Charlie Kirk and his journey home

[oldiesman]

The following information came to me in an email and thought some of us may want to think about and discuss it.     I can tell you from personal experience in TWI that I didn't think as highly of Mary the mother of Jesus as I should have.   Maybe you feel the same way I do, but now I regret that.    The links are not clickable here but let me know if you want me to post them.   Thank you.

 

Charlie Kirk and the Journey Home--Both Christine Niles of Stella Maris Media and Raymond Arroyo of Fox News (38:01) and EWTN are reporting that, in the last few months of his life, Charlie Kirk and his wife had been attending Mass at Saint Bernadette Parish in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Kirk, the Founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, was raised Presbyterian, and had long identified as an Evangelical.

In July, he surprised many of his followers when he said the solution to toxic feminism was the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Kirk said that "I think we as Protestants and Evangelicals under-venerate Mary. She was very important. She was a vessel for our Lord and Savior....We don't talk about Mary enough. We don't venerate her enough. Mary was clearly important to early Christians."

The cruel, savage and premeditated murder of Charlie Kirk may well have been demonic in origin. Let us hope and pray that Charlie Kirk attained the eternal destiny which he was seeking, and let us pray for his wife and children, who have suffered a grievous and inconsolable loss.
 

[oldiesman]

Oops I guess the links are working... 

[waysider]

[Human without the bean]

They are now.

[Raf]

Out of respect:

You posted this in atheism. You do NOT want to know what I think of Charlie Kirk.

So I will move it and I will ask that we refrain from referring to the killer's motive as "demonic," which (under the umbrella of the atheism forum) is a lazy scapegoating that robs a homicidal a-hole of responsibility for his despicable act.

And I will ask that we refrain from politics, which is impossible in a conversation about Charlie Kirk (which is why I feel compelled to change the name of the thread).

So henceforth, this thread is narrowed to the following:

Quote

Kirk said that "I think we as Protestants and Evangelicals under-venerate Mary. She was very important. She was a vessel for our Lord and Savior....We don't talk about Mary enough. We don't venerate her enough. Mary was clearly important to early Christians."
 

Do we agree? [moving to doctrinal).

[waysider]

This seems rather disingenuous and hypocritical, coming from someone who was known to be an outspoken misogynist. One might even suspect he was pandering.

Is that too far off topic? Remove if necessary.

[oldiesman]

2 hours ago, Raf said:

Out of respect:

You posted this in atheism. You do NOT want to know what I think of Charlie Kirk.

So I will move it and I will ask that we refrain from referring to the killer's motive as "demonic," which (under the umbrella of the atheism forum) is a lazy scapegoating that robs a homicidal a-hole of responsibility for his despicable act.

And I will ask that we refrain from politics, which is impossible in a conversation about Charlie Kirk (which is why I feel compelled to change the name of the thread).

So henceforth, this thread is narrowed to the following:

Do we agree? [moving to doctrinal).

Raf please do what you feel is best.     My sole reason for this post was to discuss Mary the Mother of Jesus and what Kirk said about Christians not venerating her enough.   If he was right then we, whoever wants to, may do good to give it some appreciable thought...thx

[waysider]

1 hour ago, oldiesman said:

 My sole reason for this post was to discuss Mary the Mother of Jesus and what Kirk said about Christians not venerating her enough.

Will that work?

[WordWolf]

(Yes, I think it was crazy to post this in the sub forum in which it started. That was just BEGGING for a flame post...which would have been on subject for the sub forum. 

 

I think there is a False Dilemma at work, and I am going to identify it. 

 

Mrs Wolf has suggested to me previously (with merit, I believe) that Mary veneration, at least the modern type and much of what led to it, springs from the practice of Christianity being an Old Boys Club.   Women can easily feel left out of things, and Mary veneration helps address that. 

My problem is that I feel that the usual methods of addressing that would be veneration of Mary (prayers to her, etc.)  or veneration of female saints (prayers to them, etc.), and I find EITHER to be doctrinal error, at best. 

I think we may agree on the problem but not with the solution. I find Mary veneration to be a lazy solution to a deeper problem, one that calls for answers that are doctrinally sound while still addressing the problem. 

It seems ridiculous to have to say it, but Christianity needs women, and Christianity has room for women, and there is a lot for women there, both to offer them and for them to do, if action is the goal.  

We do not need to address that by embracing error.  

(I'm not aiming this at any posters here, just at the doctrine. Please try not to see offense in it. If I've offended in passing, I'm sorry.) 

[oldiesman]

11 hours ago, waysider said:

Will that work?

I didn't believe in striking the guy's name since it was his idea in the first place, but whatever Raf wants to do with this thread is fine by me.    

[oldiesman]

3 hours ago, WordWolf said:

(Yes, I think it was crazy to post this in the sub forum in which it started. That was just BEGGING for a flame post...which would have been on subject for the sub forum. 

 

I think there is a False Dilemma at work, and I am going to identify it. 

 

Mrs Wolf has suggested to me previously (with merit, I believe) that Mary veneration, at least the modern type and much of what led to it, springs from the practice of Christianity being an Old Boys Club.   Women can easily feel left out of things, and Mary veneration helps address that. 

My problem is that I feel that the usual methods of addressing that would be veneration of Mary (prayers to her, etc.)  or veneration of female saints (prayers to them, etc.), and I find EITHER to be doctrinal error, at best. 

I think we may agree on the problem but not with the solution. I find Mary veneration to be a lazy solution to a deeper problem, one that calls for answers that are doctrinally sound while still addressing the problem. 

It seems ridiculous to have to say it, but Christianity needs women, and Christianity has room for women, and there is a lot for women there, both to offer them and for them to do, if action is the goal.  

We do not need to address that by embracing error.  

(I'm not aiming this at any posters here, just at the doctrine. Please try not to see offense in it. If I've offended in passing, I'm sorry.) 

Thank you WordWolf.   Please explain what the error in doctrine is.    If you like, please post what iAsk says what Mary veneration actually is, so we may proceed with the same frame of reference.  Thx.