Charlie Kirk & Christianity

redraven said:

You say my comment is personal and subjective, but if you objectively look at how Kirk behaved - as I gave examples of earlier in the thread and as others have noted both in this thread and in many other forums, it's objectively true he often behaved contrary to the teachings of the bible and of Christ.

Click to expand...

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.

redraven said:

It sounds like you are saying I'm subjective because I condemn him for his behavior, yet his behavior is something which is objective.

Click to expand...

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.

redraven said:

When his behaviour objectively does not match what he claims to be - a Christian - then it is not subjective to say he didn't behave as a Christian.

Click to expand...

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.

redraven said:

This is not only the issue many have with Kirk, but the 'Christian faith' in general and all religion for that matter.

Click to expand...

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. .

redraven said:

The behaviour should match the label. People cling to religion as a matter of convenience and cling to the faith when it is convenient for them while behaving in ways that clearly contradict the teachings of the faith they claim to be. Then they are seen as hypocrits and are no longer believable.

Click to expand...

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.

redraven said:

Yes, we know his actions. Promoting public executions:

How Christlike...

Click to expand...

Yes I don't want to get into a debate about everything he said and then start multiple arguements on every issue itself as to whether its good or bad. Some people support execution and some don't.

Though I don't agree with those opinions he is not saying anything that is less worse than everyday language today and perhaps thats why. That people can speak this way today and people don't blink an eye.

But at the same time I could put a different perspective on what Kirk actually was expressing even if he messed up putting a better spin on it. But then I will be getting into a long arguement on that. So lets just say that though not how I would express it. I think Kirks meaning was no different to many as far as law and order and punishment. Just not so expressed out in public like that. Its usually a private affair and not a nice thing. But I understood what he meant.

Which was that as a society we have become so numb to evil that like in the old days people feared and respected authority and law because they also seen the horrible consequence of the punishment. That this may somehow shake people up to fear wrongdoing and Gods punishment for evil. But its really something out of the 70s and 80s evangelism of Gods wrath and judgement.

But thats the problem whenever we speak of these complicated and hot topics people start getting upset and passionate and all balance goes out teh window.

redraven said:

You say he didn't do anything illegal? Maybe he wasn't convicited or chagred of anything, but let's look at what he did do:

Kirk bragged about sending 80 buses of supporters to Washington just in time for the rally which devolved into the Jan 6 riot at the US Capitol.

Kirk was funded by a wealthy donor to send large numbers of people to this illegal event where 5 people died.

Did not do anything illegal that he was charged with would be more accurate.

His actions contributed to the loss of innocent life on January 6.

Click to expand...

I have also seen how fake news is spread that has twisted the truth. For example a Nazi group outside Kirks event and told to leave and had nothing to do with him. Was turned into Kirks supporting Nazis. So I don't take too seriously media stuff. I don't like getting into it as it goes nowhere.

But I can say if this was the criteria for illegal then most politicians and certainly social influencers would be locked up. I have actually heard plain clear words. Not words that may have meant something different. But plain direct words of vile hate, wanting harm and end those who disagree. They are actually not hiding it now. They are actually speaking their minds and beliefs to destroy others.

Its almost a new low of acceptance. So when I see certain people being selected out in among a sea of others doing exactly the same in other ways I want to keep right away. Its a sea of fighting and never ending opposing opinions. So much so that those who are outraged today will be outraged 10 years from now about something else.

It has become a culture in itself. A world of culture war that is aways disagreeing, dividing, fighting among itself and not being seperate and different from all that. Almost a self fullining prophesy that just participating in it makes you the same.

If one side is pointing out all the wrongs of the other side and the other side is doing the same. Or there are many groups doing the same. Each objecting and counter objecting. Then how do you tell the difference between anyone. Everyone is sucked into a great big world of fighting about who holds the truth and is most moral or about what words have been said.

In some ways its become a culture of Pharisees all morally outrage about each other and point to the morals and law and declaring "look at me I am the holy one who is pure and worthy'. We are all sinners. He who throws the first stone and all that. This is generalising and not about you by the way. I tend to slip into ist person sometimes lol.

I think Christians like the early church are a seperated group. We don't even get into the culture war or take side politically. Because both sides are of the world.

With respect, this whole thread is a train wreck. Atheists are trying to tell Christians what is "Satanic" and how they should comport themselves according to their own biased views.

It's like being in the Twilight Zone

redraven said:

Not at all, this is a good discussion - though it will be uncomfortable for some - particularly Kirk supporters who want to conveniently ignore his actions and how they contradict his 'Chirstianity'.

You call me an atheist yet you have no idea what I believe. I do believe in a higher power, so you're wrong in your assumption.

It's very fair to call out behaviour from someone who claims to stand by something

The crux of the matter is that if you call yourself a Christian, make your behaviour and actions match that if you want it to be believed.

Otherwise, your faith is meaningless. Christianity is supposed to have meaning and stand for values. It can't be whatever you decide it means based on your personal whims.

Why call yourself a Christian if you don't even stand by it's teachings? If you're really a Christian, you should be comfortable being held accountable to the teachings of Christ and you should appreciate if others hold you accountable.

Click to expand...

I wasn't pointing to you, specifically, as an atheist decrying Christians supporting Satanic behavior. You'll note you weren't the only one who suggested it although you may have been the initial person to make the statement.

Yes, it is fair to call someone out on hypocrisy. I completely agree with you on that and we should be doing that as much as we can. As you state, if we all support a false or flawed version, than we are not supporting Christ who is true and unchanging.

But, I would be cautious in making assumptions about all Christians, their viewpoints around politics and others. You water your own logic down with bias and assumptions and lose your argument through emotional supposition. I can see this subject has aggravated you and I can see why but I can also see that when people are trying to show you a different perspective, you do not acknowledge it so you are tied to your bias, for now.

Maybe reread with a clearer head and you will see that many are actually agreeing with you, as far as tackling hypocrisy etc, but not your view of it as it pertains to Charlie Kirk and have given reasons why.

redraven said:

I'm not making assumptions about all Christians. If you reread you'll see this.

I called out hypocrisy of a so called follower of Christ.

If other 'Christians' are offended that I've called out a so called follower of Christ, then I'll repeat what Ben Shapiro often says:

Facts don't care about feelings.

My comments on Kirk are very fair and grounded in facts and reason. Christians should support this if they care about the truth and honesty.

Click to expand...

But what makes you say, over and over, that they don't support what you're saying about truth and honesty?

The only disagreement, as far as I can see, is that not all agree that your truth is THE truth because YOUR truth comes from a bias as much as you claim that theirs does...

I don't want to go around in circles or argue. It is non productive. Just know, some hear you, we get it and we agree with you re: hypocrisy. Well, I do, at least. I am not the mouthpiece for everyone on earth.

Best.

redraven said:

You can't specifically say that I said 'Christians don't support truth and honesty' because I never said that.

It sounds like that's how your interpret what I said - and that's fine - even though I clearly did not say that.

My 'truth' is not a bias. I'm simply looking at facts on Kirk's behaviour and how they contradicted the teachings of the faith he claimed.

By stating 'bias' it seems you are being dishonest or deflecting at minimum.

You would have to agree wth me that his behaviour contradicted the teachings of Christ many times as I've given examaples of.

I recognize that it may be difficult and uncomfortable for people who identify as Christian to accept that Kirk was not as 'Christian' as they would like to admit - and that he was often a hypocrite.

Click to expand...

Okay, but I don't have to agree with you at all. That is the point. I don't believe that Kirk was 100% Russia over Ukraine and you have been given examples by others of what we don't see that you see.

Everyone has a bias but not all can admit to it. I am 100% biased towards Jesus Christ. This is why I believe that hypocrisy needs to be called out but all views, mistakes and perceptions aren't hypocrisy. Not all Christians are blind to it or accepting of it but they don't have to accept your definition of it and that's why I say there is a bias there.

As I said, I don't want to argue. I come here to learn and discuss. I didn't realize, in fact, that I had posted in the secular politics area and apologize for doing so. I disdain politics and don't believe in arguing over educating regarding the words of Jesus. He told us to 'shake the dust from our feet' and that is why I aim to do.

I hope, in some way, this thread proves to enlighten you in a way that glorifies Christ.

I won't post here again since I posted here in error and apologies for that! God bless.

redraven said:

Trumps comments suggest otherwise.

Click to expand...

Nope.

stevevw said:

This all sounds personal and subjective. So what about the many people who align with Kirk. Are they also not Christians.

Not that I am saying either opinion is correct but that this idea that some are not Christians and others are can be taken many ways dependning on a persons tilt whatever that is.

I think this is identity politics. Just like Kirk is not a true Christian belonging to the true Christian identity. There are other Christian identities within Christianity that war just like in secular society.

Like X politician is not a true Dem or Repulican or instead is a Nazi or white supremisist or Woke or Trans or a Women or male or black or Queer. Everything is determined by the identity and its ever changing morals and criteria for whats fits the moral and immoral identity of each group. According to the ideology they subscribe to.

Thats why I think as with the early church. Don't get too involved in the political arena. Just say the truth of the gospel warts and all and let people take it or leave it. Walk away. Don't get too bogged down in the politics and arguements as in the end its bel;ief and the spirit. Not some logical or reasoned arguement. Though that can dispell misconceptions many have today.

If they are interested they will come looking. God will be the one who awakens them. But if they are hostile Christ said pack up your stuff and go to the next town who may be more open.

Click to expand...

I never spent much time watching Kirk's material.

Could you elaborate on how Kirk exhibited and advocated for Christian faith, practice, ethics, and general engagement with the world?

I've been told many times that Kirk promoted Christianity. So I'm curious how he did that.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

I never spent much time watching Kirk's material.

Could you elaborate on how Kirk exhibited and advocated for Christian faith, practice, ethics, and general engagement with the world?

I've been told many times that Kirk promoted Christianity. So I'm curious how he did that.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I happen to watch a lot of his material and thats part of the problem that I think many who say bad things have never really look at much of his stuff and have more likely seen snippets on legacy media which may be out of context. Or the one example that may have been wrong for Kirk to say be blown up and represented the entire Kirk.

This happens in many ways today. The media age and especially social media which has almost become another source of reporting on par with official news outlets. Or can even influence the narrative of scientific fact and what we know is truth to look like its not the case. Also remember now theres Deep Fake and Ai. Who knows whats going on. Whats the truth.

Anyway sorry for the rant. But I feel strongly about how truth has been lost in the wash of all these fighting narratives.

I could show you many. But I don't like the idea of doing that as its more or less the same as showing the negative. I am saying the entire game or culture of doing this is itself the problem and I suspect inflaming the problem. Though good intentioned.

I think it best you investogate yourself. Thats what we do with academia and critical thinking. We have to work out the truth for ourselves. All I am saying I have probably watched more stuff than most who are objecting and I don't see the same Kirk. Likewise many are the same. In fact there has been an upsurge in Christianity since his death.

For me like many others who hold the same beliefs on many of what Kirk believed. We are reflecting and reproving our faith. I guess in any horrific and traumatic event people take a step back and reflect and try to take stock and be asking what happened and why. What can we do to change this current climate and culture war.

Thats why I think the best way is to take a step back. I don't think people realise that the debates being had over Kirk are more or less the same kind of debates that Kirk was having live. The back and forth or opposing views. The objections and accusations back and forth. So in some ways its just keeping that climate going.

I think right now regardless of who is in the right or wrong or who said what or what it meant. All I can say is that if we are talking about what is the Christian thing to do and if we are talking about Christs church or the Christian community as well as individuals within that community.

Then I think Christians are to be different to the culture war. By engaging in the back and forth debates and arguements this is part of the culture war. It cultivates the culture war and its a world system and not a Christian one.

Christians should be seperate from this and even insulated from it. Even quiet and saying very little. Just exampling Christ. Especially right now as the culture war is heating up. In fact its perfect timing. Because when the world heats up Christ shines in that darkness twice as much.

Its noticed more because the evil has become so entrenched that people are actually looking for something different. And it appears we are seeing a rise in young people, the new generation looking at tradition and church and God again.

So nows the time to shine. Which means being as Christlike as possible, Even if that means loving your enermies or sacrificing your life for the very people who persecute you. In upholding Christs example of goodness and obedience to God. A Peter says 'it exposes evil and injustice without words' and turns people towards God', This is pleasing to God.

PS

I also don't think a social forum is the right place to sort out what is right and truth about moral or social issues. There may be a place this can be done in a fair and formal way. But not on social media. The church use to always stand seperate and give their ethical opinion. This included research on how society was affected and called to help the needy. But they never got into bed with the State. The culture wars are getting into bed with the State and the World..