What exactly is a religion fundamentalist? He was a Christian, but what makes him a "fundamentalist"?
What exactly did he do that wasn't in good faith? All he did was talk to people respectfully and engage in open dialogue. He had no notes with him ever, and he just talked with people. And for that he got murdered.
He doesn't support the stoning of gays and that's another outright lie. He's pointing out that she can't pick and choose Bible verses because the verse just before talks about stoning gays.
He's pointing out the hypocrisy of San Francisco letting out people on bail for everything, but if they attack a Pelosi, they can't get bail.
You are the one who is acting in bad faith. People like you are the reason why he's dead. You think that because you disagree with him, it's perfectly okay to lie about him and vilify him and hope he gets killed. It's sick and needs to stop.
>He doesn't support the stoning of gays and that's another outright lie. He's pointing out that she can't pick and choose Bible verses because the verse just before talks about stoning gays.
Sure, if you ignore his exact words, the context, and his tone, you can convince yourself of that. Or anything. He says, verbatim:
> It doesn't just say love your neighbor though. It does say love your neighbor except in a sense as yourself But hold on she's not totally wrong when she says first of all The first part is deuteronomy 6 3 through 5 the second part is Leviticus 19. So you love God So you must love his law. How do you love somebody? Here we go You love them by telling them the truth not by confirming or affirming their sin and it says by the way, miss Rachel You might want to crack open that Bible of yours in a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18 is that thou shall lay with another man shall be stoned to death just saying so miss Rachel you quote Leviticus 19 love your neighbors yourself the chapter before affirms God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters.
Kirk states Leviticus 19 is "God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters." That doesn't rhetorically serve the argument you claim at all. That is his endorsement of the idea that homosexuality should be punished by death. You are deluded or lying to claim otherwise.
> He's pointing out the hypocrisy of San Francisco letting out people on bail for everything, but if they attack a Pelosi, they can't get bail.
And that's respectful, is it? Really, you think jokes like that can be characterized as respectful? And do you genuinely think men who are witnessed by the police beating an 83 year old in the head with a hammer are regularly getting bail in SF?
How about this gem? What's the ironic juxtaposition he's going for when he says this?
> They platformed a biological male who won a national championship and then was allowed in incredibly disturbing detail to be around you and your fellow competitors. And again, I blame the decline of American men. never should have been, you know, you should have, someone should have just uh took care of it the way we used to take care of things in the 1950s or 60s.
Let me guess, he's saying American men in the 50s and 60s would give trans people hot cocoa and foot massages.
Nope, clearly calling for violence.
The man put hate into the world, and per Galatians 6:7, that's what he reaped.
I quoted paragraphs of Charlie Kirk's own words. You come back with... Stephen King? What in the appeal to authority is this?
Maybe you could respond to my comment instead of link to a horror author's tweet.
You could also address the other points. Or do you think the whole advocating for the killing of guys thing is bad and needs to be weaseled out of, while the advocating for the killing of Trans people part is ok?
What exactly is a religion fundamentalist? He was a Christian, but what makes him a "fundamentalist"?
What exactly did he do that wasn't in good faith? All he did was talk to people respectfully and engage in open dialogue. He had no notes with him ever, and he just talked with people. And for that he got murdered.