Submitted 5 weeks ago by genfood@feddit.org to [deleted]
https://files.catbox.moe/9sk1sf.mp4
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.
It was never about being gay is sinful, it was about molesting children being a sin.
Yeah, but no republican wants to hear that their favorite activity is a sin.
That’s crazy though, because a large portion of them are also gay
Similarly a lot of the stuff about sodomy was about rape. Regardless I don’t think we should use religious texts as the basis for morals.
molesting children is a sin
Nowadays that’s a prerequisite if you want to be a republican politician.
Reminds me of a scene from one of my favourite west wing episodes:
It’s not that it’s a bad translation, they CHANGED it in the 40s to remove the pedophilia and make it homosexuality. There is actually a hook in the Bible that celebrates two gay men living a happy life.
That would keep things consistent with the apparent rule that conservatives must act opposite of what the bible says.
First it discourages molesting kids. RNC buzzkill.
Then while they’re using abortion as a successful wedge issue and mechanism of control, the Bible is over here giving instructions on how to give abortions to unfaithful women.
Then there are so many groups to hate…
And SO many desperate poor people to ignore or actively push out of view…
I probably don’t need to go on.
You’re doing it wrong. You are supposed to cut and publish only parts where Kirk owns the libs
The extensive attention to curation, editing, and deleting was the whole point of the manufactured reality being pushed.
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.
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
Except all the mouth breathers on the right just lap that shit up.
Charlie Kirk never liked free speech
Glad that fascist is dead haha.
“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
"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination."
Voltaire never said that.
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
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’s one a decade. Charlie was not debating. What pisses me off though is how little material there is for times like this to repost. Sure there’s content but everybody on the left checks out and doesn’t bother to archive anything worthwhile.
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.
They rationalize their way out of everything. The bible is infallible except when they don’t like what it says.
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.
No specific drug. Caffeine, alcohol, even deep erotic breaths of oxygen will do.
What was the rebuttal?
I’m going to stick my neck out and say it was something stupid and ignorant.
Careful, kirk warned us about sticking our necks out
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.
those understandings have been passed down until down consistently.
[x] Doubt
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.
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.
If they don’t believe in the old testament, why do they want the 10 commandments put up in schools?
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.
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
Charlie dodged the point. If morals are objective and unchanging, then it must be the case that either:
Or
No one should debate these trolls, they should be answered with stony silence. It works wonders with my 5 years old.
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).
Fucking hate shit like this.
BURN!
Well, uh, could I see the reply.
NO!
I too would like to see the rebuttal.
Still missing the point that he is free to read and believe anything he likes, but a book of ancient mythology shouldn’t have any influence at all in developing 21st century social/political policy.
Ultimately, that is going to be the final outcome of his argument - either follow ALL the Bible’s demands, or follow none of them - but that’s too many steps for MAGAs. The answer is simple: It’s in the 1st Amendment. If they want to know more, they can go get a real education. It’s time to stop coddling these ignorant traitors.
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.
Great scene:
“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.
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.
Pretty obvious Kirk has no education since high school. He flunked out of Harper after one semester.
Had no education…*
I didn’t know I could watch the same piece of shit get murdered twice, but here we are.
Charlie Kirk would have called Jesus a communist.
Then crucified him and blame the Muslims…
Though this is hilariously funny, this is the list basic argument against just about any religion, the cherry picking, and I’m still waiting for a fucking answer. Why doesn’t Charlie burn himself to death? I mean, I can imagine that that hole in his neck makes that hard to do for him right now, but why doesn’t he? Why doesn’t every Christian put there burn and stone themselves to death for their continuous sinning?
Ironically enough, this shows how Kirk was actually at least somewhat better than most of the right wing pundits.
He would actually allow others to have the mic. He actually lets the dude speak. If not for that, you couldn’t have a video of him being made to look the fool.
Most of them will refuse to interact, shouting down questions, trying to cut off counterpoints, only interacting via one-way streams and speeches. Generally cowardly refusing to vaguely risk a difficult talking point arise.
He said vile things, but he at least let others speak. And now the right wing is on a crusade to try to suppress any voice that would have stood against, rather than letting them speak.
“I love uneducated people”
This is the most beautiful video I have seen this week.
Image not loading
Is this Oxford Union?
antsu@discuss.tchncs.de 5 weeks ago
Stop stop, he’s already de- oh wait.
dan69@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Sorry is this how he died… I just got out of my rock…
Skullgrid@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
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.