> “Charlie Kirk was someone who encouraged everyone to love others,” Bulso responded.
Except I recall him endorsing the stoning to death of gay people as “God’s perfect law.”
Except I recall him endorsing the stoning to death of gay people as “God’s perfect law.”
In the Netherlands we've learned that you don't have to respect people but you do have to tolerate them because the alternative is a never ending civil war. It comes with having a diverse society of various cultural and religious backgrounds.
What are the limits of your non-tolerance with regards to someone who is limited to hating you and expressing verbal approval of legal but extreme punishment for people like you?
Answering that question is necessary in order to know if you, and the person you replied to, have the same understanding of the word "tolerance".
For the record, the kind of people who hate you are easily criticized unless they are assassinated, after that they become more or less impervious to criticism.
I don't want harm to befall anyone, but some people genuinely just want to hurt others. That's not tolerable.
Go troll somewhere else.
"Strike first" is the other name of preemptive war - the most fundamental principle of those you desire to strike... Are you really different?
> but some people genuinely just want to hurt others.
If you look closely you may find yourself among them.
> Go troll somewhere else.
Another projection - the troll preemptively yelling "catch the troll".
If you could escape your obsession with extreme violence and converse like a normal person, you'd find out that there are a lot better ways to deal with dumb ideas. Alas, not today.
Kirk was being criticised by Ms. Rachel, who used a section of Leviticus ("love thy neighbour") to push back on Kirk's assertion of homosexuality as a sin. Kirk's response to Ms. Rachel was that merely a few sections later, the same Leviticus says that gays should be stoned to death.
That's a way for him to win an argument over the Bible's view on homosexuality, not a way for him to endorse the notion that gays should be stoned to death.
(And most importantly, literalists assert that that laws of Leviticus were repealed by Jesus, so even if he were a literalist Christian, the straightforward interpretation is that he does not endorse stoning gays, since Jesus repealed that law)
I am afraid that people toting this canard are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture, and Moses' role in leading the Israelites at that point in time.
For the Israelites, and the Jews living in Israel, Moses' law was the law of the land, the law ordained by God. It wasn't vigilante justice or extrajudicial killing. It wasn't no angry mob picking up rocks to stone someone they didn't like.
The stoning of guilty parties that was prescribed, was a state-level execution. It would be the same as any criminal who undergoes arrest, trial by peers, conviction and sentencing.
So if Kirk was saying that God's law prescribed some sentence for some offense, I hope that we can agree that Kirk wasn't encouraging gun-toting vigilantes to go out lynching people in the night without due process or without actual legislation.
Furthermore, we also need to consider the context of these citations in the course of a debate process. Kirk was not a deranged pastor shouting for violence from his bully pulpit. Indeed, many of the debates found him confronting students who were deranged or deluded in many ways, and Kirk would never shy away from meeting them where they were at.
I am afraid that people are seriously misinformed about the nature of Sacred Scripture.
It's an open-ended justification for lots of horrible things.
Everybody deserves the right to worship as they see fit. The problem is that the overly enthusiastic adherents want to force everybody to live under their interpretation of the texts.
Failing to recognize this is either willful ignorance or duplicity.
Or are you suggest that he was being deliberately obtuse and cryptic?