The murder of Charlie Kirk
Can we all admit that the majority of extremism is coming from the left over the last handful of years?
Apparently they j
I wasn't much of a follower of Charlie Kirk, so I don't have a proverbial dog in this fight.
I'm just pointing out that a secular fact-check organization (Snopes) disagrees with your interpretation of what Kirk said.
Kirk's point was nonsense. He was arguing against cherry picking by cherry picking a quote about gays and referencing "unchanging" laws. He picked out the part about gays and not kosher laws because there is no longer serious debate in christian circles on whether or not it is ok to eat meals with people who don't hold kosher as there was in the first century..... ie unchanging is the exact opposite of the relationship between old testament laws and the jesus movement.
I'm sure it's something you could Google about.
Got it. This response means everything you say can be safely disregarded in the future.
Wtf do you mean?
The fact that your impression meter did not start at -1000 should make you ask: Am I, like Formula72, a babbling centrist? Do I often find "good" aspects about horrible nazi pigs like Kirk and his grifting widow?
Wtf I mean is that I had no idea who she was until her husband was killed. I recognize that others did, but I have other things that consume my time and attention.
Settle the **** down.
What a non answer lol.
Got it. This response means everything you say can be safely disregarded in the future.
Hey you're the guy who apparently thinks snopes is a reputable source.
Hey, you’re the guy putting words in my mouth that I never said.
If you can’t be bothered to illustrate your thought process, I can’t be bothered to care what you think.
Kirk's point was nonsense. He was arguing against cherry picking by cherry picking a quote about gays and referencing "unchanging" laws. He picked out the part about gays and not kosher laws because there is no longer serious debate in christian circles on whether or not it is ok to eat meals with people who don't hold kosher as there was in the first century..... ie unchangi
The Old Testament laws can be divided into three groups:
1. Ceremonial Laws (e.g. dietary laws)
2. Judicial Laws (e.g. penalties for certain crimes)
3. Moral Laws (e.g. behaviors that are forbidden whether or not they are considered legal by the state)
1) and 2) applied specifically only to the Jews.
3) applies to everyone.
That condemnation of adultery is a Moral Law that applies to all peoples at all times.
That adulterers should be stoned to death is/was a Judicial Law that was obligatory only for the Jews.
The Bible never makes those divisions. If it did so many first century christians,who could actually read Hebrew and Greek would not have argued christians need to be circumcised and keep kosher. Ironically, you disprove Kirk's point about unchanging laws by quoting a christian interpretation developed thousands of years after the writing of the old testament. Might as well say christians should really just accept homosexuality now because civilized society already has anf they should just keep murder and stuff like that as forbidden. That;s what saints in the middle ages did and there has never been an unchanging christisan morality on slavery etc to begin with. There's never been a magic book to use as a moral guide so that people thousands of years apart in drastically different societies could agree. Kirk's low rent community college dropout white christianity acts as if there is.
The Bible never makes those divisions. If it did so many first century christians,who could actually read Hebrew and Greek would not have argued christians need to be circumcised and keep kosher. Ironically, you disprove Kirk's point about unchanging laws by quoting a christian interpretation developed thousands of years after the writing of the old testament. Might as well
I'm not sure I understand your point. It makes sense that first century Messianic Jews would be unclear about whether or not they were obligated to continue observing the ceremonial law, since they were still Jews. That's why the Apostle Paul had to clarify issues like that in some of his epistles.
Not sure what being white or being a community college dropout has to do with anything, but I hear bigotry like that from intellectual snobs like you all the time, so I'm used to it. 😀
I'm not sure I understand your point. It makes sense that first century Messianic Jews would be unclear about whether or not they were obligated to continue observing the ceremonial law, since they were still Jews. That's why the Apostle Paul had to clarify issues like that in some of his epistles.
Other apostles like James and Peter disagreed. You are pretending like the relationship between the Old Testament and the Jesus movement is clear from the OT itself, when it wasn’t to saints and apostles. Kirk’s claim about historically perfect and unchanging laws is historically inaccurate from a basic read of the history of the Jesus movement.
Not sure what being white or being a community college dropout has to do with anything, but I hear bigotry like that from intellectual snobs like you all the time, so I'm used to it. 😀
Facts about Kirk’s culture and poor understanding are not bigotry.
The Old Testament laws can be divided into three groups:1. Ceremonial Laws (e.g. dietary laws)2. Judicial Laws (e.g. penalties for certain crimes)3. Moral Laws (e.g. behaviors that are forbidden whether or not they are considered legal by the state)1) and 2) applied specifically only to the Jews.3) applies to everyone.That condemnation of adultery is a Moral Law that applies
There’s no singular interpretation of how the laws should be abrogated. There’s certainly nothing in the Bible that makes these distinctions, from what I can see.
Other apostles like James and Peter disagreed. You are pretending like the relationship between the Old Testament and the Jesus movement is clear from the OT itself, when it wasn’t to saints and apostles. Kirk’s claim about historically perfect and unchanging laws is historically inaccurate from a basic read of the history of the Jesus movement.
Jesus and other NT writers make such distinctions.
Facts about Kirk’s culture and poor understanding are not bigotry.
It's clearly bigotry because you at least implied his failure to understand Christianity was due at least in part to his failure to graduate from a community college. That's just really, really, really dumb in my opinion.
Like I said, I know very little about Charlie Kirk and have no vested interest in agreeing or disagreeing with what he said.
I entered this discussion because some folks seemed to have either misrepresented or misunderstood what Kirk said.
That’s not relevant. Kirk is quoting an Old Testament passage and claiming it is perfect and unchanging. You can’t justify that by referencing something 500 later that changes it….thats just really really really dumb in my opinion.
It's clearly bigotry because you at least implied his failure to understand Christianity was due at least in part to his failure to graduate from a community college. That's just really, really, really dumb in my opinion.
Yes his lack of a college 101 level understanding of christianity is certainly in part due to his limited intellectual capacity. That’s simply not bigoted. It’s drawing a conclusion about an individual based on what he’s done and said.
Like I said, I know very little about Charlie Kirk and have no vested interest in agreeing or disagreeing with what he said.
I entered this discussion because some folks seemed to have either misrepresented or misunderstood what Kirk said.
And I entered the discussion to explain what Kirk said and why it’s nonsensical.
The distinctions between ceremonial, moral, and judicial? Or just a general distinction that not all laws are to be followed?
The latter.
The application of judicial laws would require a de-facto Jewish theocracy, which hadn't even existed for centuries prior to Jesus' birth, and doesn't exist even now in Israel, which is a secular state.
And many of the ceremonial laws are literally impossible to practice since The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70.
Many Messianic Jews still observe OT dietary laws by choice (and some other laws as well).
That’s not relevant. Kirk is quoting an Old Testament passage and claiming it is perfect and unchanging.
Which is unChristian, since the whole supposed point is that Christ came to proclaim the New Covenant (otherwise what was He here for?) and Christians eat prawn cocktails and wear mixed fibres and don't impose the death penalty for those Old Testament offences, and even modern Judaism is unrecognisably different-- no Levites, no Temple, no heifers having their throats cut and getting set on fire on the altar in the Holy of Holies, and of course no death penalty for breaking any of those crazy old taboos.
The latter.The application of judicial laws would require a de-facto Jewish theocracy, which hadn't even existed for centuries prior to Jesus' birth, and doesn't exist even now in Israel, which is a secular state.And many of the ceremonial laws are literally impossible to practice since The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70.Many Messianic Jews still observe OT dietar
Right, I don’t disagree that the new testament abrogated the OT laws in some way, but I think it’s much more ad hoc than actually separating it into categories because there were many indications and passages that Jesus, Paul, and the apostles believed that the end was coming soon and that was the reason for abrogation. After it was clear that wouldn’t happen, the church had to come up with different methods of figuring out which ones were abrogated and which new rituals were established, as well as why things were abrogated.
Right, I don’t disagree that the new testament abrogated the OT laws in some way, but I think it’s much more ad hoc than actually separating it into categories because there were many indications and passages that Jesus, Paul, and the apostles believed that the end was coming soon and that was the reason for abrogation. After it was clear that wouldn’t happen, the church had to
I think I agree with most (if not all) of your analysis here.
