Oh Jesus he is cooked
-
You’re doing it wrong. You are supposed to cut and publish only parts where Kirk owns the libs
-
What was the rebuttal?
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.
-
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.
those understandings have been passed down until down consistently.
Doubt -
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.
Sacred tradition? Was Kirk Catholic? And if not why not? Just a grab bag of pick and choose your tradition? Both Protestants and Catholics say that will send you straight to hell. Might as well call yourself a gnostic if you’re going that route (though many of them didn’t have sex hangups).
-
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
-
You’re doing it wrong. You are supposed to cut and publish only parts where Kirk owns the libs
yeah suprised this ever saw the light of day
-
Careful, kirk warned us about sticking our necks out
Well, someone did.
-
What was the rebuttal?
Fucking hate shit like this.
BURN!
Well, uh, could I see the reply.
NO!
-
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.
So.
Here’s an idea.
A cynical take on Christian nationalism pushing for ONLY the things in the bible that are utterly absurd and contrary to modern society.
Like, making an actual push for ONLY the shit that no one would could possibly take seriously.
I’m no bible scholar but I’m sure there’s a bunch of stuff in the New Testament that we could cherry pick as well.
-
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 bad -
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.
There are no mainstream Christian denominations that don’t believe that the Old Testament is the word of their God, so I’m not sure how the student could have prepared for that particular nonsense juke
-
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 badHis response, and I’m not joking, when all of his arguments against gay marriage were defeated in that debate, was, “well, I still don’t like it.”
-
You’re doing it wrong. You are supposed to cut and publish only parts where Kirk owns the libs
editing videos like that is the equivalent to winning arguments in the shower
-
His response, and I’m not joking, when all of his arguments against gay marriage were defeated in that debate, was, “well, I still don’t like it.”
Yea I just watched the whole thing. One of my favorite things I’ve heard recently is people arguing if Charlie was a good debater or not.
One person just said “did he ever once change his mind?” There isn’t one time in the past decade he has changed his mind. Charlie was not debating.
What pisses me off is how their wasn’t an effort to collect material for times like this for us to repost. Sure there’s content but everybody on the left checks out and doesn’t bother to archive anything worthwhile. I think that hurts us in the end
-
Sorry is this how he died… I just got out of my rock…
-
Sorry is this how he died… I just got out of my rock…
basically. Someone was showing him that trans people are basically underrepresented in mass shootings, while Kirk et al claim the opposite; and his last words were “counting or not counting gang violence” which is a racist dogwhistle.
-
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
-
editing videos like that is the equivalent to winning arguments in the shower
If only. In the year 2025, it apparently captures hearts and minds. I know because Boomers send this heavily edited shit constantly.
-
basically. Someone was showing him that trans people are basically underrepresented in mass shootings, while Kirk et al claim the opposite; and his last words were “counting or not counting gang violence” which is a racist dogwhistle.
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
