a Christian. I'm sure Kirk was against puberty blockers and sex change operations for children. That sounds like simply reasonable thinking to me, but to some on the left, that counts as hate speech.
Since Jesus said God will judge us according to what measure we use to judge others, and Jesus even qualifies it by saying that the merciful shall receive mercy, it will be so.
People should not condemn people for their sin, that's not our job. But we should call a sin a sin. The argument with the LGBTQ activists is they do not want to admit such behavior is a sin, but according to Christian doctrine it is. Jesus forgave the adulteress, but He told her to "Go and sin no more". Being against puberty blockers and mutilating children's bodies is not an example of judging others. Charlie Kirk was welcoming to gay and trans people into the conservative movement, while at the same time making it clear that as a Christian he viewed homosexual behavior as sin.
I'm not compelled to call a sin a sin. I've done it before when I was young, and I regretted it even because I had not removed the log from my own eye. Having been corrected according to God's grace, I now see that sin is a condition not just an action, which is why the bible speaks of sinfulness and why Jesus said that the sick need a doctor. My calling a sin a sin was based on the belief that people chose to sin, and this implied that people could simply choose not to. <-- Old Testament ten commandments
Mt experience is that it was The Holy Spirit that convicted me of sin and still does. My testimony is that without the Holy Spirit I do not even see my own sin.
He also said why -> lest worse come upon you.
No, it really is not an example of judging others. But when we condemn those actions, it should be based on informed and reasonable arguments. You can't just say it's sin and expect to be taken seriously.
But since conservatives sin and have sinful flesh too, it looks hypocritical.
I don't think the burden of proof in that particular instance should be on those who are against them, but making informed and reasonable arguments is just the sort of thing Charlie Kirk did. And he got shot for it. Are we not supposed to preach the Word of God? Or are we just supposed to leave the parts out about homosexuality? I think there are warnings about leaving out parts of God' Word - or adding to it.
God knows why Kirk was shot, and I don't feel it is wise to comment on Charlie Kirk's words. Whose burden is it to prove? I believe God is going to hold those who see more accountable for their words than the blind who can't see. Informed would mean things like understanding what intersex means and that some surgeries are performed because a person was born with atypical chromosomes or genitalia.
Some plant, some water, but it is God that gives increase. What exactly are we preaching? Do we speak from the Jerusalem on earth or do we speak from the Jerusalem from above? Do we speak as if God's children are born through the works of the law or by the promise of God?
It sounds here like you're referring to the scriptures as the Word. The scriptures are full of testimonies to the Word of God written by men who heard from God, but the Word of God is actually the energy of creation and God is the Eternal Power. Hence, we can read in scripture this testimony to the Word of God.
Homosexuality is like the second level of depravity in Romans 1. God first gave mankind over to lust, then came dishonorable affections like homosexuality, then came a reprobate mind and then mankind became filled with all manner of unrighteousness ->fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful. <-- all of this is what sinful flesh is comprised of when deprived of God's Spiritual virtue.
Like I said, I don't think it is wise for me to comment on Charlie Kirk's sentiments. I don't believe we're in a culture war, I believe we're in a spiritual war. Christianity is a Spirit that bears a cross and forgives those who would crucify you. Devil=accuser/slanderer. Slander is saying bad things about others without proof. The Spirit of Christ is loving one's enemies and praying for them; the spirit of slander is telling us who to blame and hate.
I really don't know what all he said. I can tell you that there is a flood of lies ruling in the minds of those unsealed, so another reason I don't want to comment is because the devil is in the air and people right now need to have the Holy Spirit to check the thoughts in their head and identify what is not of the Spirit of Christ.
The whole idea of "harsh" words is a subjective one. What one person thinks harsh another thinks truth or for the best in the long run. If someone points out that a person is unhealthily over weight this is not harsh as in picking on the person or demeaning them because of their weight. Though we know this happens and people are cruel.
Just on Kimmels return. I never really watched him. I don't always get American humur though some of it is side splitting when I do get it. Like the Adam Sandler or Jim Carey comedy and some of SNL with Chevy Chase and all that ect.
Jimmy Kimmel is returning to ABC on Tuesday, Disney says
"Jimmy Kimmel Live!" will return to ABC on Tuesday after the late-night host's comments on Charlie Kirk's death caused the network to pull the show.www.businessinsider.com
What do you think?
Agree or disagree?
