A newly unveiled statue of the rightwing activist Charlie Kirk was vandalized at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona.
The statue was found with red spray-paint. A nearby poster memorial in front of the statue was vandalized with red paint as well.
Clip in context?
When I showed you evidence of the Iron River getting thousands of Mexicans killed under American-made guns, 30,000+ of them every year plus another 20,000+ if you count the depression, misery and poverty an environment like that causes, the cardiovascular and neurological diseases it causes on the poorest and most vulnerable, and how angry I was at that injustice, and the fact you have killed my family in the Middle East and Mexico, you kept gaslighting and then replied with this:
Why should anyone give a MAGA like you raw data? You are a piece of shit who denies reality and ignores the deaths of minorities.
https://x.com/patriottakes/status/1800678317030564306
I know, a twitter link. Throw it into yt-dlp.
Also, the line that Kirk counters Ms Rachel with may have been a mistranslation and the original text may have said something more along the lines of “Man shall not lay with a boy the same as they lay with a woman”, which is a very contentious idea among Christians. Whether that’s because it means they’re not being told to hate gay people or because they’re being told to hate statutory rapists is up to you.
It is not a mistranslation, it’s very clearly talking about same-sex intercourse. The “mistranslation” angle is being invented out of whole cloth to retcon the Bible.
I appreciate the Christians who are trying to be accepting of LGBTQ+, but IMO they should just acknowledge the Biblical authors were wrong about this instead of pretending they didn’t say what they said.
If it was just about same sex intercourse, they would have included a line about women lying with women. This was very likely more about not denigrating another man by forcing them into the role of a woman. Also, given this spent generations as oral tradition before being written down and translated several times, trying to say your particular personal interpretation is the only possible correct one is asinine at best.
I’ll have to push back there and maybe you have an argument if this was the only time it was talked about in scripture but it is not and it matches the threads of other biblical narratives.
A common thread through the Bible is that families are God’s plan for humans on this side of death. They are good to His kingdom and to promote the values of His love. Now homosexuality would directly go against that narrative so I don’t think the “man to a woman role” is a valid argument anymore. Romans 1 goes through the “homosexuality is bad” too.
Someone else said we are to say the writers of the Bible are wrong and that is a fundamental difference in ideals that we cannot overcome. I believe the Bible is the word of God and it is complete, authoritative and not up for change based on societal influences where that may not be the case for others so we would be arguing from literal difference in fundamental values. And that’s ok to do but no resolution could possibly come out of that.
Oh, so you read the bible in its original ancient Hebrew? I wasn’t aware any copies of the old testament in the original ancient hebrew survived past the end of the Mouseion. Or do you just conveniently not count all of the translations, excisions and retranslations, along with editorialising at times such as the council of Nicea as “change based on societal influences”? Or, perhaps, do you believe that God, YHWH himself, gave forth the words, in English, to produce the specific version you read?
There are literally readily available copies of the Hebrew Bible. Complete copies are available which are over 1000 years old, and individual books and fragments going back to the end of the biblical period.
But are there any remaining in the classical ancient Hebrew from before the Babylonian captivity? You know, the language that the Jewish survivors of the second temple period had to reconstruct nearly from whole cloth, because their own language had evolved orally, and the entire written language was purely contextual to determine which vowels were being used? My question is whether the bot up above was in the habit of reading a language so thoroughly dead that it might as well be fucking Minoan. When even the Jews of the second temple period had to just trust that the Septuagint was a faithful translation, that begs questions of accuracy in translation from “the word of god”.
You have a lot of misconceptions about Hebrew continuity. Also misunderstanding of when the Bible was written.
Try reading Robert Alter. Very respectable scholar, but also fairly accessible.
Doesn’t need context if he can feed the hate of those who can hear it without
Well that’s part of the problem isn’t it? If it’s just clips that cause the “hate” to be spread then the clips are the problem that’s why I am asking for the context. The full clip.