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.
Comment on Oh Jesus he is cooked
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 1 month ago
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
Grilipper54@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 1 month ago
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.
Railcar8095@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Not a Christian, but a Muslim once share the argument that God doesn’t make mistakes and corrects, nor he changes his mind. He sets the correct rules for that moment, and any change is because it’s the right thing to do and it’s the right moment to do so. We mere humans can’t understand enough, so that’s the godly way to guide us.
SkyezOpen@lemmy.world 1 month ago
He sets the correct rules for that moment
So morals are not objective and unchanging, rather they change depending on how God feels at any particular moment. You can’t actually ground any sort of moral worldview with that belief because you can justify literally anything as long as you say God said so.
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 month ago
They rationalize their way out of everything. The bible is infallible except when they don’t like what it says.
hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
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.”
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 1 month ago
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.
nialv7@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Charlie was not doing debates. He was a propagandist. What he did was performing in the shape of a debate, in front of an audience to spread his agenda, and he was very good at that. If you scrutinize his “debate” in terms of logical soundness or other things a good argument should have, he wouldn’t stand a chance. But that was not the point, nor would it matter.
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I think his debates were actually very well done. It’s just that debates are not a good format to find truth. Charlie was one of the best at debates. Saying all that, we all should be better at being on other platforms and sniping these clips to highlight the hypocrisy and bullshit. I’m absolutely convinced that right wing groups convinced all of us to abandon all other social media so they can spread their ideas easier