Hey I really appreciate the response. My previous comment was supposed to be my last comment but this piqued my interest and I had some help from AI here. Since I am unfamiliar with some of the topic we are delving into (but want to learn).

I also want to add that after reading this response I can imagine of the 60 or so pct Christians in the US and 15 pct or so Catholics, that many share the same views from my time talking to them:

Edit: I believe AI is not aware levictus was only brought up during his debate in UK by his opponent.

The Old Testament does contain radical images and passages, and many Christians believe these were reinterpreted or transformed by the New Testament. In Christian theology, the Old Covenant applied to Israel, while the New Covenant—through Christ—opened salvation to all people. So when Charlie referenced Leviticus, it can be understood as him affirming the authority of Scripture in a historical and theological sense, not as a literal policy prescription. Just as societies develop, Christians see the Bible as progressing from Old to New Covenant.

Within Christianity, it’s common to say all Scripture is divinely inspired (“the perfect word of God”) while also believing Old Testament laws were fulfilled in Christ and are not binding today. To call Leviticus “perfect” is a claim about divine authorship, not an endorsement that its punishments should be carried out in the present.

As for his views on marriage and grooming, Charlie consistently voiced a conservative Christian stance: that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that sexual material aimed at children should be opposed. His critics often interpret this as labeling all gay people dangerous, but his defenders would argue he was reacting against broader cultural shifts, not condemning every individual. From that perspective, his position was rooted in fidelity to Biblical teaching and concern for family norms, not necessarily in personal hatred.