Oh Jesus he is cooked
-
So what is the response?
I feel like these clips are great. But if he makes a great point after, isn’t it setting a trap where you share this and the response is his rebuttal which could be good or badAs the other person said he ends up saying he still doesn’t like it but there is still a challenge. The reason Charlie says it’s reaffirmed in Mathew about the gays is because everything the student brings up is the old testament and Jesus already died to erase those sins.
Bringing up Leviticus trying to make a point doesn’t work if you believe in the new testament. -
watched the video here:
Youtube VideoKirk actually has a good point in that those lines are from the old testament, which Christians believe doesn’t apply, and only believe in the new testament. Assuming Kirk is right that it isn’t in the new testament ( the Cambridge speaker doesn’t contest it either, for whatever that is worth). From the the student then pivots to talking about a new testament description along the lines of: Man shall not sleep with man, which he says can be interpreted differently than man and man and could be man and prostitute. Kirk contends that the traditions and interpretations were created during the time that the writings were created, and so there is no loss of translation then, and those understandings have been passed down until down consistently. I will say, i’ve summised this, but it is a lot more of a meandering argument afterwards that is not very interesting to watch.
I feel like the cambridge student shouldn’t have even brought up the lines in videos above because it doesn’t completely apply to Kirk’s religious beliefs. The student studied the bible decently enough to make his point, but it seemed he needed additional context of Kirk’s beliefs to make a strong point against Kirk.
It’s not really a good point, it’s just classic cherrypicking. Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” so clearly the old testament law should still apply. Christians are just faced with the reality that they could not live their life in accordance with old testament law in todays age, and have therefore chosen to ignore laws from the old testament.
-
That “if a man sleeps with another man and they shall be stoned” (not a native English) verse is wrongly translated iirc. In old Hebrew there is a word that specifically means “man who is not yet an adult” - and back then you were an adult with 14 I think.
It was never about being gay is sinful, it was about molesting children being a sin.
-
Well hell, they don’t like that rule at all
Right? No wonder they all make it about The Gays.
-
As the other person said he ends up saying he still doesn’t like it but there is still a challenge. The reason Charlie says it’s reaffirmed in Mathew about the gays is because everything the student brings up is the old testament and Jesus already died to erase those sins.
Bringing up Leviticus trying to make a point doesn’t work if you believe in the new testament.Good thing Charles set the trap himself by saying morality is objective and unchanging. That must either mean God commanded things that were not moral (which is against their worldview), or that burning women, killing disobedient children, taking people as slaves for life, and stoning people for working on the Sabbath are morally permissible.
It’s usually impossible for them to concede God did anything wrong, so they have to justify numerous atrocities.
-
watched the video here:
Youtube VideoKirk actually has a good point in that those lines are from the old testament, which Christians believe doesn’t apply, and only believe in the new testament. Assuming Kirk is right that it isn’t in the new testament ( the Cambridge speaker doesn’t contest it either, for whatever that is worth). From the the student then pivots to talking about a new testament description along the lines of: Man shall not sleep with man, which he says can be interpreted differently than man and man and could be man and prostitute. Kirk contends that the traditions and interpretations were created during the time that the writings were created, and so there is no loss of translation then, and those understandings have been passed down until down consistently. I will say, i’ve summised this, but it is a lot more of a meandering argument afterwards that is not very interesting to watch.
I feel like the cambridge student shouldn’t have even brought up the lines in videos above because it doesn’t completely apply to Kirk’s religious beliefs. The student studied the bible decently enough to make his point, but it seemed he needed additional context of Kirk’s beliefs to make a strong point against Kirk.
Charlie dodged the point. If morals are objective and unchanging, then it must be the case that either:
- all of the laws listed in the OT are at least morally permissible then and now
Or
- God commanded immoral things
-
As the other person said he ends up saying he still doesn’t like it but there is still a challenge. The reason Charlie says it’s reaffirmed in Mathew about the gays is because everything the student brings up is the old testament and Jesus already died to erase those sins.
Bringing up Leviticus trying to make a point doesn’t work if you believe in the new testament.They rationalize their way out of everything. The bible is infallible except when they don’t like what it says.
-
This whole thing was already played out on the TV series “The West Wing”, and I’m fairly sure that Aaron Sorkin got it from somewhere else.
https://www.tv-quotes.com/shows/the-west-wing/quote_13962.html
Edit: It appears that the original author is Kent Ashcraft:
Source: https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ss44/joke/laura.htm#author
“Dr Laura” (receiver of that original letter) is a fucking shit stain of a human being. One of those right wing women that absolutely hates other women.
She’d tell women and girls calling in that they needed to quit their jobs and dedicate themselves full time to their children, when she herself was happy to ignore raising her children to play pundit. A Phyllis Schafly style gender traitor, someone happy to have a full time job and make lots of money telling women that they weren’t capable or deserving of full human dignity.
-
If only. In the year 2025, it apparently captures hearts and minds. I know because Boomers send this heavily edited shit constantly.
It teaches them the thought stopping cliches and mantras that they can use to “own” libs in drive by Facebook comments.
I think about the classic creationist “if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” It’s not intended to be an actual question - you can try to explain that no, we didn’t “come from monkeys,” that we shared a common ancestor, etc… but they don’t care. It’s just supposed to be a quick catch phrase that lets you not think about the question anymore.
That’s the whole point of all of these right wing “debaters.”
-
Good thing Charles set the trap himself by saying morality is objective and unchanging. That must either mean God commanded things that were not moral (which is against their worldview), or that burning women, killing disobedient children, taking people as slaves for life, and stoning people for working on the Sabbath are morally permissible.
It’s usually impossible for them to concede God did anything wrong, so they have to justify numerous atrocities.
Not a Christian, but a Muslim once share the argument that God doesn’t make mistakes and corrects, nor he changes his mind. He sets the correct rules for that moment, and any change is because it’s the right thing to do and it’s the right moment to do so. We mere humans can’t understand enough, so that’s the godly way to guide us.
-
Not a Christian, but a Muslim once share the argument that God doesn’t make mistakes and corrects, nor he changes his mind. He sets the correct rules for that moment, and any change is because it’s the right thing to do and it’s the right moment to do so. We mere humans can’t understand enough, so that’s the godly way to guide us.
He sets the correct rules for that moment
So morals are not objective and unchanging, rather they change depending on how God feels at any particular moment. You can’t actually ground any sort of moral worldview with that belief because you can justify literally anything as long as you say God said so.
-
He sets the correct rules for that moment
So morals are not objective and unchanging, rather they change depending on how God feels at any particular moment. You can’t actually ground any sort of moral worldview with that belief because you can justify literally anything as long as you say God said so.
It was more “moral are beyond human comprehension, so follow sky daddy” kind of argument.
Not saying it’s a good argument, but a possible one from a religious standpoint
-
It was more “moral are beyond human comprehension, so follow sky daddy” kind of argument.
Not saying it’s a good argument, but a possible one from a religious standpoint
“Everyone! I just heard from sky daddy. He said you should all give me all your money. New moral imperative.”
-
And then, (and this is unverified but it appears to be true) a member of a rival white mayonnaise gang capped his ass in broad daylight.
Edit IM LEAVING IT IT’S FUNNIER THAN THE TRUTH AND ALSO A LITTLE TRUE
No, it was actually a piano stealthily hung from a nearby rooftop, which the perpetrator cut down with some comically oversized scissors.
-
It clearly says it’s fine to sleep with a dude if you are both high.
Is there a specific drug or is it fucker’s choice?
Not asking for myself, just trying to understand.
-
It was more “moral are beyond human comprehension, so follow sky daddy” kind of argument.
Not saying it’s a good argument, but a possible one from a religious standpoint
So basically, morality is very tricky, so it kind of depends on the situation, so in general try to behave in accordance with X and avoid Y, but there will always be grey areas which must be judged on a case by case basis.
Kind of like how our laws work.
-
It teaches them the thought stopping cliches and mantras that they can use to “own” libs in drive by Facebook comments.
I think about the classic creationist “if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” It’s not intended to be an actual question - you can try to explain that no, we didn’t “come from monkeys,” that we shared a common ancestor, etc… but they don’t care. It’s just supposed to be a quick catch phrase that lets you not think about the question anymore.
That’s the whole point of all of these right wing “debaters.”
“I am convinced by this argument, so if I present the argument to you, I have made a convincing argument. QED.”
-
Glad that fascist is dead haha.
“I disagree with what you say, but will contend to the death your right to say it.” / Voltaire
-
This whole thing was already played out on the TV series “The West Wing”, and I’m fairly sure that Aaron Sorkin got it from somewhere else.
https://www.tv-quotes.com/shows/the-west-wing/quote_13962.html
Edit: It appears that the original author is Kent Ashcraft:
Source: https://www-users.york.ac.uk/~ss44/joke/laura.htm#author
I may be the only person alive to find that scene top cringe writing. It’s such a “shower retort” moment and then everybody clapped.
-
“I disagree with what you say, but will contend to the death your right to say it.” / Voltaire
no one questioned his RIGHT to say anything.
you can’t question someone’s feelings over what he said. so your quote is less then meaningless here
