How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived

[GDuck]

Dang, this was an awful thread to read. Two pages arguing with a guy who claimed to be a Christian , and capitalized the "Word of God" and "Gospel", and then subsequently quotes verses stripped of all context to support his disdain for God and the Bible.

Read the Bible. Therein lies the answers to humanities greatest enemy: death. One of Charlie's last tweets was the following: “Yeshua (Jes*us*) defeated death so you can live.”

You just didn’t like the context I provided. Self-referential logic is a circle jerk and it’s how large sects of Christianity have justified violence/genocide/bigotry throughout history. Y’all are smart and empathetic free thinkers in so many spaces in your life, but where your televangelist tells you to jump, you jump.

Jésus stopped a woman from being stoned and spoke countless times on forgiveness, but yet many of you call for Charlie Kirk’s killer to be executed. Go ahead and spin that some way that justifies your unwillingness to forgive.

And call me a pretend a Christian if it helps you sleep at night. I couldn’t want your brand of Christianity any less.

Projection - no evidence we don’t think for ourselves. You assume you do and you’re and we don’t and are sheep. A bit self-righteous no? Funny.

Forgiveness doesn’t mean lack of consequence. Forgiveness is more for the one forgiving. By this logic anything short of letting them free is not forgiving. What about life in jail - do we not forgive? Geez also forgave and said sin no more. Geez doesn’t contradict capital punishment as allowed in the Bible. The triune God is the same yesterday, now, and forever - His holiness is unchanging - regardless of the times and as much as us humans try to change God based on our terms.

I think your stance helps you maybe sleep better at night. It’s all about feelings vs actually what’s just and best for society.

[GDuck]

WWJD? - Support the murder of innocent children and the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and make jokes about it. He'd also definitely support the illegal occupation of that land and the terrible atrocities commited against those people every day prior to Oct 7th too.

There seems to be a giant moral reason I might be constantly bring it up. I find your (and others) repeated attempts to diminish anything that Israel does (and sometimes outright deny irrefutable evidence) in conjunction with your desire to elevate Charlie Kirk and his pedantic, sophomoric behavior and any attempt to diminish him in any way to be completely incongruent with the whole WWJD mantra.

Is Israel perfect? No? Are there tragedies in every war? Yes. Israel are the good guys here and they do everything they can to be just and protect the innocent in and out of war. Hamas are the bad guys and anything short of acknowledging this tells me a lot about someone’s character and knowledge.

Israel has compromised over and over in hopes for peace including agreeing to one-sided terrorist trades. Also giving Palestine the ability to be a state but they don’t want that. Over and over they want nothing short of eliminating Israel. October 7th was an atrocity. Hamas hides below hospitals and uses the young and innocent as shields. They are still holding and torturing hostages. They’ve killed hostages. They lie over and over for the ignorant press who gobble it up without fact checking (some press are ingrained with them). If you truly are sad about innocent children dying - you are blind if you think Israel is to blame.

So again, it’s pretty easy to see who the anti-semites are.

[duckpoint]

WWJD? - Support the murder of innocent children and the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and make jokes about it. He'd also definitely support the illegal occupation of that land and the terrible atrocities commited against those people every day prior to Oct 7th too.

There seems to be a giant moral reason I might be constantly bring it up. I find your (and others) repeated attempts to diminish anything that Israel does (and sometimes outright deny irrefutable evidence) in conjunction with your desire to elevate Charlie Kirk and his pedantic, sophomoric behavior and any attempt to diminish him in any way to be completely incongruent with the whole WWJD mantra.

FWIW, I am not a supporter of Israel either. That whole region is a disaster and pretty much always has been. We can have a desire for peace all we want, but the reality is that it would just be a bit of a time out.

If they want to fight it out let them. Just keep the US out of it and let refugees into Egypt, Lebanon & Jordan. There is a reason why they won't let them leave.

[Phalanx]

My bad. I skipped a step. If found guilty, do you support the death penalty for Tyler Robinson?

If not, I love that. I’ll need a bigger box to put you in, but if I was tech savvy enough to create a poll, I’d put every dollar I own on that you represent but a small minority among individuals who’ve adopted a conservative Christian ideology.

This just goes from bad to worse. I don't think you have any idea what "conservative Christians" think.

After Charlie got murdered, we had a talk at my house. A couple of my kids listen to him often and they were pretty shook up. We all agreed though that we were not in favor of the death penalty. I can't speak for Christians everywhere - I will leave that to you - but for me, killing someone removes all hope of redemption. I don't know if you remember James Dobson, a "conservative Christian" doing an interview with Ted Bundy in prison and he floated the idea that Bundy had accepted the Lord during his incarceration. Dobson was ripped up and down by the secular media for saying this, but it certainly made an impression among Christians, and I think many might point to that as a reason why not to support the death penalty where life in prison is possible. There is no question that a murderer deserves death though, and sometimes they get what they deserve, whether I supported it or not. Being a Christian is knowing that we all deserve a similar fate and are only saved from it by God's grace.

Re: Israel I have already stated in other threads that I am not a supporter of the Israeli government. I think bringing up WWJD in a conversation between two non-Christians is pretty funny though. Maybe it was meant as a dig at Charlie, but I'm not sure he was even of a sentient age when that was a thing with the bracelets, etc. Anyway, obviously Charlie was a big Israel supporter a few years ago, although there are now rumors that his position was changing a bit in that regard.

You seem to look at masses of people as blind followers (e.g. the televangelist reference) but I think many Christians find nuggets here and there from lots of people and leave the rest. My psychology prof in college called it 'spoiling the Egyptians' in reference to the Israelites taking gold and jewelry being offered by the Egyptians so that they would leave Egypt and the plagues would go away. That jewelry later being repurposed for building the Tabernacle. To me, Charlie Kirk was a snot-nosed kid who still had some growing up to do. I don't think his main focus was foreign policy - most Republicans get that wrong anyway. He certainly had a talent for discussing social issues, and he will be remembered for his willingness to talk with everyone, no matter how hostile. A good example for all of us.

Anyway, I don't care if Oregon honors him or not. As William Wallace says in Braveheart after being knighted, "God makes men what they are". I do think it's funny that they honored McCain when I was at Autzen though. That man had actual blood on his hands, but Oregon gave him a moment of silence. Whatever.

[whosyourwally]

My bad. I skipped a step. If found guilty, do you support the death penalty for Tyler Robinson?

If not, I love that. I’ll need a bigger box to put you in, but if I was tech savvy enough to create a poll, I’d put every dollar I own on that you represent but a small minority among individuals who’ve adopted a conservative Christian ideology.

This just goes from bad to worse. I don't think you have any idea what "conservative Christians" think.

After Charlie got murdered, we had a talk at my house. A couple of my kids listen to him often and they were pretty shook up. We all agreed though that we were not in favor of the death penalty. I can't speak for Christians everywhere - I will leave that to you - but for me, killing someone removes all hope of redemption. I don't know if you remember James Dobson, a "conservative Christian" doing an interview with Ted Bundy in prison and he floated the idea that Bundy had accepted the Lord during his incarceration. Dobson was ripped up and down by the secular media for saying this, but it certainly made an impression among Christians, and I think many might point to that as a reason why not to support the death penalty where life in prison is possible. There is no question that a murderer deserves death though, and sometimes they get what they deserve, whether I supported it or not. Being a Christian is knowing that we all deserve a similar fate and are only saved from it by God's grace.

Re: Israel I have already stated in other threads that I am not a supporter of the Israeli government. I think bringing up WWJD in a conversation between two non-Christians is pretty funny though. Maybe it was meant as a dig at Charlie, but I'm not sure he was even of a sentient age when that was a thing with the bracelets, etc. Anyway, obviously Charlie was a big Israel supporter a few years ago, although there are now rumors that his position was changing a bit in that regard.

You seem to look at masses of people as blind followers (e.g. the televangelist reference) but I think many Christians find nuggets here and there from lots of people and leave the rest. My psychology prof in college called it 'spoiling the Egyptians' in reference to the Israelites taking gold and jewelry being offered by the Egyptians so that they would leave Egypt and the plagues would go away. That jewelry later being repurposed for building the Tabernacle. To me, Charlie Kirk was a snot-nosed kid who still had some growing up to do. I don't think his main focus was foreign policy - most Republicans get that wrong anyway. He certainly had a talent for discussing social issues, and he will be remembered for his willingness to talk with everyone, no matter how hostile. A good example for all of us.

Anyway, I don't care if Oregon honors him or not. As William Wallace says in Braveheart after being knighted, "God makes men what they are". I do think it's funny that they honored McCain when I was at Autzen though. That man had actual blood on his hands, but Oregon gave him a moment of silence. Whatever.

Honestly, Phalanx… respect. I think that whole thing is beautifully worded. And it’s a good reminder that there are plenty of Christians who can appreciate nuance and don’t just eat whatever they’re fed.

Only call outs I have are that, even though your beliefs differs on a number of topics, a very large majority of conservative Christians do support capital punishment (79% of Republicans, 75% of white evangelicals) and can’t see Israel’s role in the ever-present conflict in the Middle East (62% of Republicans, 64% of white evangelicals). So, I don’t felt compelled to change much of what I’ve said about the larger group. Scroll up just a bit and you see GDuck wearing my comments like a tailored suit. Gets in on the projection dig, and then immediately pivots to defending the death penalty by folding the Bible into whatever shape necessary.

[GDuck]

I’m proud to wear that tailored suit, thank you. I’ll defend my comments any place, any time - though this forum is one of the worst places for many reasons. Yes I’m for the death penalty unapologetically (if anything needs to be applied faster) and can go into many scriptural reasons, but let’s be honest you won’t care. In many cases knowing death was upcoming has spurred some to turn to Christ when otherwise may not have. Israel is good (not perfect), Hamas is evil. I admit i have very little patience with anyone trying to minimize the evil of Hamas. I’ve spent lots and lots of time diving into these type subjects and have been in the Middle East myself - Israel and Palestinian held areas. I’ve been spoon fed nothing and have physically communicated in person with both sides.

I was born and raised in Eugene and lived on the west (left) coast my entire life, so I know all about debate with leftists. I also know people from all political sides and are friends with many. So your argument insinuating that the spoon feeding is more prevalent amongst Christians is a lie at worst or your ignorance at best and you only see it that way because of what side you are on.

[dthomas=ddixon]

This board is not upset about the 2 year genocide used with our tax-dollars to murder innocent children in Palestine but they're outraged at seeing a white guy get shot

This is the epitome of "One death being a tragedy and a million a statistic."

Apathy to the worst crime possible while being "shocked" by this should cause you to really think about what you prioritize in life and the type of news you consume.

Embedded Tweet

Thank you, this was one of my first thoughts when this happened. The same friends who were openly celebrating Israel’s deployment of “pager bombs” amongst Palestinian civilians were reeling over Kirk’s death. The easy access to such a graphically violent video is obviously part of what triggered such a visceral response in them but the moral dissonance from people who I knew so well was deeply troubling.

I had already gone down the Palestine-Israel rabbit hole earlier this year and just reading Evangelical biblical scholars like Gary M. Burge gives you a shockingly different view, to say the least. In the bigger picture, much of American Evangelical Christianity has been co-opted by American politics, to the point that they’re almost indistinguishable. The prevalence of Dispensationalism in America only intensifies this by making modern Middle Eastern geopolitics fit quite nicely into the end times and rapture eschatological narratives.

This form of Christianity would be unrecognizable to the early church, let alone J e s u s and his disciples. The movement that was once defined by martyrdom so often blesses the machinery of empire as it grinds “the least of these” to powder. Just completely upside down from what J e s u s taught and lived.

Thankfully, because of that same easy access to graphically violent content, people are actually able to see what’s happening in Gaza for themselves. And I know numbers of Christians personally who have been horrified by it all and are making considerable and brave (this issue will cost you all your friendships in the church organization I was raised in) shifts regarding Palestine-Israel.

[UOducksTK1]

dthomas=ddixon, the Bible and the early church surely had premillennial eschatological views. It wasn't until the later church and Augustine that allegorized such scripture.

[dthomas=ddixon]

dthomas=ddixon, the Bible and the early church surely had premillennial eschatological views. It wasn't until the later church and Augustine that allegorized such scripture.

For sure, but that wasn’t what I was arguing. Forms of premillennialism existed in the early church, but modern dispensational premillennialism—the doctrine driving so much of American evangelical Zionism—didn’t appear until the 19th century with Darby and the Scofield Bible. It’s a totally different framework from anything early Christians believed. The early premillennial guys (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.) didn’t teach anything like a pre-tribulation rapture or an Israel–church distinction. Those are 19th-century developments.

[dd10snoop28]

The pre-trib is clearly a new idea, but re: Israel-church distinction, what are you referring to that is a new idea introduced by Darby/Scofield?

[dthomas=ddixon]

The pre-trib is clearly a new idea, but re: Israel-church distinction, what are you referring to that is a new idea introduced by Darby/Scofield?

Treating Israel and the church as two distinct peoples with two separate destinies, with the “church age” as a temporary interruption in God’s covenant plan with Israel, and reading most OT promises as belonging uniquely to ethnic Israel and not the church.

So the “two-track” Israel–church framework is unique to Darby and Co, and it’s one of the main theological engines behind American evangelical Zionism.

[dd10snoop28]

The pre-trib is clearly a new idea, but re: Israel-church distinction, what are you referring to that is a new idea introduced by Darby/Scofield?

Treating Israel and the church as two distinct peoples with two separate destinies, with the “church age” as a temporary interruption in God’s covenant plan with Israel, and reading most OT promises as belonging uniquely to ethnic Israel and not the church.

So the “two-track” Israel–church framework is unique to Darby and Co, and it’s one of the main theological engines behind American evangelical Zionism.

I mean, Romans 9-11 clearly makes a distinguishment between physical/spiritual Israel. Chapter 9 explains what the spiritual Israel is (i.e. not the physical Israel) and then later explains the future plan for literal/physical Israel in chapter 11. Don't need Darby for that.

As far as distinct "destiny", what do you mean by that? What kind of destiny do u mean.

I don't see how one could read the book of Zechariah and think those prophecies are for anyone except for Israel. Same for Daniel. How do you interpret book of Zechariah and Zech 12:10 as well? Only options are: (1) fulfilled at crucifixion, or (2) the church is israel in these texts. But both of those views are easily shown to be erroneous.

I mean, i haven't looked at the early church dudes to see their exact views on future Israel, but i know for a fact that the protestants in england and those that came to America did indeed believe in the things that you attributing to Darby (without the church age/rapture thing).

[Phalanx]

dthomas=ddixon, the Bible and the early church surely had premillennial eschatological views. It wasn't until the later church and Augustine that allegorized such scripture.

For sure, but that wasn’t what I was arguing. Forms of premillennialism existed in the early church, but modern dispensational premillennialism—the doctrine driving so much of American evangelical Zionism—didn’t appear until the 19th century with Darby and the Scofield Bible. It’s a totally different framework from anything early Christians believed. The early premillennial guys (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, etc.) didn’t teach anything like a pre-tribulation rapture or an Israel–church distinction. Those are 19th-century developments.

The early church expected J esus to come back in their lifetimes, much like the prophets and post-captivity generations expected Messiah to come in their lifetimes. So that was their eschatology, and as the centuries passed and the Lord tarried, the Church became concerned with more earthly matters, spending much of their time addressing the institutional aspects and matters of definitions of and adherence to orthodoxy in their councils and writings. From the perspective in the Year of our Lord 2025, I am not surprised that it took the Reformation and the following generations to re-assess the Biblical message about future things, and I don't see the time of Darby's writings as an argument against them at all, although it is always the first one his detractors use. In any case, dispensationalism did not begin with Darby, any more than the Reformation began with Luther.

The real arguments for or against the rapture or dispensational premillennialism ought to come from the Bible. It is a curious thing, but I have never met someone who belonged to a Plymouth Brethren church who didn't know his or her Bible inside and out. Meanwhile, I just listened to a Gary Burge video critiquing American Dispensationalists, and he never quoted the Bible once in 35 minutes except to mock their interpretation of Genesis 12. He also referred to the televangelist John Hagee as the "Most well-known spokesperson for Christian Zionism". I had never heard of Burge before, but I am having a really hard time taking him seriously. He also says that it is a common practice for Evangelical Churches to send portions of their church budget directly to the Israeli government. Maybe someone here has come across that practice; I have never seen it in my life. It would be good to hear from a guy who is able to address more than just a caricature.