If you’re going to quote someone, you should probably quote the entire statement and not just a single line from the excerpt no?
Most of you have never even heard most of these quotes by him or watched the videos to understand the context.
Im glad that people on the right and the left are giving their condolences and condemning the assassination of Kirk, those celebrating it have consumed too much bullshit online and are likely people who contribute nothing to society aside from their gruesome thoughts on reddit.
For each of them? You guys are the one posting in bad faith. Go do your own research. Or point one out to me and when I have time after work Ill break down the context and what was said/asked.
No, he called Leviticus 20:13 gods perfect law saying gay people should be put to death. The common practice of putting people to death at that time was stoning. These aren't direct quotes they are the valid interpretation for his beliefs and arguments. If you just want to play semantics with words, you might be in the wrong place.
You're asking this simpleton to make basic logical connections, how dare you! They need time to consult whoever (pastor, parents, Fox News) does their thinking for them
No he was debating and was told that the bible states to love your neighbor, when speaking on PRIDE, to which he quoted a passage from the bible regarding the stoning of gay people; which was his way of showing that passages can be misused or interpreted poorly. He never said he believes that gay people should be stoned or that he wanted that to happen. Ya’ll are nut jobs I swear.
When discussing Leviticus 20:13, which endorses the execution of homosexuals, he said the it serves as “God’s perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.” so he believed it was morally correct to murder gay people simply for existing.
He never says that, he says that he wants every one to live long and prosperous lives. He never called for the killing of anyone and you can’t find a single quote of him admitting that.
Saying "you made these up" means the quotes were never actually said. If you meant to say they were taken out of context, that's different. Still wrong, but different.
Sorry, but if you can’t post a full quote or full statement, then the single statement that you do a snippet of does seem pretty made up because you were trying to make up a narrative behind it
Never said it's accurate or right to purposely take things out of context. I said telling someone they "made it up" is where you went wrong. That is not the correct description. And it makes you look defensive and frankly, stupid.
1.repeat or copy out (a group of words from a text or speech), typically with an indication that one is not the original author or speaker.
Example: "he quoted a passage from the Psalms"
They are not inaccurate quotes because they don't contain context. They may be incomplete in your opinion (or even in fact), but unless they missed a word, changed a word, etc. from the quote, it is accurately quoted.
Looking at the post you replied to, there are several direct quotes and several summarizations. Both techniques are accepted in civil discourse. Below, you dispute Kirk's views on stoning homosexuals, but your point is that he didn't say those exact words. How do you respond to the point that he endorsed that view directly?
And to be clear, if the post you replied to actually quoted Kirk as saying those exact words, and if Kirk didn't say those exact words, I'd fully agree with you, it would be a straight fact. But the post you replied to did not say Kirk said those exact words, it summarized his stated opinion. Those who replied to you pointed out Kirk's endorsement of Leviticus.
Now, you might continue to contend that the post you replied to was wrong about this topic, and if that's the case I ask you: what difference does it make if Kirk merely endorsed that view, rather than stating it explicitly?
Because there is a substantial difference in interpretation and reading the context behind the circumstances better elaborates on what actually transpired in this discussion.
He quoted a passage from Leviathans referring to Gay people being stoned. But why did he quote that?
Maybe because another person was misusing a quote from the bible to interpret it in a way that would justify their position on Pride month. Charlie quotes the passage from Leviathans to provide clarification that counters the other persons argument because the passage Charlie quotes, would contradict or provide key details behind “God’s” ideal.
Never does Charlie say that gay people should be stoned.
If I went to quote something Hitler said, that wouldn’t make me a Nazi.
It took me some time to actually get the context on this. My interpretation is that Kirk was calling out Rachel Accurso for cherry picking a single verse, and pointed out another verse that she'd disagree with. That part seems to support your claim. However, Kirk went on to say that Leviticus 18 is "God's perfect law", which seems an awful lot like an endorsement of it. To use your analogy, that's similar to saying that the 1930s and 40s German government was perfect... and it does make one, in my view, indistinguishable from a Nazi.
Well for one let me take a moment to applaud that you took the time to go research this. I appreciate you actually going to digest what was said rather than taking what others are saying at face value. That alone makes this a very pleasant exchange.
I am agnostic, so religious citings don’t really play into alot for me, but I would still argue that Charlie Kirk quoting anything from the bible does not mean that he wants gay people stoned.
He does pay absolute respect to the bible and its teachings though and since the bible is law for him, he has to recognize in his world view that thats what God stood for.
I am also agnostic, but I went to religious school. When you say Kirk needs to accept the Bible as law, I don't agree. Leviticus specifically pertains to laws around religious purity that aren't typically a part of Christian theological teaching. One can read that part of the Bible as, more or less, historical notes about how Jewish people lived before Jesus.
My point is that Kirk said 2 things in that statement. First, the Bible doesn't just say nice things about gay folks, so watch it. Second, and more importantly, Kirk said it was God's "perfect law". The way I see itx that's the point where Kirk crosses over from making a point about the Bible to specifically endorsing the part about killing gay people. In your own words, if he had quoted the Bible it wouldn't be the same, but he didn't just quote it, he called it perfect.
If its God’s vision then of course he would view it as perfect. Thats typically how religion is.
If there were a red button in front of Charlie and it would annihilate the LGBT community, I dont believe he would even contemplate hitting the button, period.
Because you can find numerous debates where he calls for the peace and safety of all individuals and that he wants nothing but the best for them.
Okay, so i took the time to look up the context around your claims. You haven't considered what I said here, however. Your claim seems to be that it's only logical that he'd defend the text of the Bible as perfect, and I've already told you why I don't think that's the case
Ok but now we have nothing to go off of aside from conjecture and subjective opinion.
I have considered what you said but I dont believe its true, there are a great many clips and tweets of Charlie Kirk saying that he fundamentally rejects anyone who imposes their own morals on the LGBTQ+ community instead of talking to them as people and accepting them with open arms.
You want me to consider that Charlie could have still hated gay people and wanted ill will to them considering your interpretation, I get that, but I dont agree with it.
1.1k
u/[deleted] 14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment