stevevw
inquisitive
- Nov 4, 2013
- 16,753
- 1,927
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I don't like getting into a back and forth arguement about someones behaviour. I try to look at it from a wider lens. I think some of what is claimed as specifically what he meant is blown out of propostion. Like most of these social moral outrages over what people said and meant.
The whole idea of words and narratives and how they can be twisted and given new meaninsg or double meanings or twisted meanings is enough to not go there lol.
You could perhaps collect all the Christlike stuff Kirk said and done and then have two ledgers lol. Which ones bigger. The idea that people can stand on the sidelines of someones life and pick out snippets to define them seems unfair.
I don't think people should be completely defined by certain words and meanings attached. Thats the problem. We live in an age of 'Words and Narratives' that create reality. That in itself is enough to be wary of. In other words what people think is objective today has been subjectively determine. 'Relativity' is so deeply engrained that people don't realise the level of truth is just a relative truth.
All we know is actions. Kirk never killed anyone, he helped others, gave to charities, had what seems a good example of marriage and family, never took drugs, did not commit crime, paid his way, worked, had was a productive member of society and did not do anything illegal.
Whereas the killer murdered an innocent man. This is the only objective fact we can know. If you want to get into all the cultural and social ethics then this is not objective, even Christianity.
Its objective that he may have said some controversial things. Its subjective as to what he actually meant. Or that what he said in one moment trumps all other words said to define the whole person. Its not as simple as X said Y = Z.
So what happens when say many good Christians support Kirk as a good Christian. Do you start to define all those Christians based on a few words. Are you saying they are all deluded.
What it does show is that two sides see the same thing completely different. Which immediate brings the whole idea into question as an any objective things. Thats unless you want to start claiming you hold the objective truth over 10s of 1,000s of people.
From what I have heard their membership has spiked and 1,00s of Christians are joining inspired by Kirk and even new young Christians standing up. I don't think its as simple as you say. People are not stupid and are more than a few words or meanings of words that may have ben taken out of context. Or that may be a mistake for even a Christian but not define them.
Like I said I am not on either side as its really about politics. If theres one mistake I think its Christians getting political. I think Kirks intentions were Christian. He wanted to bridge that gap to young people with God. But it grew bigger and faster than he envisioned. Or took a different direction because politics came in. I don't think you can save the world through politics.
We all have sinned and fallen short.
But once again what is worse. That he may have said the wrong thing sometimes but often said many good things that helped people. Or someone murdering him for the mistake he made or the wrong words he said.
If we are going to be consistent in moral outrage. Then the biggest lesson is we cannot kill others for the words they say even if one thinks they are unChristian or and evil.
I have heard much worse said in recent times by the same groups objecting to Kirk. Yet their clear hateful and even violent words that even call for the killing of others for having the wrong beliefs. The increased attacks on churches, on people holding a position objected to by some is evil in itself. It seems this is being overlooked.
This idea of scrutinising over every little thing and like some witch hunt I think is what cultivates the hate.
We had this issue in NRL league in Australia. As modern tech and media improved we could breakdown play and look at every little action frame by frame to see if there was foul play or a mistake. Its got to the point where we have fixated so much we cannot see the forrest through the trees lol.
Now even a little hand or ball movement, where the contact happens, was it legal or just the natural flow of the game. Though it helps determine obvious mistakes like a knock on when scoring. Or a forward pass. The natural and normal plays are all being turned into percieved mistakes and foul play lol.
Just like modern media where we can capture every single word and action. Except unlike the official judges who can still make mistakes. Now we have armies of social justic warriors with agendas being teh judges and outing and shaming and getting outraged at everything. .
From what I heard Kirk knew his life was at risk. So he was putting himself on the line for something. I don't think it was all convience. I am sure he felt uncomfortable and even unsafe when abuse was being hurled at him. Gee if many celebrated his death then I guess they achieved what they wanted. All this will only cultivate the next Kirk, and the next and the next and then who knows.
No matter how you look at it if we all determined what was good and bad speak and then killed those we thought had bad speak then the streets will be a blood bath.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
