Oh Jesus he is cooked

Comments

• Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ 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

  source
• antsu@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Stop stop, he’s already de- oh wait.

  source
• vivalapivo@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  You’re doing it wrong. You are supposed to cut and publish only parts where Kirk owns the libs

  source

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works ⁨53⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago

    The extensive attention to curation, editing, and deleting was the whole point of the manufactured reality being pushed.

    source
• TribblesBestFriend@startrek.website ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Charlie Kirk never liked free speech

  source
• BreadOven@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Glad that fascist is dead haha.

  source
• vk6flab@lemmy.radio ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  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.

  www.tv-quotes.com/shows/…/quote_13962.html

  source
• SirMaple__@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

  Image

  source
• wabasso@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  What was the rebuttal?

  source

  • db2@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

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

    source

    • T00l_shed@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Careful, kirk warned us about sticking our necks out

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • shalafi@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

    Fucking hate shit like this.

    BURN!

    Well, uh, could I see the reply.

    NO!

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

      those understandings have been passed down until down consistently.

      [x] Doubt

      source
    • krunklom@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ 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
  • ozoned@piefed.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I too would like to see the rebuttal.

    source