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.

Right? No wonder they all make it about The Gays.

If only. In the year 2025, it apparently captures hearts and minds. I know because Boomers send this heavily edited shit constantly.

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

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.

Careful, kirk warned us about sticking our necks out

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).

those understandings have been passed down until down consistently.

[x] Doubt

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).

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:

• all of the laws listed in the OT are at least morally permissible then and now

Or

• God commanded immoral things