> If he says "God's perfect law" demands killing gay people
He did not say that.
Again, Christians do not follow Leviticus. I'm not a Christian, but I just looked this up:
> Mainstream Christian theology holds that Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection fulfilled the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Leviticus laws, making them no longer obligatory for believers, while the moral principles are reaffirmed and expanded in the New Testament under what is often called the "law of Christ."
You seem to think Charlie wants to stone gays because he's a Christian, and you're assuming that Christianity believes in stoning gays. But that last part is false. Christ revised the old testament. Charlie's making a point that you can't just take Leviticus at face value, and interpret its passages out of context from the new testament.
You're now interpreting Charlie's point to mean the opposite of what he meant. You're assuming that he actually wants to stone gays, because he's pointing out that the old testament talks about it, and because you don't understand Christianity.
Full clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CceJpiUPgPU
Again, I'm not a Christian, and I myself appreciate gayness. But we have to stop taking clips out of context and framing people as evil to justify political violence.
>> If he says "God's perfect law" demands killing gay people
>He did not say that.
Is this some parallel universe thing where you and I experience completely different versions of Charlie Kirk? Because in my universe, the YouTube link you posted has him saying exactly that:
"In a lesser referenced part of the same part of scripture is in Leviticus 18 is that thou shalt lay with another man shall be stoned to death. Just saying. So, Miss Rachel, you quote Leviticus 19, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' the chapter before affirms God's perfect law when it comes to sexual matters."
I seriously have to wonder if you are actually watching the stuff you're telling me to watch, or you're just parroting something you've read somewhere.
What exactly do you think he meant here? I can't come up with any "opposite" that even remotely fits with what he said. My interpretation: God says gay people should be killed. You can't love God and deny any part of God's law. "So you love God. So, you must love his law." How else can that possibly be interpreted?
I was raised Christian and I was Christian for a long time. "Christians do not follow Leviticus" not correct. Some do not. Many do, or at least follow parts of it. Pretty much all of Christianity is an exercise in deciding which parts of the Bible are meant to be followed and which are meant to be interesting stories or history. And there is no universal agreement about which parts are which. The idea that homosexuality is a sin is extremely mainstream Christian belief, and Jesus said exactly zero on that subject.
In that clip, Kirk makes it very clear that he thinks Christians must love God and must love their neighbor, by way of Deuteronomy and Leviticus. He says that you love people by telling them the truth, and he says the truth is that the Bible says gay people must be killed, in the chapter right before where it says that you must love your neighbor.
If he doesn't follow Leviticus, why is he taking "Love your neighbor" from it? Why is he describing it as "God's perfect law"? Is that meant to be sarcastic?
> What exactly do you think he meant here? I can't come up with any "opposite" that even remotely fits with what he said. My interpretation: God says gay people should be killed. You can't love God and deny any part of God's law. "So you love God. So, you must love his law." How else can that possibly be interpreted?
You're leaving out the context of Ms Rachel. Charlie is saying everything in response to her.
Let me go into extra detail here to explain what I think he meant:
"Ms Rachel is saying that she acts like this because God said 'Love your Neighbor,' and is acting as if that law is so important that we should always adopt the preferred pronouns of people around us. However, the best way to love your neighbor is to tell them the truth, and tell them what sex they are, rather than upholding their preferred pronouns, which I see as untrue to their sex. Secondly, one should not take these Mosaic laws from Leviticus as literal rules for modern day Christians to follow. Christ + his Apostles said that these Mosaic laws were applicable to the Jews (the direct descendents of Israel) in a covenant between them and God, which were only necessary before he arrived as Messiah, and now that he is there, he is fulfilling that covenant for all people, and the gentiles who convert to Christianity do not need to follow the Mosaic laws literally, but rather follow their moral intent as he teaches. Thus, if Ms Rachel really wants to take these laws so literally... she should look in the previous chapter where it says that gays should be stoned to death. I don't think that she would agree with stoning gays to death. So it's hypocritical of her to take these laws so literally."
----
Christian Context (from AI):
After Jesus’ resurrection, the early church—initially Jewish—grappled with whether Gentile (non-Jewish) converts needed to follow the Mosaic Law. This led to the pivotal Jerusalem Council (Acts 15, ~50 CE), where apostles like Peter and Paul decided:
- Gentiles were not required to follow Levitical laws like circumcision or kosher diets.
- They were asked to follow basic moral guidelines (e.g., avoiding idolatry, sexual immorality) to maintain fellowship with Jewish Christians.
Paul’s letters further clarify this shift:
- In Galatians 3:23-25, he describes the law as a “guardian” until Christ came, after which faith in Jesus supersedes the law’s role.
- In Romans 10:4, he says Christ is the “culmination of the law” for those who believe.
- However, moral principles (e.g., loving your neighbor, Leviticus 19:18) remain binding, as they’re reaffirmed in the New Testament (Romans 13:8-10).
----
^ So that's why "Love your neighbor" is still valid in Christianity, but stoning gays is not. This was decided in the Jerusalem Council, which all modern Christian sects inherit from. Charlie was using "stoning gays" as an example of something modern Christians do NOT believe in, even though it was a law of Moses, and is written in Leviticus.
Please don't quote AI at me. If I want to read the output of a bullshit machine, I can do it myself.
One thing I didn't mention before is that it's really bizarre that Kirk cites Leviticus for "love your neighbor." It's true that Leviticus says this, but that's not what most Christians are going to think of when they think of that phrase. "Love your neighbor" is typically associated with Jesus. Jesus said nothing about gay people but he was very clear on loving your neighbor. Three of the four gospels have him saying that this is the second greatest commandment, behind loving God. This is not just one of hundreds of specific rules that got thrown away when the Messiah came. This is one of the two most fundamental rules in the religion, explicitly affirmed by that Messiah.
So it makes zero sense from a Christian perspective to say that "love your neighbor" is not to be taken literally because it's tucked in there next to the "kill gay people" law and all that stuff is just for Jews. And it makes zero sense to assume that "love your neighbor" is a reference to the old Mosaic laws rather than a reference to the literal words of the Son of God.
Your interpretation basically requires us to take everything Kirk said here as sarcastic. And I don't see the justification for that. It's not like "God's perfect law" is a phrase he's throwing back at her. If she had said "God's perfect law from Leviticus commands us to love our neighbor" then I could buy it, but she didn't.
So what's your reasoning for this interpretation? It seems to rest on the idea that Christians ignore Leviticus, so he can't have meant it seriously. But that's just not true in general. Christians typically follow some of those laws and ignore others, more or less arbitrarily (or more accurately, in a way that fits their beliefs about what's right and wrong). If you look up Christian writings about homosexuality, you will find many Christians citing Leviticus on this subject.
The justification for taking Kirk to mean the opposite of his literal words here seems to boil down to, he can't have actually meant that he believes this passage from his holy book, because if he did then that would mean he's a bad person, and implying that Kirk is a bad person leads to political violence.
> Your interpretation basically requires us to take everything Kirk said here as sarcastic.
Yeah. When he said "Just sayin'", that was his cue for sarcasm.
Is this a thing with him or are you guessing?