Comment on Oh Jesus he is cooked

wabasso@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• db2@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m going to stick my neck out and say it was something stupid and ignorant.

  source

  • T00l_shed@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Careful, kirk warned us about sticking our necks out

    source

    • db2@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      He really gushed on about it

      source

      • don@lemmy.ca ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Poured his heart out, he did.

        source
    • primrosepathspeedrun@anarchist.nexus ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Well, someone did.

      source
• Habahnow@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  watched the video here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZPWbpOnZ-8

  Kirk 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.

  source

  • ch00f@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    those understandings have been passed down until down consistently.

    [x] Doubt

    source
  • lovely_reader@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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

    source

    • shawn1122@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Most Christians believe they live under the New Covenant and not Old Testament law.

      You are right that it is widelt accepted as the word of God though.

      source

      • communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        But it was totally fair for god to do that in the past because morals and ethics… have changed… whoops.

        source
  • krunklom@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source
  • Naich@lemmings.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If they don’t believe in the old testament, why do they want the 10 commandments put up in schools?

    source

    • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      yeah idk who “they” are specifically (i know in some state/city, they want the 10 commandments in schools), but I doubt they are a religious group that believes in all of the old testament, which means you make a very good point.

      source
  • xxd@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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.

    source

    • MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Im not a Bible scholar. I have always taken the distinction between abolish and fulfill here to be, I’m not here to say the old law was wrong and so let’s get rid of it, I’m here to say we have completed the period of time for which the old law was right, and we have a new way going forward for this new time.

      source
  • WraithGear@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    he actually didn’t dodge anything, nor did he make a good point.

    he stated that morals and right and wrong are immutable/unchanging.

    so Charlie is now trapped to make a choice,

    A. he’s wrong and morality is dependent on the situation, and so his whole platform regarding how he treats minorities has no justification.

    B. he’s wrong and his god purposely demanded atrocities, and was wrong in the past, and is fallible, in which case his whole platform can’t be considered moral based on the teachings of his god.

    so his answer is he still didn’t like it, which is him admitting defeat but refusing to decide in which way he believes his god is wrong

    source
  • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    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

    source
  • muzzle@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    No one should debate these trolls, they should be answered with stony silence. It works wonders with my 5 years old.

    source

    • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I feel in this case, it just “proves them right” . Your 5 year old won’t begin to use silence as a sign that they’re right and spread videos of that debate to thousands of people.

      source
  • wabasso@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Thank you for taking the time and effort to link the full video and also summarizing the relevant content for us!

    I agree with you. I wouldn’t have leaned on the Old Testament either. I think most religious arguments are fairly logically consistent, it’s the whole “Should we have a static book of morals that we never modify?” question that we need to tackle.

    I suppose if Kirk was saying that we don’t have to follow the customs of the authors, just the “God given” content, then one could retort that anti man-to-man passages are likely the customs of the time, not the word of God (though let’s be honest, pretty sure even Jesus would have been homophobic).

    source
• shalafi@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Fucking hate shit like this.

  BURN!

  Well, uh, could I see the reply.

  NO!

  source
• ozoned@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I too would like to see the rebuttal.

  source