Piers Morgan: Paradigm of Secular Anti-Christian Bigotry

Welcome to The Dividing Line on Friday. It's the 20th of December. Wow, how fast 2013 has passed by. Busy, busy, busy year. We'll have to do a reflection program at some point. It was our 30th anniversary of the founding of Alpha and Omega Ministries.

We completely just blew it off. Didn't care. I asked that we set up a thing where people could send stuff in. Did it ever happen? No, no, never. Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter at all. You know, 30 years, three decades, nobody cares.

We would have been a lot busier. But no, no, we are the world's worst marketers on the planet. There's no two ways about that. And so anyways, lots and lots of stuff happened and looks like next year is going to be just as crazy.

And if the wildness of the society continues going the way it is, it's going to be interesting. I'm going to start off. We're going to open the phones today. 877 -753 -3341. Someone should probably tweet that.

We should probably tweet that we're live because I didn't do that. Normally, Vicki-Ann does that, but I don't see Vicki-Ann doing that anymore. Oh, well, somebody needs to do that. And I was just noticing a pastor in Georgia saying, you know what?

I'm just going to trust that Norman Geisler has inside information on Ergon Kanner. I'm not going to worry about them, their videos, and him, their audios. No, someone's got inside information, so it must be okay.

You know, I'm just like, ow! But more on that next week. Wow. What a world we live in. And last evening, I saw a tweet from Michael Brown. And yesterday, Al Mohler's on CNN on the Duck Dynasty thing. Now, I'm going to tell you right here and now.

First of all, I'm wearing a Coogee sweater today, which means I've never watched Duck Dynasty. The two do not go together. This is not how you hide in the bayou to shoot ducks, by wearing a Coogee sweater.

No, it doesn't work that way. I've heard of people talking about it, you know, and I've seen stuff scroll by on Twitter and all, and I'm like, whatever. Um, so I cannot talk about Phil Robertson. I can't talk about his Christian faith.

I can't address any of those things because I just don't watch the program. But the explosion of stuff over the past few days because of a man merely expressing his viewpoint has demonstrated what I have been saying now for decades.

Homosexuals do not want equal rights. They want uber rights. They must be utterly protected. They must be coddled. No one can say anything about them. And if you dare hold any other view other than the secular left, you are a hate monger and a bigot.

And they will say it to your face, but they will not reason with you. They can't. They can't do it. And we had evidence of it last night. Michael Brown tweeted, here's the link, he says, to my being on the Piers Morgan show.

I'm like, oh my goodness. Michael went on Piers Morgan. Oh my. They never call me. No, I'm glad they called Michael. Glad they called Michael. It was good to have somebody on. Actually, the other CNN guy, who was the other CNN guy?

Ben Ferguson. He wasn't bad. He really wasn't bad. Now, the Mark Lamont Hill guy is an ultra leftist. In fact, I think that's the same guy that I criticized for some stuff he said last year, if I recall correctly.

He's an ultra leftist, and he tries to get in here and do some revisionism and stuff like that. But Michael took Piers on, and it was so funny to to watch, or we will listen to, Piers. This man could not reason his way out of a wet paper bag.

He could not debate anyone. I remember last year about this time, he had a guy from a gun rights group on, after the Newtown thing, and this guy was just straightforward, just kept hitting with facts.

And the only thing Piers Morgan could do at the end was just look at him and go, you're a stupid man, aren't you? It's just, it's right back to sixth grade in the playground, you know? You prove somebody wrong, and the only response of guys, well, you're stupid, or your shoes are ugly.

Just pure ad hominem. That's all he can pull off. And other times, it's like, well, that's my show. So then he starts reading something about something and change the subject. Get out of here. Warning, warning, I can't handle this.

And he goes it is just amazing to watch these folks and to listen to the secular left. But man, they are just becoming so blatant in their anti-Christian bigotry. And you have to be aware of the fact, folks, I remember this was really identified for me.

When was that? That would be in 1986, 85, 86. Back in the days of what a lot of younger folks never heard of before called BBSs. This was actually before the advent or general popularity of Al Gore's invention called the internet.

I know the internet pre-existed that, but it wasn't something we all were accessing as yet. And so we made our own little networks called bulletin board systems. And we had Fidonet and stuff like this.

And it was a long time ago. Anyway, I remember right back when I started first studying Roman Catholicism, I ran into this woman. Her first name was Sue. Oh, yes. Yes. And she was the individual who introduced me to one of the most common false forms of argumentation that, look, you just need to, if you sit back and just television today, you'll see it constantly.

And that is when your whole position depends upon a particular false form of argumentation, you hide that by accusing everybody else of doing what you yourself are doing all the time. It's a smoke screen, but it's a projection smoke screen.

You project onto others what you yourself are doing. So it just becomes so convoluted that you can make sure the argument can't get anywhere because it just turns into a spinning circle. And this woman named Sue was just the perfect practitioner of this.

She'd call you a name and then complain about how offensive you were and just everything she would do. She would then accuse you of doing the same thing. Well, that's what we heard constantly from Pierce Morgan.

This man is one of the worst thinkers, but he is so representative of the secular mindset. These people don't study logic anymore. It's all emotion. They adopt certain presuppositions, and as soon as you get close to even touching that presupposition and challenging it, they're either blowing smoke, changing the topic, throwing out all the emotional terms, all that kind of stuff.

In fact, you know what? I just realized now I know why this stuff isn't here. I tried to set something up in pocket last night in my reader, and it's obviously not working because I saved a bunch of stuff that I wanted to have today, and it ain't in pocket.

So that's a bummer. I lost some of those things. But for example, last evening someone sent me a link on Twitter and said, I don't know how to respond to this. And I'm reading this article from some woman.

It's nothing but buzzwords. It's just, okay, I don't have really a logical foundation here. So homophobes, and over here, bigots, and oh, I can't really provide a foundation. Everybody knows. And I wrote back to the Christian, like, dude, you've been listening to me?

Aren't I teaching you how to do this? Can't you see through this? There is not the slightest bit of evidentiary argumentation, and logic, and rationality in this piece. But it's perfectly crafted for the modern, secular zombie.

And that's what the public education system produces, is modern, secular zombies. Now, thankfully, they're still made in the image of God, and so they can't live consistently with that. But their thought process, oh my goodness, they're no longer taught how to think, they're taught what to think.

And as soon as you derail the what part, they don't know what to do, other than default back to just insults and everything else. So, amazing stuff. But I want to play this interview, not all of it, but portions of this interview.

Let's start off, listen to the way that Pierce Morgan knows his audience. And so, this is what any of us will face in our society today if we try to bring the Word of God to bear. And the more we've heard this, the more prepared we're going to be to rip the mask off and get to the point.

So, check this out. ...happened to America. Welcome to all of you. Okay, so this thing has caught fire today, and it's much more than just about Duck Dynasty. Let me start with you, Ben Ferguson, because Bill O 'Reilly, of all people, has tonight come out and said, Mr. Robertson, I believe, made a mistake by the condemnation line, and here's why.

It's not about the Bible, or believing or not believing in the Bible. It's about singling out a group, it could be anyone, and saying to that group, hey, you're not worthy in the eyes of the Lord because of who you are.

And Mr. O 'Reilly, I've never been your biggest fan, but I salute you for that because that surely is what this is really about, Ben Ferguson. It's about targeting gays in America and saying, you are not worthy in the eyes of the Lord.

You are not worthy in the eyes of the Lord. Now, if I was sitting there and I wasn't Ben Ferguson, I would say, excuse me. Now, he's later going to... the amazing thing is, I mean, you want hypocrisy.

Piers Morgan is going to claim to be a Christian in this program. He's as much of a Christian as I am a secularist, okay? He calls himself a Catholic. Hello, Rome. Remember that excommunication thing that you think you might want to...

No, don't do that. Okay, that's a shame. Again, when Rome starts getting serious by people like this, okay, then we'll hear about your alleged infallibility. Until then, it's just such a massive joke.

Because I can guarantee you, any Reformed Baptist who behaves and speaks like Piers Morgan would not be a Reformed Baptist for long. They'd be gone. They'd be up on charges, they'd be before the elders, because we take this stuff seriously, don't we?

I mean, he attacks the Bible. If you were making public statements like Piers Morgan makes all the time, you would not be allowed to call yourself a Reformed Baptist because we would excommunicate you.

Now, you might want to continue doing so, but there would be strong evidence that you weren't. I wonder if anyone can produce the excommunication documents for Piers Morgan. Anyhow, you're not worthy.

First thing you say is, no one is worthy, Mr. Morgan. You claim to be a Christian. You should know no one is worthy before the Lord. This is an issue of allowing God to define what is and what is not sinful behavior in his sight.

It's not targeting someone. Would you say the Bible is targeting thieves? Would you say the Bible is targeting liars? Evidently, the law targets murderers. The law targets tax cheats. The law targets drunk drivers.

Mr. Morgan, why are you using such prejudicial language that does not communicate anything, but in fact only confuses the issues? Why are you doing that, Mr. Morgan? It seems like you have an agenda. Yeah, he does.

He does. You're not worthy in the eyes of the Lord. Worthy of what? Worthy of judgment. That's all any of us are worthy of. But if you're asking, does the scripture clearly, plainly, unequivocally identify sexual activity, heterosexual or homosexual, outside of the marriage bond as sinful, the answer is an unequivocal yes, it does.

Yes, it does. I don't think so at all. And if you actually look.

At what he said in the article in GQ, he also named about 11 other sins that you're selectively deciding to leave out. He was asked, what are sins in this country? And he listed significant ones, including greed, including lying, including stealing.

Now, of course, what Mr. Ferguson is.

Pointing out is the hypocrisy of the media and A &E and everybody else, but primarily the homosexual lobby in focusing only upon this. No one's going to talk about his saying anything about greed. They don't care.

They're in this to make money, so there's no greed lobby that is going to get involved here. So they don't care that he talks about those other sins. He violated the dogma of the secular left, which has elevated homosexuality to the untouchable behavior.

It's the untouchable behavior. You cannot disagree with it or you're a hate monger and a bigot. And we're going to hear that repeatedly here. They won't bother to argue. They're going to identify Phil Robertson because he bothered to quote Romans 1, and they're so ignorant of the Bible they didn't even know what he was doing.

I mean, the level of ignorance on the part of these people is astounding. It really is. They're the ones who want to make Christians look ignorant. They're the ones who know what in the world they're talking about.

But they're going to identify that as being a hate monger and a bigot. So if you quote the Bible, now, it doesn't matter if the purpose is redemptive. It doesn't matter if the lifestyle brings about death.

It doesn't matter. You're a hate monger and a bigot, which means those words no longer mean anything. They have no meaning. If you want someone to experience life, oh, you hate them. I mean, it's so irrational.

There's no meaningful moral or ethical foundation to any of this. And yet, they claim to be holding the high ground. And you just got to realize they're not even standing on the ground. They're floating in midair.

There's nothing underneath them. That's why they move around so easy. You know, just...

And those were in the same list. So I think this is an issue of GQ magazine choosing to highlight this one to try to start some massive war over a guy that is not very articulate. He is incredibly.

Blunt. Well, you know, it's funny. He's been criticized by everybody for how blunt he was. Excuse me, if you're going to talk about homosexual sex, it's really hard not to be blunt. I mean, I'm going to tell you something.

I had to read stuff in preparation to write The Same Sex Controversy over a decade ago. And I remember reading material in that preparation. And I remember sitting back going, they do what? I had no idea.

And it was disgusting. It kicks the gag reflex in. I mean, you're just going, oh, I never even want to think about that. You just don't even... Just go to the emergency care and the hospitals in San Francisco and you'll get the idea.

OK? I can't even talk to you about it. I just can't. You know? So what he said is nothing. He used the very terms your doctor would use in the examination room if he was telling you something about medicine.

He used the proper medical words. Nothing more than that. Oh, he's so crude. Oh, he's so nasty. Believe me, if you were to go into a biology department, I... Department of Fetal Anatomy Physiology. Finished my major in biology.

There was nothing he said that wouldn't be heard over and over again in a undergraduate level biology class. Zip, zero, nada. Nothing there at all. But he's crude. He's nasty. You got to listen to these people who promote homosexuality.

They'll peel the paint off the walls, but it's OK because as long as it's over there, that's all right. He can't do that because we'll hold you to Christian morals, but we don't have to worry about it for ourselves.

OK, all right. Now, listen to Piers Morgan demonstrating that he does not have a clue what the Bible is talking about. Wait, he is articulate because actually TMZ on earth, the sermon he made in 2010 in Pennsylvania and in part of that sermon, he says this, women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another and they received in themselves a due penalty for their perversions, their school of murder, envy, strife, hatred.

They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. OK, anybody know what this is? Does he think that wrote that? Yeah, yeah. He has no idea he's quoting Romans one.

Excuse me while I cough my head off. He's just quoting Romans one. Hello, Piers. They invent ways of doing evil. That's what you have. Two hundred and forty five years roughly after your forefathers founded the country.

What are you going to do, Pennsylvania? Just run with them. You're going to die. Martin Luther Hill, this guy is just a bigot. So quotes Romans one and he says the people of Pennsylvania. So are you going to run with these folks or are you going to die?

He's just a bigot. Piers Morgan is the biggest bigot I've ever encountered in media. What's a bigot? A bigot is a person who holds an irrational, uninformed, ignorance based opinion and will not examine the other side.

That's bigotry. That's Piers Morgan. That's the picture. You look up in the dictionary. There he is. He has no idea what he's talking about. None. But he's absolutely certain of it. Now, there are people like that.

I use this term a lot. And I probably should explain more often what I mean by it. But Piers Morgan is non-reflective. That does not mean that he has a good person putting his makeup on, unlike me, who's very reflective under lights.

That's not what I'm referring to. That's a different type of reflectivity. He is non-reflective. I'm talking about reflecting upon your own worldview, its relationship to other worldviews, its foundation, defensibility, and ramifications.

A person who is reflective recognizes their own traditions, their own biases, their own prejudices, and recognizes the ramifications of the conclusions of their worldview. And the one thing that Piers Morgan never seemingly ever does is demonstrate any type of reflectivity.

He doesn't seem to reflect. He doesn't even seem to recognize the possibility of error in his own thinking. He's non-reflective. Now, there are lots of non-reflective Christians. That's almost the description of what you would call fundamentalism in its secular usage.

A fundamentalist is non-reflective. Sam Gipp is non-reflective. Okay? Just that kind of mindset, that kind of idea. No reflection upon those things. So anyway, by the way, one of our friends over in Ukraine said, nice sweater, Bill Cosby would be proud.

Actually, this one's fairly dull for Bill. I'm going to bring some even brighter ones to Ukraine. Really bright ones. The ones that would really make Bill Cosby proud. I really will. So just to warn you guys, if you don't have sunglasses, you might want to invest in some for the class, because I'm going to have some awesome, awesome coogies.

Anyways, all right, here we go. And then Mark Lamont Hill, of course. Yeah, I bet. Isn't he? It's absolutely clear that he is.

A bigot. And this isn't a case of him listing 11 sins and gays just happen to be on the list. The centerpiece of the conversation were gay and lesbian people. And then he compared them to other things, including bestiality.

And now when you add this 2010 sermon to it, it is absolutely disturbing and disgusting that he's using Christianity as an excuse, as a pretext for.

Really just being a hate monger. He's using Christianity as a pretense for being a hate monger. What did he say that was hateful? Oh, it disagrees with us. That's hate. Well, that's not hate. You see, language is a tool for these people.

Definition means nothing. It is the emotional impact of the words that you're concerned about, not the meaning of the truthfulness of the words. This is what's frightening to me, to listen to this, because it seems that younger people, again, the first full generation of secular, completely secular education, have been so dumbed down, have been so taught what to think, not how to think, that they are completely susceptible to this kind of rhetoric, which is why we have the people in charge of the United States that we do.

And it's frightening. I've told you many times before, remember 1984? A lot of you have gone out and read it. If you hadn't read it before, you need to. You can get it from Audible if you don't want to sit down and read it.

Whatever. But get it. And there's another one I'm going to add to that, which I found very, very interesting. Recently, I reread. Now, I had read this series, this trilogy, back in high school, and for some reason, it just didn't stick with me.

I mean, I enjoyed it, but I, upon rereading it, or re-listening to it, in this case, via Audible, over the past couple of weeks, Space Trilogy by C .S. Lewis, Out of the Silent Planet, Paralandra, and That Hideous Strength.

Now, the last of the books is longer than the first two, That Hideous Strength, and it's sort of meant to be, it can be read on its own, so if you don't want to read the others, then you don't have to.

But I would recommend to you the reading of That Hideous Strength, because it's interesting to me that in the very same time period that 1984 is being written, post-World War II Britain, here is another person, and it's the same warning.

It's the same warning. The forces of evil in Lewis's story are these progressive Enlightenment socialists who are utilizing that very same kind of Ingsoc, if you're familiar with 1984, and in all of it, language is so important.

Language is so important. And what you have here with Mark Lamont Hill, you use the buzzwords bigot, hate monger, you never substantiate that. You don't have to, because truth is not your goal. It is impact.

And that's why I have a hard time with so many kinds of forms of preaching that are not biblically based, and they're not exegetical in their form, because you're trying to do the same thing. You're not using the words to inform and use truth to be the mechanism by which you change your audience.

You're short-circuiting that. You're going around the image of God, basically, and you're trying to use another mechanism that short-circuits the thought process. And it's a shame to see that that happens.

But the secularists use it too, and unfortunately, those trained within the secular academy, which is the vast majority of American citizens, are evidently, utterly incapacitated by it. They can't fight it.

They're just like, oh, yeah, it must be it. I have heard from my master, you know. He's condemning. Forget what else he's condemning. He's condemning a homosexual behavior, isn't he, Ben? That's what he's doing.

Here's Pierce. Someone points out to him that if you actually read what he said, he's saying much more than that, and y 'all are overreacting, and you're only talking about one thing. But Pierce's shocked amazement, shocked amazement is, well, he's condemning homosexuality.

Well, congratulations. Talk about speaking the obvious. How about dealing with the reason for condemning homosexuality? How about dealing with, oh, you know, health issues? How about dealing with life expectancy issues?

How about dealing with the fact that you can't produce life in these relationships? Oh, no, no, no, that's, can't do that. Can't do that. I mean, you know, New Mexico, everybody expected exactly what happened with the New Mexico Supreme Court.

I mean, it's a, you know, the very essence of the overthrow of the judiciary is the New Mexico Supreme Court, where, you know, you rule from the bench. It's the oligarchy. Everybody expected exactly what they did in redefining marriage, at least so far.

What I mean by so far is, well, what's the next redefinition? Obviously, you know, polyamory and everything else. And see, and you're not even allowed to talk about that. See, he mentioned bestiality.

So did I on the last program, didn't I? And what did I point out? That we're having a coalescence of worldviews here. And if at the same time you have a complete redefinition of marriage, so polygamy is becoming legal, same-sex marriage is becoming legal.

No, that's not marriage. All that stuff. And then at the same time, you have people who are trying to break down the distinction between the species, trying to give the chimpanzees human rights. And they were doing that.

And I'm pointing out the coalescence of these things and saying, all right, once you start down this, as I said last time, it's not a slippery slope. Once you jump off this cliff, what's the parachute?

There is no parachute. But what we're being told is, you can't even say that. You can't point, you can't even make that argument. You don't have free speech to make that argument. That's bigotry. No, it's not.

Prove it. Well, you can't because words have no meaning in a secular world. There's no transcendent value. There's no grounding. You can just change the meaning of the word as you feel free, as you want to.

And that's exactly what's going on. So that's a scary thing to know. Now, finally, finally, after all this time, and I noticed as I looked at the Skype feed, because I think it was a Skype feed or whatever, I noticed, you know, Michael's, I tweeted him and I said, you losing all the rest of your hair color preparing for our debates next month or what?

And his response was, no, I just was picking up a little extra wisdom is all. But finally, Michael got a chance to weigh in. Let me bring in Dr. Michael Brown. What is your view of this, sir?

First, he did express things in a rather crude way. But what you got very upset about, quoting from his message in Pennsylvania, that was mainly the words of Paul in Romans, the first chapter. It's not bigoted to say that God designed a man to be with a woman.

It's not bigoted to say that sexual acts outside of male-female marriage are prohibited in Scripture. We could debate that. It's not bigoted to say it. To me, what's bigoted is that he gets fired. Look, you have reality TV shows celebrating polygamy, celebrating polyamory, celebrating teen sex, gay kids losing their virginity as teenagers on glee.

That's fine. That's not a problem. That's to be celebrated. When he says, you know, I'm a Bible thumper. I hold to biblical values. I believe a man was made by God to be with a woman. And I hold to these things.

How is that bigoted? How is that basis?

Okay, now, soon as he realizes that Michael Brown is a biblical Christian, it's time for Pierce to go on the attack. Only problem is he's attacking Michael Brown. And if you could go after Michael Brown in the Bible, you might want to know what you're talking about.

Trust me, I have to do it. And I'll be doing it twice in Spain next month, actually. In fact, I haven't mentioned that. I mentioned last week that we're going to be doing a debate. It's going to be aired, so don't worry about it.

You'll see it. But we're going to be doing a debate on divine healers in the church. But then we've been asked to debate the subject of our first phone call today when we get to it, and that is limited atonement.

So we will be debating the atonement as well. And as I said to Michael last night, I really wish someone would come up with a way for you and I to work together on a debate, which we did on the Trinity a few years ago.

And we were supposed to do it SES, but we got snowed out and stuff like that. It'd be nice to work together, but it seems like we're always having to debate each other. But maybe someday that'll work out.

But that'll be coming up. So keep that in mind. So Pierce has to go on the attack. I hear this a lot from so-called Christian, so-called a lot from so-called Christians. I'm a Christian. I'm a Catholic.

Yeah. And I can look at the Bible. It's not even the pope would take you say parts of it are obviously utterly ridiculous. There is a part of the Bible that says if you as a woman are not a virgin on your wedding night, you should be stoned to death.

Clearly, that is not what Mr. Robertson is espousing today because he would know that is ridiculous. There are lots of offensive things in the Bible. But let me ask you this, sir. As a Christian man, can you point to a single public utterance by Jesus Christ, the Christ in Christianity, about gay people or about a gay lifestyle?

Can you name one single thing that. Did you hear that, Jesus Christ? I mean, the venom, the venom. He hates Christianity. He hates the Bible. He hates God's moral law. I mean, he hates that there is a law in the Bible against adultery and representing yourself as a virgin when you're not a virgin.

He hates that. Oh, it's it's just detestable to him. Oh, but I'm a Christian. Right. Yeah. And I'm a Muslim. But don't ask questions. Evidently, either he he doesn't he's not running Christians against this one before.

But folks, you've got to be ready for this. This is so common. You've got to be ready to knock this out of the park. And of course, one thing we can know is Michael was ready to do exactly that. I'll name three for you,.

Pierce. Number one. In Matthew five, Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the Torah, but to fulfill, he takes the sexual morals of the Torah. Now, wait a minute. Did you.

Catch the background there? I think that was Pierce. It might have been Lamont Hill, but I think that was Pierce. I don't have the video up. But I think that was Pierce laughing as soon as he doesn't care.

He's got a guy with a Ph .D. in Semitic languages who's written commentaries on scripture, but he does not care. He has his decision already made.

On this subject. Don't get in the way. I'll name three for you, Pierce. Number one in Matthew five, Jesus said he didn't come to abolish the Torah, but to fulfill, he takes the sexual morals of the Torah to a higher level.

Number two in Matthew 15, he says all sexual acts committed outside of marriage defile the human being. And in Matthew 19, he says marriage as God intended it is the union of one man and one woman for life.

Look, Jesus did not address wife beating or heroin shooting, but we don't use that argument for silence. But in point of fact, he as a first century Jew, of course, he reinforced these things. And Pierce, I'd encourage you to restudy what scripture says.

We should love our neighbors ourself, but that doesn't mean that we approve everything of our neighbor.

Now, I think it was Lamont Hill actually was laughing. I think it was Lamont Hill, because now here comes the revisionism. Here comes the revisionism. This is why you need the same sex controversy. This is why I need to find the time along with Jeff Neal to update the same sex controversy because so much has happened since then.

But still, it's still pretty timely. Here comes the revisionism from Mark Lamont Hill.

But there are several problems in that interpretation. One. Mark Lamont Hill first. One, the New Testament absolutely does offer the words and the voice of Jesus, and he very explicitly does not talk about being gay.

And even the scripture you cited about marriage is very different than talking about being gay. And even if you say that.

This marriage is one man and one woman though, sir.

Let me finish. I heard everything you said. I just want to respond to it.

But I want to respond to it without being challenged. And I want to respond to it by just empty words that have no meaning. Of course, Matthew 19 is directly relevant to this. It's directly relevant to this.

And what the left does is all you got to do is say, no, it's not. And the followers go, okay, I guess everyone just disagrees. So there's really no way of knowing. This is the kind of thinking that I've said many times.

This is judgment. God didn't create us to think this way. A clear thinking person sitting here. What are these secularists talking about? Why can't they? Why don't they? Haven't they ever read in a logic text?

I mean, come on. But that's not what happens.

When you say, if you're saying that he's confirming the Old Testament, well, the Old Testament is far from clear around gay marriage or around gay acts.

It's far from clear around gay marriage. Hello? Where does it ever come up again? Nowhere, obviously.

Are you sure about that? If you let me finish, I'll tell you how I'm sure about it. The book of Leviticus, according to most biblical scholars, is not about being gay. If you talk about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, for example, it's really about...

Sodom and Gomorrah is not in Leviticus, Mr. Hill.

Being inhospitable to neighbors. It's about prostitution. It's about many other things.

Leviticus 18, Hebrew scholarship is my background. I have a PhD in Semitic languages. Leviticus 18 is quite explicit for a man. To lie with a man is contrary to what God intended. The rectum is part of the disposal system.

It's not meant for sexuality. God designed a man to be with a woman. That's pretty obvious. That's not hateful to say it. That's obvious.

There are few biblical interpretations that can be understood without context.

Without context. He's using context. You're the one not having any context, sir. But of course, Pierce can't have that amount of clarity on his show. Let me know. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let me just say this.

It wasn't just what he said about gays. Deeply offensive, though. I find what he said and many other people do. I can still understand people say, well, you know, it's my religious belief that homosexuality is a sin.

I think it's a load of absolute phooey in the modern age to be so bigoted. But if that's what we want to do, that's fine. Now, there's bigotry for you. There is no thought there. That was just a religious belief, and I think it's phooey.

I mean, oh, oh, the arrogance combined with the ignorance is just grating. It truly is. But then what does he do? He now realizes that his liberal guy is not going to be able to stack up against Brown.

He probably yelled at his producer for getting someone that good on. And so what does he do? He changed the topic, changed the topic off to something else, he said. And it's a few minutes later before Michael basically just boldly drags it right back where it's supposed to be.

So, Pierce, if we wanted to discuss this and see, wow, we know his perspective. He considered himself one of them. He was working with them. That's his perspective. Sounds very odd to me. I agree. I would never say that.

But the fact is, that's not where the outcry was. That shows us the extraordinary bias against a Christian holding to a biblical view.