StevensTechU wrote: Tue Sep 16, 2025 11:18 am
Someone actually wants to take on the content, not just shoot the messenger or be upset with the conclusions. At a minimum, duckpoint, I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion and not just talk past one another.
It’s important to recognize that Charlie Kirk, an Evangelical Christian, holds faith-based views that may conflict with some modern social norms. Labeling these views as "homophobic," "racist," or "divisive" often shuts down discussion rather than engaging with his actual positions.
There are lots of Christians who are not homophobic, racist or divisive. Moreover, there are actually many that are agents of connecting people of different sexual orientations, races, and faiths. Trying to pin a criticism of Charlie Kirk to being a criticism of an entire religion is a very right-wing-playbook thing to do, but no thanks. You can be Christian and choose to be none of those things, and it saddens me if you feel differently. Among the many reasons it is not sufficient to say "well these views are rooted in his religion, so they're OK" is because the reality is that every religion feels that way. Many Christians don't see prejudice (be it misogyny, ableism, homophobia, etc.) in those that practice their religion but they easily identify it in Islam. The same can be said of Muslims seeing only what they want to see in their and other religions. Religious views have been used to burn suspected witches, enslave humans, go to war, etc. The Ku Klux Klan was a religious organization. It's not sufficient to say a view or behavior is OK because that's what their religion says is fine.
He often distinguishes between his religious convictions and what he believes government should enforce.
We're not debating Charlie Kirk the politician. We're debating whether Charlie Kirk is worthy of being honored by a public university, to which I've said no because he made a living by being divisive, creating "them" for his audiences to distrust or even be fearful of. Whether his divisive views were turned into law or not is irrelevant, it's whether we want to celebrate a person who had views incompatible with the concept of unity.
The term "homophobia" is often used to shame or silence those with differing views on sexuality. A more neutral framing would be whether Kirk "pushed views antithetical to the gay community."
A common practice in politics is to make a label untenable and to push for something softer and more palatable for their side. The content of Charlie Kirk's words are that he unfoundedly felt gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Whether it's intentional or not, you seem to ignore that he brings this up during a discussion in which he's talking about a situation in which a gay couple molested two adopted kids. He is very literally attempting to cause "fear, hatred, or mistrust of lesbians and gay men" - the definition of homophobia; it's the point of bringing up this news story and bringing up this view in the segment. If Charlie didn't want to attend a gay wedding that he was invited to because of his personal views, that would be "views antithetical to the gay community." But that's not what's happening - he is instead using a platform in which he reaches millions of people to push a story that aligns with his views to get other people to feel similarly. The statement that "Kirk doesn't tie this to his stance on adoption" as he talks about both is the same segment is wrong, nothing more.
Like I said, if you can't separate his religious views on the things you find offensive, then there is no open discussion to be had. Indeed there are degrees in belief among Christians, Charlie is just more devout and true to the scripture than many.
Should I conclude that according to you that all Christians that adopt a moral beliefs directly scripture are racist & anti-gay? If we set aside the millions of less devout, casual (morally flexible) Christians, that still leaves many millions of Christians as the source of division in this country. I supposed we could extend that to many corners of the world
with exception of Gaza of course.
Summary:
Politics not the problem.
Casual Christians are not the problem.
Devout Christians are the problem!
So, to the comment that "There are lots of Christians who are not homophobic, racist or divisive." your response is that those are "Casual Christians." Well thanks for wrapping this up, I don't think I can really give a response to that one.
StevensTechU wrote: Tue Sep 16, 2025 11:18 am
Someone actually wants to take on the content, not just shoot the messenger or be upset with the conclusions. At a minimum, duckpoint, I appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion and not just talk past one another.
It’s important to recognize that Charlie Kirk, an Evangelical Christian, holds faith-based views that may conflict with some modern social norms. Labeling these views as "homophobic," "racist," or "divisive" often shuts down discussion rather than engaging with his actual positions.
There are lots of Christians who are not homophobic, racist or divisive. Moreover, there are actually many that are agents of connecting people of different sexual orientations, races, and faiths. Trying to pin a criticism of Charlie Kirk to being a criticism of an entire religion is a very right-wing-playbook thing to do, but no thanks. You can be Christian and choose to be none of those things, and it saddens me if you feel differently. Among the many reasons it is not sufficient to say "well these views are rooted in his religion, so they're OK" is because the reality is that every religion feels that way. Many Christians don't see prejudice (be it misogyny, ableism, homophobia, etc.) in those that practice their religion but they easily identify it in Islam. The same can be said of Muslims seeing only what they want to see in their and other religions. Religious views have been used to burn suspected witches, enslave humans, go to war, etc. The Ku Klux Klan was a religious organization. It's not sufficient to say a view or behavior is OK because that's what their religion says is fine.
He often distinguishes between his religious convictions and what he believes government should enforce.
We're not debating Charlie Kirk the politician. We're debating whether Charlie Kirk is worthy of being honored by a public university, to which I've said no because he made a living by being divisive, creating "them" for his audiences to distrust or even be fearful of. Whether his divisive views were turned into law or not is irrelevant, it's whether we want to celebrate a person who had views incompatible with the concept of unity.
The term "homophobia" is often used to shame or silence those with differing views on sexuality. A more neutral framing would be whether Kirk "pushed views antithetical to the gay community."
A common practice in politics is to make a label untenable and to push for something softer and more palatable for their side. The content of Charlie Kirk's words are that he unfoundedly felt gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt. Whether it's intentional or not, you seem to ignore that he brings this up during a discussion in which he's talking about a situation in which a gay couple molested two adopted kids. He is very literally attempting to cause "fear, hatred, or mistrust of lesbians and gay men" - the definition of homophobia; it's the point of bringing up this news story and bringing up this view in the segment. If Charlie didn't want to attend a gay wedding that he was invited to because of his personal views, that would be "views antithetical to the gay community." But that's not what's happening - he is instead using a platform in which he reaches millions of people to push a story that aligns with his views to get other people to feel similarly. The statement that "Kirk doesn't tie this to his stance on adoption" as he talks about both is the same segment is wrong, nothing more.
Like I said, if you can't separate his religious views on the things you find offensive, then there is no open discussion to be had. Indeed there are degrees in belief among Christians, Charlie is just more devout and true to the scripture than many.
Should I conclude that according to you that all Christians that adopt a moral beliefs directly scripture are racist & anti-gay? If we set aside the millions of less devout, casual (morally flexible) Christians, that still leaves many millions of Christians as the source of division in this country. I supposed we could extend that to many corners of the world
with exception of Gaza of course.
Summary:
Politics not the problem.
Casual Christians are not the problem.
Devout Christians are the problem!
So, to the comment that "There are lots of Christians who are not homophobic, racist or divisive." your response is that those are "Casual Christians." Well thanks for wrapping this up, I don't think I can really give a response to that one.
Would you prefer Gospelphobic? lol
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2025 1:47 pm
by GDuck
StevensTechU - I believe I responded to your original post with content “trying to engage in the discussion.” Granted duckpoint did so too here and probably with more details and content than I did, but instead you never responded to my post and when I asked you about that in a previous post, you sent only me a direct message that could be seen as “shooting the messenger”.
Regarding the content of your post. A few questions and comments.
- KKK may have a religious following but they are not Christian as their beliefs and actions are antithetical to the Bible. The KKK has tried to tie themselves to religion but just because they do so to try to get people to join, doesn’t mean they are. Same can be said for the Nazis.
- I’m sure you know the religion that has driven the removal of slavery in many areas of the world right?
- Do you think George Floyd should’ve been celebrated? By public universities?
- How do you define unity? Everyone has the same religious and political views? Unity sounds good but doesn’t really mean much when used as you have.
- You mention Kirk is “using a platform in which he reaches millions of people to push a story that aligns with his views to get other people to feel similarly”. Isn’t this what public people do? Whether in politics or not. Isn’t that what you tried to do (probably not reaching millions) in the original post in the other forum? We all do this at our own micro level daily - we think we are always right and want people to feel or think similarly. Just because you don’t agree with his thinking makes it bad.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2025 7:18 am
by duckpoint
I found an interesting video that is very on point with the topic. How strange is it that the pastors sermon contains the title of this thread verbatim!?
Is pastor Wesley a duck fan and on this board?
11 mins.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2025 7:45 am
by whosyourwally
I wrote up a much longer — and probably meaner — version of the following message last night, slept on it, and decided to just cut to my point:
Duckpoint, know that there are few things I find less tolerable than a self-proclaimed expert in Christianity telling others that their interpretation of a book that is intentionally vague, contradictory, and at times, horribly violent, is THE SINGLE divine interpretation.
Take your “Should I conclude that according to you that [sic] all Christians that adopt a moral beliefs directly [from] scripture are racist & anti-gay?” question, your casual Christians pejorative, and your “Charlie is just more devout and true to the scripture than many” comment and sit on a causal….
Some of us spend years of our lives studying scripture, traveling the world to spread The Gospel, and push ourselves to regularly learn and relearn from The Word as God reveals Himself to us, and yet if we put 10 MDiv’s and DD’s in a room and post these topics, we’ll have 10 starkly different attempts at understanding and applying scripture.
A single interpretation that justifies homophobia and sexism is just that. A single take, neither more or less devout.
2 Peter 3:16. Read it today, tomorrow, and every day after.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2025 9:20 am
by duckpoint
whosyourwally wrote: Wed Sep 17, 2025 7:45 am
I wrote up a much longer — and probably meaner — version of the following message last night, slept on it, and decided to just cut to my point:
Duckpoint, know that there are few things I find less tolerable than a self-proclaimed expert in Christianity telling others that their interpretation of a book that is intentionally vague, contradictory, and at times, horribly violent, is THE SINGLE divine interpretation.
Take your “Should I conclude that according to you that [sic] all Christians that adopt a moral beliefs directly [from] scripture are racist & anti-gay?” question, your casual Christians pejorative, and your “Charlie is just more devout and true to the scripture than many” comment and sit on a causal….
Some of us spend years of our lives studying scripture, traveling the world to spread The Gospel, and push ourselves to regularly learn and relearn from The Word as God reveals Himself to us, and yet if we put 10 MDiv’s and DD’s in a room and post these topics, we’ll have 10 starkly different attempts at understanding and applying scripture.
A single interpretation that justifies homophobia and sexism is just that. A single take, neither more or less devout.
2 Peter 3:16. Read it today, tomorrow, and every day after.
FWIW, I do not profess to be an expert in anything Christian. I opened my rebuttal to STU with the simple acknowledgement that there is a difference between opinions of politics and beliefs based in faith.
It’s important to recognize that Charlie Kirk, an Evangelical Christian, holds faith-based views that may conflict with some modern social norms. Labeling these views as "homophobic," "racist," or "divisive" often shuts down discussion rather than engaging with his actual positions.
Once debate narrowed the possibilities of the hate for Charlie Kirk to his religious beliefs, it was over for me. I may have summarized that realization poorly, but the "gospelphobic" was an intended jab and joke aimed at the use of 'homophobic".
Unfortunately it seems that this has now doubled back to the political. Charlie's Christian beliefs are unacceptable to the political left and to attempt to debate that with scripture would likely fall along what is today's standard of the right/left paradigm. If you and others want to attempt to suss that out with some sort of 'Bible Battle Royal', knock yourself out.
I can simply accept that Charlie's views were derived from his faith and scripture, those views were very mainstream for Evangelical Christians, and not radical for most Christians.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2025 10:24 am
by whosyourwally
And now a moral majority argument…. Slavery was also mainstream.
Picturing Jerry Falwell and Charlie Kirk holding hands (non-romantically) in your Heaven. I’ll be a few heavens to the left of y’all.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2025 10:32 am
by StevensTechU
duckpoint wrote: Wed Sep 17, 2025 9:20 am
Once debate narrowed the possibilities of the hate for Charlie Kirk to his religious beliefs, it was over for me.
Really thought I'd be done with this thread but I don't love the insinuation of the above post.
Let's make abundantly clear who tried to make this about his religious beliefs. While I was offering you evidence of his prejudices, you created a through line to his religion in an attempt to excuse poor behavior. My reaction to that was effectively "some Christians may think that way, but not all of them do" to which you called those who don't "casual Christians." You're now saying "look what he did" when in fact you're just observing your own actions.
I'm here literally with the sole goal of getting people to rethink their biases and prejudices, part of which is not lionizing a person whose career was to create and reinforce them. It's not going to be taken well by everyone and I'm grown up enough to accept that.
duckpoint wrote: Wed Sep 17, 2025 9:20 am
Once debate narrowed the possibilities of the hate for Charlie Kirk to his religious beliefs, it was over for me.
Really thought I'd be done with this thread but I don't love the insinuation of the above post.
Let's make abundantly clear who tried to make this about his religious beliefs. While I was offering you evidence of his prejudices, you created a through line to his religion in an attempt to excuse poor behavior. My reaction to that was effectively "some Christians may think that way, but not all of them do" to which you called those who don't "casual Christians." You're now saying "look what he did" when in fact you're just observing your own actions.
I'm here literally with the sole goal of getting people to rethink their biases and prejudices, part of which is not lionizing a person whose career was to create and reinforce them. It's not going to be taken well by everyone and I'm grown up enough to accept that.
In my initial post, I clearly distinguished between Charlie Kirk's religious and political views, as I believe this separation is essential for a focused discussion. Your response, noting that "we're not debating Charlie Kirk the politician," was particularly helpful in reinforcing this distinction.
To be clear, I am not here to debate Charlie Kirk's Christian beliefs either. I understand you may not acknowledge that your arguments lose coherence when considered in the full context of the posts you linked (thank you for providing those). I also recognize that some of these points hinge on religious beliefs. I’ve already acknowledged that my use of the term "casual Christians" was poorly chosen. However, I will continue to selectively add "phobia" to certain words to misleadingly suggest that disagreement stems from fear.
I encourage others to continue the debate in the realm of Christian doctrines, but I decline to participate.
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2025 12:35 pm
by duckpoint
whosyourwally wrote: Wed Sep 17, 2025 10:24 am
And now a moral majority argument…. Slavery was also mainstream.
Picturing Jerry Falwell and Charlie Kirk holding hands (non-romantically) in your Heaven. I’ll be a few heavens to the left of y’all.
The diversity of Christian beliefs are precisely why I did not want to continue the debate in that realm. I did a poor job of bowing out. My bad!
Re: How You Die Does Not Redeem How You Lived
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2025 12:53 pm
by dd10snoop28
whosyourwally wrote: Wed Sep 17, 2025 7:45 am
I wrote up a much longer — and probably meaner — version of the following message last night, slept on it, and decided to just cut to my point:
Duckpoint, know that there are few things I find less tolerable than a self-proclaimed expert in Christianity telling others that their interpretation of a book that is intentionally vague, contradictory, and at times, horribly violent, is THE SINGLE divine interpretation.
2 Peter 3:16. Read it today, tomorrow, and every day after.
Your god truly is not worth following if his main method of revelation - which is through the Bible - is (1) intentionally vague, (2) contradictory, and (3) horribly violent.
I follow what scripture says in 2 Timothy 3:16 where the true God has clearly revealed Himself and we are able to rightly divide the Word of truth.
I'm honestly not sure what Bible you are reading, but the Scripture that i study shows that God has revleaed himself in a (1) clear manner, (2) is non-contradictory, and (3) Himself took on the violence, brutality and suffering on the cross so that He could save wretched sinners like yourself.
Some of us spend years of our lives studying scripture, traveling the world to spread The Gospel, and push ourselves to regularly learn and relearn from The Word as God reveals Himself to us, and yet if we put 10 MDiv’s and DD’s in a room and post these topics, we’ll have 10 starkly different attempts at understanding and applying scripture.
A single interpretation that justifies homophobia and sexism is just that. A single take, neither more or less devout.
2 Peter 3:16. Read it today, tomorrow, and every day after.
I have been sort of wondering also what gospel exactly was being preached if the Bible is intentionally vague and subject to each person's interpretation. That is certainly not my understanding of the Bible. I view it as God's word to Man, having only one legitimate interpretation that we are all tasked to find, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Peter said that SOME of Paul's writings are hard to understand, and then goes on to say that the effort to understand should still be made. I've never found Romans 1 to be one of those unclear passages. I think things get harder to understand when you have a personal agenda standing in the way that prevents you from following what seems obvious both in the Scriptures and also in Creation.
Some of us spend years of our lives studying scripture, traveling the world to spread The Gospel, and push ourselves to regularly learn and relearn from The Word as God reveals Himself to us, and yet if we put 10 MDiv’s and DD’s in a room and post these topics, we’ll have 10 starkly different attempts at understanding and applying scripture.
A single interpretation that justifies homophobia and sexism is just that. A single take, neither more or less devout.
2 Peter 3:16. Read it today, tomorrow, and every day after.
I have been sort of wondering also what gospel exactly was being preached if the Bible is intentionally vague and subject to each person's interpretation. That is certainly not my understanding of the Bible. I view it as God's word to Man, having only one legitimate interpretation that we are all tasked to find, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Peter said that SOME of Paul's writings are hard to understand, and then goes on to say that the effort to understand should still be made. I've never found Romans 1 to be one of those unclear passages. I think things get harder to understand when you have a personal agenda standing in the way that prevents you from following what seems obvious both in the Scriptures and also in Creation.
In Constitutional law there are two schools of thought when it comes to interpretation, the doctrines of originalism and living constitutionalism. Origionalism relies on the text and intent when it was written. Living constitutionalism allows for interpretations to change with the evolution of social norms.
Personally, I'd put myself in Originalist camp as the Constitution has built in provisions that allow for evolving over time via Constitutional conventions and amendments.
Some Christian denominations may have adopted an approach similar to living constitutionalism. This could be necessary because the Bible lacks explicit mechanisms for adapting to changing times. A brief review of historical trends suggests that attitudes within some Christian churches toward homosexuality began to shift approximately 50 years ago.
Some of us spend years of our lives studying scripture, traveling the world to spread The Gospel, and push ourselves to regularly learn and relearn from The Word as God reveals Himself to us, and yet if we put 10 MDiv’s and DD’s in a room and post these topics, we’ll have 10 starkly different attempts at understanding and applying scripture.
A single interpretation that justifies homophobia and sexism is just that. A single take, neither more or less devout.
2 Peter 3:16. Read it today, tomorrow, and every day after.
I have been sort of wondering also what gospel exactly was being preached if the Bible is intentionally vague and subject to each person's interpretation. That is certainly not my understanding of the Bible. I view it as God's word to Man, having only one legitimate interpretation that we are all tasked to find, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Peter said that SOME of Paul's writings are hard to understand, and then goes on to say that the effort to understand should still be made. I've never found Romans 1 to be one of those unclear passages. I think things get harder to understand when you have a personal agenda standing in the way that prevents you from following what seems obvious both in the Scriptures and also in Creation.
In Constitutional law there are two schools of thought when it comes to interpretation, the doctrines of originalism and living constitutionalism. Origionalism relies on the text and intent when it was written. Living constitutionalism allows for interpretations to change with the evolution of social norms.
Personally, I'd put myself in Originalist camp as the Constitution has built in provisions that allow for evolving over time via Constitutional conventions and amendments.
Some Christian denominations may have adopted an approach similar to living constitutionalism. This could be necessary because the Bible lacks explicit mechanisms for adapting to changing times. A brief review of historical trends suggests that attitudes within some Christian churches toward homosexuality began to shift approximately 50 years ago.
The constitution wasn’t written in parables. That said, we now have a Supreme Court that operates by shadow docket, so it might as well have been.
In Constitutional law there are two schools of thought when it comes to interpretation, the doctrines of originalism and living constitutionalism. Origionalism relies on the text and intent when it was written. Living constitutionalism allows for interpretations to change with the evolution of social norms.
Personally, I'd put myself in Originalist camp as the Constitution has built in provisions that allow for evolving over time via Constitutional conventions and amendments.
Some Christian denominations may have adopted an approach similar to living constitutionalism. This could be necessary because the Bible lacks explicit mechanisms for adapting to changing times. A brief review of historical trends suggests that attitudes within some Christian churches toward homosexuality began to shift approximately 50 years ago.
What you are describing is just the process of eroding meaning from any work. What is the old meaning giving way to exactly? What does 'evolution of social norms' or 'adapting to changing times' mean? Is there something new under the Sun? It just means that over time, someone who is not God is attempting to change what God said. The Bible, which was written through many authors over about a 1500-year period, is meant to counter this meaning erosion with a solid view of God's perspective and Word. It has been preserved with men's lives over many generations precisely to combat meaning erosion so that we have a compass and are not 'tossed around by every wind of doctrine'. The real question is if someone actually believes in God. He doesn't change; He is the same yesterday, today and forever. His Word also doesn't change, it will be remain after Heaven and Earth pass away.
I know it is overly simplistic to say people don't understand because they are not 'devout' enough, but you are not wrong to examine what someone is saying and conclude that they are far from God's Word. The meaning is accessible and knowable, despite attempts to say otherwise. For the unregenerate it is a stumbling block, and for believers, it is the power of God. I could quote all of 1 Cor 2 here, but I encourage you to read it again if you haven't in awhile.