Erika Kirk, political tool or ambitious opportunist?

[joluoto]

I watched the video of her speaking about Kirk's death a couple of times searching for genuine emotion and found none. Imo, she was putting on the act of a grieving widow. Allowing photos of her weeping over Kirk's body were, again only imo, staged to keep the anger hot among his followers and to keep his followers loyal to the movement that lost its leader. I'm not commenting on whether she did or didn't love him or did or didn't show some genuine emotion while draped over his casket. What I think is that she is either being used by the tRump administration to fan the flames of civil unrest or she is fanning the flames to insure she's in control of the Kirk empire. One voice is stilled and another is raised.

"The sound of this widow weeping echos throughout this world like a battle cry. I have no idea what any of this means. But baby I know you do and so does our Lord," she wrote in the post caption.

Warning Charlie's killer, without naming the accused, and the world at large, Ms Kirk added, "They have no idea what they just ignited within this wife. If they thought my husband's mission was big now..you have no idea. You. All of you. Will never. Ever. Forget my husband, Charlie. I'll make sure of it." widow

On the contrary to what she says she want them forget his name pretty soon so it can be the Erika Kirk movement.

 

[hooligan]

You people are truly disgusting.

I'm pretty sure personal attacks are a violation of the Terms of Service, which is the apparent topic of your first post in this thread.

 

[hooligan]

"Erika Kirk, political tool or ambitious opportunist?"

 

[Lursa]

Then you're agreeing with Kirk that sympathy and empathy are two different things.

That's a fact you can confirm in any dictionary and I already wrote the bold.

However, it's your omission of what Kirk said about sympathy that makes your posts ill conceived.

I omitted nothing. My focus was on his very unchristian, quoted "opinion" on empathy.

You're trying to claim that Kirk is a big old hypocrite to call himself a Christian and yet reject "empathy."

No...just pointing out his departure from the Bible and Christ's teachings on empathy. Are you trying to make an argument disputing that? If so...what is it?

But your equation only makes sense if Kirk has stated that HE thinks the empathy he rejects is the same as what he thought Christian ethics embodied.

The scriptures describe it. What expertise did Kirk bring to the table on Christ's teachings or "what Christian ethics embodied?"

He expressed his opinion rejecting empathy... Everyone is entitled to express their opinion, that doesnt mean it's valid.

And you haven't proven this; you've just asserted it because you want to make Kirk look bad.

I posted his own words. They are very clear. I assert only that. See above.

Again, I repeat the question you didn't answer: how do you KNOW he doesn't consider sympathy more applicable to the Christian ethos than empathy?

I did read the entire interview. I'm not interested in that question. I never addressed the question you are inventing out of whole cloth from my posts.

 

[Ouroboros]

That's a fact you can confirm in any dictionary and I already wrote the bold.



I omitted nothing. My focus was on his very unchristian, quoted "opinion" on empathy.



No...just pointing out his departure from the Bible and Christ's teachings on empathy. Are you trying to make an argument disputing that? If so...what is it?



The scriptures describe it. What expertise did Kirk bring to the table on Christ's teachings or "what Christian ethics embodied?"

He expressed his opinion rejecting empathy... Everyone is entitled to express their opinion, that doesnt mean it's valid.



I posted his own words. They are very clear. I assert only that. See above.



I did read the entire interview. I'm not interested in that question. I never addressed the question you are inventing out of whole cloth from my posts.

Tell me the post number and I'll read your vaunted references on what the Bible says about "empathy." But I think you're leaving out the fact that the actual word "empathy" wasn't even coined until the 20th century. So there may a word or words the Bible uses that you BELIEVE to be identical with modern "empathy," but it's not going to be the actual word because the Bible wasn't written in the 20th century (big surprise, right?)

This detail is important because the Left isn't content to take issue with Kirk's actual words-- which I don't necessarily agree with either-- but insists on adumbrating quotes and using them out of context. FYI, here's what Merriam-Webster says about the evolution and connotations of both sympathy and empathy:

Sympathy and empathy both refer to a caring response to the emotional state of another person, but a distinction between them is typically made: while sympathy is a feeling of sincere concern for someone who is experiencing something difficult or painful, empathy involves actively sharing in the emotional experience of the other person.

Sympathy has been in use since the 16th century, and its greater age is reflected in its wider breadth of meanings, including “a feeling of loyalty” and “unity or harmony in action or effect.” It comes ultimately from the Greek sympathēs, meaning “having common feelings, sympathetic,” which was formed from syn- (“with, together with”) and páthos, “experience, misfortune, emotion, condition.” Empathy was modeled on sympathy; it was coined in the early 20th century as a translation of the German Einfühlung (“feeling-in” or “feeling into”). First applied in contexts of philosophy, aesthetics, and psychology, empathy continues to have technical use in those fields that sympathy does not.

So again, the question you don't want to answer: why couldn't "sympathy," the word Kirk says he preferred in the quote, have been his key to Christian ethics rather than "empathy," which he associated with Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton?

 

[Ouroboros]

On the contrary to what she says she want them forget his name pretty soon so it can be the Erika Kirk movement.

Assumes facts not even close to being evidence.

 

[LouC]

^^^^Explains so much.

 

[Master Debator]

Tell me the post number and I'll read your vaunted references on what the Bible says about "empathy." But I think you're leaving out the fact that the actual word "empathy" wasn't even coined until the 20th century. So there may a word or words the Bible uses that you BELIEVE to be identical with modern "empathy," but it's not going to be the actual word because the Bible wasn't written in the 20th century (big surprise, right?)

This detail is important because the Left isn't content to take issue with Kirk's actual words-- which I don't necessarily agree with either-- but insists on adumbrating quotes and using them out of context. FYI, here's what Merriam-Webster says about the evolution and connotations of both sympathy and empathy:



So again, the question you don't want to answer: why couldn't "sympathy," the word Kirk says he preferred in the quote, have been his key to Christian ethics rather than "empathy," which he associated with Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton?

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me what democratic plantation forced Kirk to be scared about black pilots. What do we have wrong about poor rednecked Charlie Kirk there?

 

[Lursa]

Tell me the post number and I'll read your vaunted references on what the Bible says about "empathy." But I think you're leaving out the fact that the actual word "empathy" wasn't even coined until the 20th century. So there may a word or words the Bible uses that you BELIEVE to be identical with modern "empathy," but it's not going to be the actual word because the Bible wasn't written in the 20th century (big surprise, right?)

This detail is important because the Left isn't content to take issue with Kirk's actual words-- which I don't necessarily agree with either-- but insists on adumbrating quotes and using them out of context. FYI, here's what Merriam-Webster says about the evolution and connotations of both sympathy and empathy:



So again, the question you don't want to answer: why couldn't "sympathy," the word Kirk says he preferred in the quote, have been his key to Christian ethics rather than "empathy," which he associated with Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton?

You dont seem to get it...I'm not interested in what you want to try and parade out for an argument. I heard the interview for context. Kirk chose to explain his distinction in valuing the words/behaviors.

And it's not about 'the word,' it's about the behavior...holy shit. The same obliviousness rears its head. Many words werent in use or 'coined' until well after the Bible was written...have our emotions and behaviors changed?

Previously posted: AI:
The concept of "walking a mile in someone else's shoes" as a way to encourage empathy and understanding is found in the Bible, particularly in Jesus' teachings in Matthew 5:41, where he advises to "go with him two" miles when forced to go one mile. This principle of empathy is also reflected in Romans 12:15, which calls believers to "rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep," embodying a deep emotional connection with others' experiences.

Key Biblical Passages

• Matthew 5:41:
  .
  "And whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two". This teaching, from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, encourages a willingness to go beyond what is demanded to show extraordinary kindness and a lack of retaliation.
• Romans 12:15:
  .
  "Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep". This verse calls for believers to share in the joys and sorrows of others, demonstrating empathy and compassion, which is a form of walking in their shoes.

Clearly Kirk disagreed. Again, I'm not interested in what you want to try and parade out for an argument. If you wish to discuss his statements on empathy and mine observing it to be unchristian...feel free. That was my point. Take anything else, elsewhere.

 

[Ouroboros]

^^^^Explains so much.

That your posts are boring? No, everyone already knows that.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me what democratic plantation forced Kirk to be scared about black pilots. What do we have wrong about poor rednecked Charlie Kirk there?

Way to jump the shark.

 

[Ouroboros]

You dont seem to get it...I'm not interested in what you want to try and parade out for an argument. I heard the interview for context. Kirk chose to explain his distinction in valuing the words/behaviors.

And it's not about 'the word,' it's about the behavior...holy shit. The same obliviousness rears its head. Many words werent in use or 'coined' until well after the Bible was written...have our emotions and behaviors changed?

Previously posted: AI:
The concept of "walking a mile in someone else's shoes" as a way to encourage empathy and understanding is found in the Bible, particularly in Jesus' teachings in Matthew 5:41, where he advises to "go with him two" miles when forced to go one mile. This principle of empathy is also reflected in Romans 12:15, which calls believers to "rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep," embodying a deep emotional connection with others' experiences.

Key Biblical Passages

• Matthew 5:41:
  .
  "And whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two". This teaching, from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, encourages a willingness to go beyond what is demanded to show extraordinary kindness and a lack of retaliation.
• Romans 12:15:
  .
  "Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep". This verse calls for believers to share in the joys and sorrows of others, demonstrating empathy and compassion, which is a form of walking in their shoes.

Clearly Kirk disagreed. Again, I'm not interested in what you want to try and parade out for an argument. If you wish to discuss his statements on empathy and mine observing it to be unchristian...feel free. That was my point. Take anything else, elsewhere.

And as I expected, you tailored your concept of empathy to fit what you already believed about Kirk, not because you found a point of contradiction. There's nothing about those verses that fits empathy more than sympathy; you just want to believe Kirk a hypocrite to bag on him. If the same thing was done to some figure you admired, you'd be first in line to say. "You took the quote out of context and left out all this stuff." Yes, I can well believe you're not "interested" in defending your statements.

 

[Lursa]

And as I expected, you tailored your concept of empathy to fit what you already believed about Kirk, not because you found a point of contradiction. There's nothing about those verses that fits empathy more than sympathy; you just want to believe Kirk a hypocrite to bag on him. If the same thing was done to some figure you admired, you'd be first in line to say. "You took the quote out of context and left out all this stuff." Yes, I can well believe you're not "interested" in defending your statements.

You should try applying your own words to yourself...for me and for Kirk:

Then oppose him on what he actually said, not some exaggerated nonsense.

Keep your "exaggerated nonsense" to yourself or present it to others...I'm not interested. I never said he was a hypocrite<<<more nonsense you made up to try and flog an argument you're inventing. The "concept of empathy" I'm referring to is exactly Kirk's own words. Not that I agree.

 

[Ouroboros]

You should try applying your own words to yourself...for me and for Kirk:



Keep your "exaggerated nonsense" to yourself or present it to others...I'm not interested. I never said he was a hypocrite<<<more nonsense you made up to try and flog an argument you're inventing. The "concept of empathy" I'm referring to is exactly Kirk's own words. Not that I agree.

You implied hypocrisy when you made post 229. You wrote:

Hard for some Christians to accept when another "Christian" says things like: the word "empathy" is "woke" and said it's "a made-up, new-age term that does a lot of damage"

What Christian would ever even think that?

I don't care that you didn't use the word "hypocrisy." You can pick any word you like to describe your attack on Kirk. But you said that Kirk's not a genuine Christian because you didn't like his comment on "empathy." That signals a disconnect between what you think Kirk was and what a Christian is or must be. I'm pointing out that the very source from which you took the comment on empathy is more complex than you're pretending. I haven't flogged anything; that's all you, making up a demerit against Kirk based on incomplete evidence. At least, after Stephen King did much the same, claiming (as others here also have) that Kirk called for the stoning of gays, King recanted his sloppy reading. But yeah, there's no reason to continue putting you under the microscope. Go ahead and repeat your "defense" if you like. As long as you render no insults, I'll leave you be as requested.

 

[Lursa]

You implied hypocrisy when you made post 229. You wrote:




I don't care that you didn't use the word "hypocrisy." You can pick any word you like to describe your attack on Kirk. But you said that Kirk's not a genuine Christian because you didn't like his comment on "empathy." That signals a disconnect between what you think Kirk was and what a Christian is or must be. I'm pointing out that the very source from which you took the comment on empathy is more complex than you're pretending. I haven't flogged anything; that's all you, making up a demerit against Kirk based on incomplete evidence. At least, after Stephen King did much the same, claiming (as others here also have) that Kirk called for the stoning of gays, King recanted his sloppy reading. But yeah, there's no reason to continue putting you under the microscope. Go ahead and repeat your "defense" if you like. As long as you render no insults, I'll leave you be as requested.

Keep your "exaggerated nonsense" to yourself or present it to others...I'm not interested. I never said he was a hypocrite<<<more nonsense you made up to try and flog an argument you're inventing. The "concept of empathy" I'm referring to is exactly Kirk's own words. Not that I agree.

 

[LouC]

That your posts are boring? No, everyone already knows that.

 

[Ouroboros]

Copycats never prosper.

Except for MSM anchors, of course, but you're probably not such.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

At the memorial service for her murdered husband the widow people here have called a "tool" and "opportunist" publically forgave the killer.

“I forgive him because it was what Christ did and it is what Charlie would do,” Erika Kirk, 36, said to a standing ovation at Glendale, Arizona. “The answer to hate is not hate. The answer we know from the Gospel is love.”

Charlie Kirk's widow forgives shooting suspect: 'It is what Charlie would do'

“I forgive him because it was what Christ did and it is what Charlie would do,” Erika Kirk, 36, told the crowd of mourners in Arizona.

www.usatoday.com

That is an example of a heart that chooses love.

This thread has many actual examples of opportunistic statements made by tools who hate.

Quite the contrast.