Charlie Kirk Shot

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Magenta said:
That is a misrepresentation which you are very good at. Looking at her resume is not the problem, it is all the added
on things like child trafficking that get attached that is the problem... lies are a problem to some, even if not to you.
Click to expand...
The name of her charity was "Romanian Angels", she worked with Romanian orphans, and she worked with the US military. These are facts.

The term "angels" has been used in several charitable organizations that have worked with orphans that were trafficked. Is this a coincidence? I don't know, but certainly something that we should investigate. Charlie Kirk might have been assassinated because he wanted the Epstein island information released. So by all means, let's see if Turning Point is no longer calling for the release of those files. That is certainly something we should pay attention to.
 
Doll said:
Well,if you "know" RA is from Arizona,the you know he should not have said he was from Australia on his profile. And when that was pointed out,he hid his profile.

Further, the rest of your advice and admonishment post is actually more fitting for ZNP.
Their insuring tabloid garbage enters this thread if all things,so to carry forth the agenda against Erika Kirk and Turning Point isn't informational!

It's sinful.
Lies,half truths,slander,defamation of character.

It's beneath us to assist the Left in such ways.
Well,at least it should be.
Click to expand...
You have been asked directly four or perhaps five times now to identify what lie and what half truth I have said. Up until this point you have ignored every single request making your comments like this, to be unsupported slander.

You are the one who is guilty of defamation of character.
 
JesusLives said:
I don't get all they hype on this subject. Sorry the guy got shot but I really never heard of him until this shooting. Not sure why some kind of sound like they want to make the guy a saint when he doesn't sound like he really deserves that particular status. Sorry he got shot no one deserves to have that happen. Prayers for the family and their loss.
Click to expand...
I never heard of the guy either. Sorry that he was killed but don't see the need to set him up as some sort of idol. Actually, I'm getting tired of constant updates about Kirk. Time to move forward in a positive direction.
 
Doll said:
In America, slander and defamation of character are prosecutable offenses. In some cases criminal. In others Civil.

It is stupid for those who commit to that agenda to defend their sin by claiming it's a strange reaction to oppose such evil committed against the target of those offenses ,a new widow whose husband was assassinated no less, if their target,Erika Kirk,has nothing to hide.
Click to expand...
You are clearly accusing me of slander and defamation of character, you are accusing me of committing a crime. So then back this up, what have I said that was slander?

These accusations of yours have never once been supported. I have asked repeatedly for you to point out what I have said that was untrue, you have ignored that. You are the one that is guilty of slander and defamation of character and you are right, it is a criminal offense.

Point out what I have said that is slander, instead of simply making your ugly reprehensible comments that you refuse to support with facts. Give me a reference to the offending post and the offending comment made by me.
 
shittim said:
I don't see this terrible wrong that you seem to believe follows you around, as you once did with myself and another member some time ago, are you sure it isn't you?
Hope your response is in line with Galatians c5- v 22&23 .
best wishes
Click to expand...
Wow. I have no idea to whom you actually intended your post.
 
Doll said:
In America, slander and defamation of character are prosecutable offenses. In some cases criminal. In others Civil.

It is stupid for those who commit to that agenda to defend their sin by claiming it's a strange reaction to oppose such evil committed against the target of those offenses ,a new widow whose husband was assassinated no less, if their target,Erika Kirk,has nothing to hide.
Click to expand...
Here is a short list, just tell us which of these things are not true

1. Erika worked for Donald Trump as a model before meeting Charlie Kirk

2. Erika was a multi millionaire before saying she wanted to go work for Turning Point

3. Erika ran a non profit called Romanian Angels that worked with Romanian orphans.

4. Erika's mother works for the DOD and Homeland security with the company she owns.

5. Erika's father was a director at Raytheon that built the iron dome for Israel.

6. Erika is a Jesuit.

7. Erika wears jewelry indicating she is a member of the Knight's of Malta.

8. Erika became the CEO of Turning Point when Charlie Kirk was assassinated.

9. Erika is considered one of the most powerful women in the US.

10. Erika is being considered as a possible VP candidate to run with JD Vance in the next presidential election.

These are ten things I have said about Erika, which of these is a lie? Which of these is untrue? You accuse me of slander and defamation of character without once stating what it is I have said that you consider to be a lie or untrue. At one point you said nothing I said was true, then you said one or two things were true, now you are calling them half truths. But never once have you said what was not true, or what was the basis of your slander and defamation of me.

And yes, it is perfectly relevant in a thread about Charlie Kirk being shot and assassinated to look at potential motives. One of which is to seize control of Turning Point. We don't know if that was the motive, but we do know this was a very powerful political organization and it is certainly a plausible explanation that should be examined. When JFK was assassinated people looked at a potential change in policy from the President as a potential motive for the assassination. It is the same reasoning when looking at Charlie Kirk being assassinated.

Your unhinged and all out assault on anyone even looking at the new CEO of Turning point tells me that this inquiry is over the target.
 
tourist said:
I never heard of the guy either. Sorry that he was killed but don't see the need to set him up as some sort of idol. Actually, I'm getting tired of constant updates about Kirk. Time to move forward in a positive direction.
Click to expand...
Then stop reading them and as you said,move on.

Some do know who he was.
 
ZNP said:
Here is a short list, just tell us which of these things are not true

1. Erika worked for Donald Trump as a model before meeting Charlie Kirk

2. Erika was a multi millionaire before saying she wanted to go work for Turning Point

3. Erika ran a non profit called Romanian Angels that worked with Romanian orphans.

4. Erika's mother works for the DOD and Homeland security with the company she owns.

5. Erika's father was a director at Raytheon that built the iron dome for Israel.

6. Erika is a Jesuit.

7. Erika wears jewelry indicating she is a member of the Knight's of Malta.

8. Erika became the CEO of Turning Point when Charlie Kirk was assassinated.

9. Erika is considered one of the most powerful women in the US.

10. Erika is being considered as a possible VP candidate to run with JD Vance in the next presidential election.

These are ten things I have said about Erika, which of these is a lie? Which of these is untrue? You accuse me of slander and defamation of character without once stating what it is I have said that you consider to be a lie or untrue. At one point you said nothing I said was true, then you said one or two things were true, now you are calling them half truths. But never once have you said what was not true, or what was the basis of your slander and defamation of me.
Click to expand...

Your issues have my deepest sympathy.
Your agenda however,is pathetic.

See,this is how it works. YOU are responsible for posting links to articles that make CLAIMS about Mrs.Kirk.

Tabloids and yellow journalism are not credible.

The onus is on you to prove the sources you are so fond of promoting,are posting credible reports.

Erika wire a cross pendant during Charlies eulogy. YOU claim she's not a Christian but a Jesuit.
PROVE IT!

YOU claim she's with TKoM. PROVE IT.

Don't carry water for yellow journalists.
 
Doll said:
Your issues have my deepest sympathy.
Your agenda however,is pathetic.

See,this is how it works. YOU are responsible for posting links to articles that make CLAIMS about Mrs.Kirk.

Tabloids and yellow journalism are not credible.

The onus is on you to prove the sources you are so fond of promoting,are posting credible reports.

Erika wire a cross pendant during Charlies eulogy. YOU claim she's not a Christian but a Jesuit.
PROVE IT!

YOU claim she's with TKoM. PROVE IT.

Don't carry water for yellow journalists.
Click to expand...
The issue for me is you joined this forum in July and now you seem to make it your mission to tell people on this site what they can and cannot discuss, what posts can and cannot be put up, and that it is completely out of bounds to look at who became the new CEO of Turning point as a result of the assassination. Nothing I have said is untrue and yet you have slandered me repeatedly, calling me a false witness guilty of the crime of defamation of character.

The onus is not on me to prove that Erika Kirk worked for Donald Trump prior to coming to Turning point unless someone actually claims that is untrue. The onus is not on me to prove her father is a director at Raytheon who built the iron dome for Israel unless someone actually claims that is untrue. I have provided evidence that she wears a very unique piece of jewelry that identifies her as a member of the Knight's of Malta. I don't need to prove she is a Jesuit and went to a Jesuit college unless someone claims that is untrue. I don't have to prove she was a multi millionaire before contacting Turning Point and saying she wanted to work for that organization unless someone argues that it is not true. I don't have to prove that she became the CEO of Turning Point when Charlie was assassinated unless someone says that is not true.

In other words once you accuse me of slander and defamation of character the onus is on you to back that up.
 
Eli1 said:
I'm not sure what you're all arguing about but remember to forgive the other as Erika did.
What matters is that your brother or sister has a few things right and you can forgive 1 or 2 things that you think are wrong.
Click to expand...

Forgiveness is boring and funerals are funny according to HeIsHere. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: PennEd and Eli1
ZNP said:
The issue for me is you joined this forum in July and now you seem to make it your mission to tell people on this site what they can and cannot discuss, what posts can and cannot be put up, and that it is completely out of bounds to look at who became the new CEO of Turning point as a result of the assassination. Nothing I have said is untrue and yet you have slandered me repeatedly, calling me a false witness guilty of the crime of defamation of character.

The onus is not on me to prove that Erika Kirk worked for Donald Trump prior to coming to Turning point unless someone actually claims that is untrue. The onus is not on me to prove her father is a director at Raytheon who built the iron dome for Israel unless someone actually claims that is untrue. I have provided evidence that she wears a very unique piece of jewelry that identifies her as a member of the Knight's of Malta. I don't need to prove she is a Jesuit and went to a Jesuit college unless someone claims that is untrue. I don't have to prove she was a multi millionaire before contacting Turning Point and saying she wanted to work for that organization unless someone argues that it is not true. I don't have to prove that she became the CEO of Turning Point when Charlie was assassinated unless someone says that is not true.

In other words once you accuse me of slander and defamation of character the onus is on you to back that up.
Click to expand...
Nice color.

Reminds me of the red letter Bible.

You posted articles dedicated to slander and defame Erika Kirk,a Christian you claim is a Jesuit and member of the Knights of Malta.

You post articles that sully her reputation and her dead husband,and Turning Point.

You got it right that this Christian finds that agenda and your being accomplice to that Satanic agenda by sharing those articles here is reprehensible for anyone claiming to know Christ.

Yes,I've been here since July. I could have joined September 9th and If still find your,not other people's, posts reprehensible.

And now,you think it's unstable for a Christian to call you out.
When,as an example,Magenta, who has been here far longer I'm sure, and says,paraphrasing,you've got a history of this kind of behavior.

Which means you're allowed to continue it

Then you think others have to prove the claims you've posted aren't true!

While ignoring the post that shows some of those lies are exactly that .

You post slander and defamation articles and think I have to prove they're slander and defamation?
While ignoring proofs other tabloid trash posted by you are lies and defamation.
That's whacked!

Call me names.
I'm not the purveyor of an agenda intending to destroy a Christian widow.
You'll continue in your pattern. That history Magenta referred to .

I won't read it.

God tells us what you are about.
 
SomeDisciple said:
Candace Owens said she would stop putting out information if Erika asked her to- and that hasn't happened so far. I find it super odd that people at Turning point tried to say Candace and CK weren't friends- and even more odd that CK's "pastor" was trying to get her to stop as well; and other "pastors" have started criticizing her reaction to this ordeal with bad arguments and poor reasoning... there certainly is a visible effort to shut down people looking for truth. As Turning point CEO, I think it will become apparent (at least to people paying attention) where Erika stands.
Click to expand...


Candice Owens has lost her flipping mind. Kirks body wasn't yet in the grave and she had Israel guilty of his murder. It's sickening. She doesn't have any special information. What conspiracy theories she drummed up were debunked by every person that attended the meeting that she herself did not attend. There is someone behind bars for shooting Kirk. If he's not the one, why is he there Candice?!
 
  • Like
Reactions: PennEd and Eli1
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back