Oh Jesus he is cooked
-
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
-
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
Most Christians believe they live under the New Covenant and not Old Testament law.
You are right that it is widely accepted as the word of God though.
-
editing videos like that is the equivalent to winning arguments in the shower
But that’s so much fun! Are we talking about videos with hot pink hearts coming out the neck hole or shower arguing I want paying attention
Ooo I should do one with a care bear stare
-
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.
-
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
-
It clearly says it’s fine to sleep with a dude if you are both high.
-
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.
No one should debate these trolls, they should be answered with stony silence. It works wonders with my 5 years old.
-
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.
If they don’t believe in the old testament, why do they want the 10 commandments put up in schools?
-
Most Christians believe they live under the New Covenant and not Old Testament law.
You are right that it is widely accepted as the word of God though.
But it was totally fair for god to do that in the past because morals and ethics… have changed… whoops.
-
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.
