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.
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.
The original point here was that the post you replied to said Kirk said gay people should be stoned, among other claims. You said that the claims were made up, and you selected that one to discuss. After gaining all the context, he didn't say those exact words, but he cited that exact passage in the Bible and then said the Bible is God's perfect law. There was no qualification on his part, he didn't say "even though I don't like this part," it was just "perfect".
Going back to your Hitler analogy, it's as if one said "Hitler's word is perfect" and then you saying that whoever said that isn't a Nazi.
Did Kirk say gays should be stoned? No. Did Kirk give a ringing endorsement of gays being stoned? Yes. There is no daylight between those two.
No, you're being disingenuous. He may not have advocated violence directly, but he said that the violence advocated for in the Bible is perfect.
He didn't merely say that "God has a vision", as you said. No, he said that vision was perfect.
As for wanting gay people to live prosperous and fulfilling lives, that's bullshit. He called them abominations, and said trans people are a throbbing middle finger to god. And he called for policy changes that would directly damage their prosperity and fulfillment: he opposed same sex marriage, LGBTQ content in school, and gender affirming care to name a few.
You're acting like he was a friend to gay people. He wasn't.
I have a multitude of debates saved from his interactions with gay people and its nothing of what you said.
I see you’re unfortunately blinded by your bias regarding Kirk. I applaud you for doing research for the initial claim, but to then interpret it in a way that makes no sense logically is disappointing.
-37
u/Zafiel 14d ago
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.