@Typo-MAGAshiv very likely. The story has happened more than once before, though I do notice that there is an even more aggressive push to normalize the idea of marriage to a woman with a promiscuous past. That is not a new thing, but the push has not relented and the motivation is very clear to try and convince men that marrying a such a woman is not only fine, but exemplary of being a good Christian.

I am all for the preaching of forgiveness and redemption. That is indeed the point of Christianity. But no man is under any obligation to marry woman with a promiscuous past. They may not say it explicitly, but the messaging is not without the underlying motivation of trying to shame men into accepting marriage with women they normally avoid when it comes to marriage prospects.

I don't simply look at what is said, but also the implications of the messaging. I do not approve of those underhanded tactics, and Jesus himself did not teach that you need marriage to follow him. In fact he spoke out against it when it did not have proper foundation. Granted, that was specifically against the idea of frivolous divorce, but the point he made after was that there were people not married that were furthering his kingdom. So I see no issue with men choosing not to marry a woman with a past.

@Vermillion-Rx I'm about to go to sleep, so I'll try to keep this short so I can look over some other stuff

He's partly right, concerning forgiveness.

Here's where he's wrong:

1) if someone hasn't wronged you, there's nothing for you to forgive. A known thief who has stolen from multiple people but not from you isn't really eligible for your forgiveness.

2) you can choose to overlook someone's promiscuous past, but it certainly isn't a moral obligation to do so. In fact, it's quite foolish to do so. It would be like trusting that thief from my example in #1 with a hefty sum of your money.

I predict he's going to learn the hard way in a few years, if this isn't just rage bait, engagement bait, whatever.

Tag @lurkerhasarisen @houseoftolstoy this thread gives me deja-vu; didn't I engage one or both of you in something similar a few years ago at the WAATGM subreddit?

@houseoftolstoy

Regarding Charlie Kirk, I had a very cautious opinion on him. My impression of him being such a prominent figure in right wing politics was the equivalent of the high school quarterback who just so happened to be the son of the team's coach. That is, I am not entirely sure that he got such prominence based solely on his merits. And it might be the case that the son of the coach shows some competency and plays well as the quarterback. And I could say the same about Charlie Kirk, as he certainly seemed to maintain relevance, even if it might have been manufactured initially.

The reactions of many on the left in various social media platforms is no surprise either. There were plenty of gleeful posts that are glad he is dead, though it comes off as far more spiteful since he was murdered at a very young age rather than someone who died old and with health problems, such as Rush Limbaugh. I know there were voices on the left that spoke out against him being killed and condemned anyone taking joy in his death, though we cannot know for sure whether or not this is geniune or simply performative. From a public eye standpoint, it makes sense to condemn violent extremism regardless of your personal feelings. And in a way, even if you are just putting on a performance, it does show you to be truly different from those who publicly celebrate his death.

Charlie Kirk was by no means extreme in his viewpoints, regardless of what is said about him from those on the left. For many of them, anyone moderately right wing is considered a hard core right wing extremist. So I do not think that they will be convinced that Charlie Kirk being killed will bring about an even further right wing figure. Because they are all Evil Fascist Nazi's in their eyes.

RIP Charlie Kirk

Regarding Charlie Kirk, I had a very cautious opinion on him. My impression of him being such a prominent figure in right wing politics was the equivalent of the high school quarterback who just so happened to be the son of the team's coach. That is, I am not entirely sure that he got such prominence based solely on his merits. And it might be the case that the son of the coach shows some competency and plays well as the quarterback. And I could say the same about Charlie Kirk, as he certainly seemed to maintain relevance, even if it might have been manufactured initially.

The reactions of many on the left in various social media platforms is no surprise either. There were plenty of gleeful posts that are glad he is dead, though it comes off as far more spiteful since he was murdered at a very young age rather than someone who died old and with health problems, such as Rush Limbaugh. I know there were voices on the left that spoke out against him being killed and condemned anyone taking joy in his death, though we cannot know for sure whether or not this is geniune or simply performative. From a public eye standpoint, it makes sense to condemn violent extremism regardless of your personal feelings. And in a way, even if you are just putting on a performance, it does show you to be truly different from those who publicly celebrate his death.

Charlie Kirk was by no means extreme in his viewpoints, regardless of what is said about him from those on the left. For many of them, anyone moderately right wing is considered a hard core right wing extremist. So I do not think that they will be convinced that Charlie Kirk being killed will bring about an even further right wing figure. Because they are all Evil Fascist Nazi's in their eyes.

RIP Charlie Kirk