Charlie Kirk Shot

[ohio jones]

Right. He could have made his point without using the words "brother in Christ" or "fellow believer" -- and also without casting doubt about his status before God.

[temporal1]

But that doesn't mean it's not confusing when some of these people promoted political hatreds and agendas. I don't think that's a good thing to do at a funeral, and it was really confusing in a Christian-themed funeral. Really, I think that kind of thing is inappropriate at any funeral, and dishonors the person who died.

To me, saying that is not a "posthumous attack" on Charlie Kirk.

I would not have done what they did, but I can't decide for others. They have free will and the right to choose for themselves. There was several speakers I wished they did not have. I did like I do at other funerals of people of other denominations, I glean the good and ignore the parts I do not like. I still feel for the family and try to console them. Their grief is more important then my petty ideology. Funerals should not be a place to push ideology, for them or for me. If they do it, I should not commit the same infraction and do the same.

i’m sad to see many attacks on Erika Kirk, including unrestrained personal attacks and speculation.
This is predictable in present airwaves and social media.

Every time i see her mentioned, i wonder about the children.
i wonder if this is anything CK would have wanted? i can’t imagine it.

i’d like to see the newly bereaved protected from cameras+mics.
people are in shock, not in their right minds, the humane thing is to protect from those kinds of (assaults, really).
it happens with every disaster, large or small. for instance, house fires, floods, everything. Cameras. Mics.

Nickel Mines got it right. The humane choice.

[Bootstrap]

The word "attack" is incredibly flexible.

Applied to our heroes, it is often a synonym for "disagree with". It's outrageous that they would disagree with our heroes. Applied to our enemies, it is a simple impossibility, nothing we do to them can be considered an "attack". The very fact that they consider it an attack reminds us that they deserve no sympathy. It's outrageous for them to say that.

I hope it's possible to say that we disagree with Charlie Kirk in important ways. Especially when it comes to the relationship between the Kingdom of God and political movements. If we cannot do that, we might as well give up on Anabaptism completely.

[mike]

The word "attack" is incredibly flexible.

Applied to our heroes, it is often a synonym for "disagree with". It's outrageous that they would disagree with our heroes. Applied to our enemies, it is a simple impossibility, nothing we do to them can be considered an "attack". The very fact that they consider it an attack reminds us that they deserve no sympathy. It's outrageous for them to say that.

I hope it's possible to say that we disagree with Charlie Kirk in important ways. Especially when it comes to the relationship between the Kingdom of God and political movements. If we cannot do that, we might as well give up on Anabaptism completely.

This of course is precisely the way conservative Anabaptists feel about a wide range of issues that differentiate them from liberal Anabaptists and other Christians. If we can't draw some clear lines of differentiation, then what are we even doing?

[Bootstrap]

The word "attack" is incredibly flexible.

Applied to our heroes, it is often a synonym for "disagree with". It's outrageous that they would disagree with our heroes. Applied to our enemies, it is a simple impossibility, nothing we do to them can be considered an "attack". The very fact that they consider it an attack reminds us that they deserve no sympathy. It's outrageous for them to say that.

I hope it's possible to say that we disagree with Charlie Kirk in important ways. Especially when it comes to the relationship between the Kingdom of God and political movements. If we cannot do that, we might as well give up on Anabaptism completely.

This of course is precisely the way conservative Anabaptists feel about a wide range of issues that differentiate them from liberal Anabaptists and other Christians. If we can't draw some clear lines of differentiation, then what are we even doing?

What does "This" refer to at the start of that sentence? I assume you are not saying conservative Anabaptists use the word "attack" the way I described.

[ken_sylvania]

The word "attack" is incredibly flexible.

Applied to our heroes, it is often a synonym for "disagree with". It's outrageous that they would disagree with our heroes. Applied to our enemies, it is a simple impossibility, nothing we do to them can be considered an "attack". The very fact that they consider it an attack reminds us that they deserve no sympathy. It's outrageous for them to say that.

I hope it's possible to say that we disagree with Charlie Kirk in important ways. Especially when it comes to the relationship between the Kingdom of God and political movements. If we cannot do that, we might as well give up on Anabaptism completely.

This of course is precisely the way conservative Anabaptists feel about a wide range of issues that differentiate them from liberal Anabaptists and other Christians. If we can't draw some clear lines of differentiation, then what are we even doing?

What does "This" refer to at the start of that sentence? I assume you are not saying conservative Anabaptists use the word "attack" the way I described.

In context it appears to refer to

I hope it's possible to say that we disagree with Charlie Kirk in important ways. Especially when it comes to the relationship between the Kingdom of God and political movements. If we cannot do that, we might as well give up on Anabaptism completely.

[mike]

The word "attack" is incredibly flexible.

Applied to our heroes, it is often a synonym for "disagree with". It's outrageous that they would disagree with our heroes. Applied to our enemies, it is a simple impossibility, nothing we do to them can be considered an "attack". The very fact that they consider it an attack reminds us that they deserve no sympathy. It's outrageous for them to say that.

I hope it's possible to say that we disagree with Charlie Kirk in important ways. Especially when it comes to the relationship between the Kingdom of God and political movements. If we cannot do that, we might as well give up on Anabaptism completely.

This of course is precisely the way conservative Anabaptists feel about a wide range of issues that differentiate them from liberal Anabaptists and other Christians. If we can't draw some clear lines of differentiation, then what are we even doing?

What does "This" refer to at the start of that sentence?

The ability to say "we disagree with x in important ways."

[Bootstrap]

What does "This" refer to at the start of that sentence?

The ability to say "we disagree with x in important ways."

Thanks.

I agree - that's important. And I think we should assume it's OK to disagree and that we may still disagree at the end of a long thread. But also that we can learn from each other in the process.

In this thread, I suspect that my view of Charlie Kirk and yours are more similar than different. I also suspect that some people have much stronger feelings about Charlie Kirk than I do. He is not a big part of my thought world.

[mike]

The word "attack" is incredibly flexible.

Applied to our heroes, it is often a synonym for "disagree with". It's outrageous that they would disagree with our heroes. Applied to our enemies, it is a simple impossibility, nothing we do to them can be considered an "attack". The very fact that they consider it an attack reminds us that they deserve no sympathy. It's outrageous for them to say that.

I also like what you say about the word 'attack.' When someone doesn't like your viewpoint, it's easier to characterize your view as an 'attack' than to counter it with a logical argument or to simply give the dissenting view the respect it deserves.

I've seen people with a lot of wisdom express an opinion only to be told by others that they said it in an unkind way, or in other words was an 'attack.' And I've seen such a person have to apologize for their tone and so forth, and have their valid opinion completely lost in the whole discussion.

[mike]

What does "This" refer to at the start of that sentence?

The ability to say "we disagree with x in important ways."

Thanks.

I agree - that's important. And I think we should assume it's OK to disagree and that we may still disagree at the end of a long thread. But also that we can learn from each other in the process.

In this thread, I suspect that my view of Charlie Kirk and yours are more similar than different. I also suspect that some people have much stronger feelings about Charlie Kirk than I do. He is not a big part of my thought world.

Yes I think we probably agree largely on that one. I almost never heard the name before he was killed, but overnight it became a household name. My reactions to his death are probably more reactions to reactions than they are reactions to the event.