Waco1947 said:
D. C. Bear said:
Waco1947 said:
Jack Bauer said:
Waco1947 said:
Robert Wilson said:
I don't agree with all of those, but I agree with most of them. All of them should easily be within the pale of acceptable public discourse.
it's not the discourse but actual content that is unacceptable
Says who - you?
Yes, I don't agree with Kirk's opinions.
You sure don't. Charlie Kirk believed that Jesus is God incarnate who was executed on a Roman cross and rose from the dead (as He said he would). When it comes down to it, that is your most important disagreement with Charlie Kirk's opinions.
You are so quick to jump you don't read. I disagree with many of Kirk's positions. The theology positions are his interpretations and not mine. Theology is not an either or position, but are both and. But you're so quick to jump but you can't pay attention to another interpretation that might be valid too. Charlie was certainly a man of faith, and I do not doubt his faith in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior. Nor do I doubt your faith but you're one of the most ungracious people on the board. I too, am a man of faith, but with different interpretations. You are not one to judge my relationship to God.
I am many things. Quick to jump is not one of them. I'm the guy who said there could be a rational case for keeping Dave Aranda after he went 3-9.
There are nuances to theology, but there are things that are "either or" and not "both and." The reason that your most important disagreement with his positions is theological is two-fold.
First, one's theological beliefs and the actions that flow from those beliefs are always the most important thing.
Second, theology drives philosophy and philosophy drives politics, so your political disagreements with him are,ultimately, based on your theology and his theology. You believe, for example, that a man can actually be a woman by virtue of his belief, that the nature of being a "man" or a "woman" is decoupled from any physical reality. In the same way, you believe that Jesus' "resurrection" is decoupled from physical reality.
The belief that God created the universe and physically became a man, died and rose from the dead in physical form has philosophical implications about the nature of reality. For you, the physical is of limited importance. You refer to a "spiritual" God who cannot intervene in the physical universe that He created out of nothing. Your belief is that Jesus is literally, physically dead and that His physical resurrection is not a historical event. The Christian view, as articulated by the testimony of eye witnesses in scripture, is that Jesus is literally, physically alive. For us who believe in Jesus, it is the central event of history. For you, it never happened. This is not subject to interpretation, it either happened or it did not.
