Thoughts on the Dr. Drew Show, ESPN’s Shame, and Continuing with Anjem Choudary

Well, greetings. Welcome to The Dividing Line. My name is James White. We didn't think we were going to be doing a program today, but it ended up working out. We needed to do one fairly quickly this morning, and so here we are.

I wanted to have the opportunity to all comment a little bit on the events of this past week. As most of you know, right during the last Dividing Line, right around the time I was finishing up commenting on the Bruce Jenner situation, and yes, I realize it is politically incorrect to even refer to Bruce Jenner.

Evidently, Bruce Jenner was beamed to the enterprise, because if you refer to Bruce Jenner any longer, you are a hate-filled bigot, and you should be imprisoned, and your rights taken away, and so on and so forth.

But anyway, right as I was finishing that commentary, a phone call came in from a producer at CNN, and that is how the invitation came in to be on The Dr. Drew Show. I've never seen The Dr. Drew Show.

I don't watch CNN. I don't watch HLN. I suppose I should have tracked down some videos someplace, but I was told that they wanted a spiritual perspective on the issue of the Bruce Jenner situation. I told them straight up what I'd be saying, and that I would not be ishy-squishy, and so on and so forth.

They said that would be absolutely fine. I wasn't told, of course, that it was a situation where you have an entire panel of people who have no particular training or life experience to give them any meaningful opinions on almost anything other than maybe fashion or a few things like that, but that's the nature of the public discourse in our land today.

For those of you who didn't see it, my favorite bearded Jeff Durbin, their Apollo-Ghia radio is putting together their studios right now. In fact, I've got an invitation to join them once their studios are finished, hopefully next week.

Obviously, they have enough of it done to do something, and so they put together clips from basically people holding cell phones in front of TVs. I guess this stuff is a one-shot deal. It's not archived or whatever.

I don't know. I played this last night. This is how I started class last night at Phoenix Seminary, where I'm teaching apologetics right now. I thought it would be a good start with this, and also a little advertisement for those fellows.

Let's take a look at what they put together, and then we'll have some comments after that. Well, I don't know why you're getting nothing from me because you're plugged in, so you've got no sound.

With Dr. Drew was incredible. Dr. Drew, who actually might be confused with Phil Vischer from VeggieTales. Dr. Drew engaged the Mr. Bruce Jenner situation. Mr. Bruce Jenner, you all know, is the famous athlete and grandfather who has recently attempted to go from being a man to pretending to be a woman.

Dr. Drew interviewed Dr. James White, who actually could never be confused with the James White from the Knicks. Never. Not even if you tried. Not even if you dressed James White up like a basketball player, put a basketball in his hand, could never confuse the two.

It never happened. It's impossible. Well, maybe. I mean, that's closer. That's closer. I mean, they both can dunk.

The Worldview Clash Behind the Bruce Jenner Segment

What we're hearing here is a fundamental clash of worldviews, and that's not really what we've gotten into a discussion of yet. I have to ask the question, what if Jesus was right when he said, have you not read from the beginning that God made them male and female?

But your religious.

Beliefs don't necessarily apply to something that humanity has been doing since before the Bible was.

Even conceived. But the point, of course, is this is a worldview issue. This is a worldview issue, and we're going to have to decide what our ultimate authorities are. I'm not sure who you are referring to, but the Jesus I'm referring to rose from the dead.

I think that gives him a bit of extra authority to address this particular issue. From right here, I've got to go to our.

Audience member who has a question. Swish. After the obvious groaning from one of the panelists, Dr. James White tweeted, someone should let the very kind panelist lady know her deep sighs at the mention of God or Jesus are very audible even to me, to all of us, Dr. White.

And then.

This happened. If we don't discuss the worldview that gives rise to our decisions, then all we're doing is giving our own personal opinions. That's not how you deal with societal issues.

Those issues are not being addressed. This is a societal issue. This is a Caitlyn Jenner issue.

It's a personal issue. You can do it with your body. You can do whatever.

It very clearly is a societal issue. Let's be honest about it.

I feel like I hear some fear in your voice. I'm just saying. I feel like there's fear that if...

Yeah, Dr. James White has debated over 140 times in public moderated debate from mosques to universities all over the planet. And what gets him is feminist, hipster, pop psychologists. Yeah, that'll do it.

And James, you have an opinion on this, yes?

Oh, most definitely. I'm very concerned that so far we really haven't heard a meaningful moral and ethical worldview brought to bear on the big issue here, which isn't about television programs or reality shows.

It's about what has happened to this man and how the nation is responding to it. And happiness is found in a completely different.

Direction. Dr. White is right. Happiness is only found in one place, and that's in the God of peace. That's in Christ. What we're faced with today is a collision between two antithetical worldviews, a worldview with God as the foundation and a universe of total meaning, or a worldview apart from God and a universe of total meaninglessness.

When we abandon God, it's been said, we don't believe in nothing. Now we'll believe in anything. When you abandon God, up is not up. Down is not down. Right is not right. Left is not left. Darkness is light.

There are no definitions. There is no meaning. There is no truth. God became a man to rescue us from our sins. He died for sins, and he rose from the dead, and he calls all to come to him for life, forgiveness, and peace.

That is what Bruce Jenner is seeking, peace. All of us are. It's only found in the God of peace. For more on engaging the culture with the gospel, go to YouTube, Apologia Studios, and subscribe.

The Impossibility of Neutrality and the Loss of Moral Meaning

If the program had not moved on to someone who superglues their teeth into their head, I was going to ask Dr. Drew about the reality of the fact that there are people who believe that their appendages are foreign objects, that they do not belong in their body, and therefore they want to have them removed.

Some people go ahead and do that with sharp instruments and then become disabled and want to be treated as disabled and get the benefits of being disabled, even though they disabled themselves. I wanted to ask Dr. Drew about that, because if we can do whatever we want with our body, then there's nothing wrong with that, is there?

We can't say that that's inappropriate. We can't say it's immoral. We can't say it's indicative of a mental disorder on the part of someone. Of course, I didn't get a chance to do that. Of course, the co-host, Sam, was given free reign to just take a complete shot about how I'm making Christianity look bad and all the rest of this stuff without even providing for a response, which was just so transparent as to what we're dealing with.

Lots of thoughts have come across my mind since then. I would love to invite Dr. Drew and Samantha to join me on the program. We don't have commercial breaks here, and they'd actually be treated with respect and would be allowed to say what they need to say.

They just have to actually engage in extended dialogue. I was reminded a number of times by the nature of the non-conversation. That wasn't a conversation. Almost nothing meaningful was said in that entire period of time.

From a meaningful philosophical, theological, social perspective, all you had were people sitting around saying, I think this. Well, I think that. Well, I think this. Well, I think that. Well, that's nice.

Have you thought why you think that? Well, I feel this. I feel that. I feel this. I feel that. Feelings and thoughts were all jumbled together in the idea of any type of rationality, any type of having a foundation, even recognizing that you have a secular worldview.

Even Dr. Drew at one point said, well, it is a secular nation. Well, that's given, and that means the secular worldview now trumps everything else, and everything else has to be subsumed under that. And it's like, well, there you go.

Here you watched the revolutionaries. These people are revolutionaries, and they have won the revolution by just assuming they've won it. They've not offered any argument. They've just taken over and basically say all the rest of us, shut up.

Shut up. Shut up. Shut up. Stop talking. We're not listening anymore. It doesn't matter what you're saying, et cetera, et cetera. What you need to understand, especially with the two ladies on the panel who could not just go, first of all, is not an argument.

Okay. That kind of reaction is either for children or imbeciles, one of the two. It is immature, and it shows an utter bankruptcy of capacity to actually engage in meaningful dialogue, adult dialogue, the way we're supposed to do it.

But what's important to recognize is those individuals would vote in a second to have my civil liberties removed, in a second. Now, as long as they get to have their human autonomy, as long as they get to continue to have their iPods and their physical things and go with the flow, they'll be happy with that.

But they would vote almost instantaneously to shred the First Amendment. That's what we're facing. Those are the people who are now taking over the control structures of government. And that's why we can...

No, I did not. I did not watch it.

They don't like you much at all. Oh, I'm sure. They took much more time to go after you in the after show.

Yeah, well, that makes sense. That's the cowardly way of doing it.

Yeah. No, it was cowardly from the get-go, and all three of them sat there, and the mic guy disappeared somewhere. But they, boy, they don't like Christians, they don't like Christianity, and we were all so judgmental.

And you, they actually said this. I don't actually remember you actually saying that they were going to go to hell. No, I never said that. Yeah, well, that's the takeaway, that you were all telling them all they're going to go to hell.

Let's face it. They know that that's the message of scripture for all sinners outside of Jesus Christ, and that's just an expression of their detestation of the gospel. But they know they can't engage and provide any meaningful reputation.

You just have to shout down the other side. You just have to, you know, that's... These folks, they would vote in a second to get rid of religious liberty. Not realizing, of course, that they're the ones losing their liberties in the process.

But the idea of clear thought, wow. What can I say? What can I say? So, what we're seeing today, very, very obviously, is the fleshing out of the degradation of the moral and spiritual fabric of our nation to where you can have a 65-year-old grandfather pretending to be a woman, mutilating his body.

And it's all, it was very clear from the panelists, the ultimate good in human experience is for an individual to be happy. These people are autonomists. The greatest good is autonomy. I get to determine what is good.

I get to determine how I can be happy. And I really, I wanted, I was thinking about tracking down a short portion of a video. I didn't get around to it because we had to hurry. From Saving Private Ryan or any of the other movies that portray accurately, for example, landings on D-Day or, you know, Iwo Jima or whatever else.

And those few moments of terror in those landing craft as that last bit of protection, as flimsy as it was, was about to fall down and they have to run out toward the enemy without protection. And I was going to play that and freeze it with the looks on the faces of these men, these young men, and ask the question, is happiness really what it's all about?

Do any of these men look happy right now? That would not be a description of them. They would not be happy. They were terrified. But you see, they lived in a day when we viewed mankind as something more than a mere animal.

They lived in a day when they had been taught that what makes a man a man are words like honor, duty, character, responsibility. And that often in this life, promoting and cultivating those things will not result in happiness.

They understood the difference between happiness and joy. Happiness is a fleeting state of mind. Joy is something that one can have in horrific circumstances. If you've ever read The Hiding Place, you know exactly what we're talking about, that there could be people who experienced joy in Dachau and Auschwitz because they had character, because they had honor and duty and dignity, because they recognized that mankind was something more than an animal.

What we listen to from those panelists is not only a level of immaturity that is absolutely shocking, but it is ethical nihilism. It is empty. It has nothing to offer, and it cannot long survive. No culture that becomes that has any framework upon which to be able to respond to any kind of meaningful pressure.

What is going to happen to a culture that has that as its moral and ethical fiber when an American city disappears under a mushroom cloud from a terrorist attack? What's going to happen then? Collapse.

Absolute collapse. That's what we're looking at. Clearly, they don't care. They're getting their pay. They've got their BMW. They've got their fancy clothing, and they don't care because they're autonomous.

As long as they're happy, things are good. Now, they all of a sudden find themselves in a nuclear winter, and they'll be blaming everybody, but the only person they have to blame is themselves. They don't want to be bothered with that kind of thinking.

They don't want to be challenged. It makes people uncomfortable. It takes my happiness away, and that won't make me happy, so I just need to be happy. The immaturity of our society is just absolutely shocking.

What can we do? We have to warn these individuals, and they don't like being warned. We will be called hateful and bigots. Again, folks, only give to people's words and opinions the weight that their thoughtfulness deserves.

If you're dealing with people who clearly... Well, I kept thinking about the very humorous thing that Doug Wilson said to the wild-eyed lesbian chick at that debate at the university. Remember what he said?

She wouldn't let him get more than two sentences out before she'd done it. At one point, he said, and you know, I frequently have thoughts that require more than two sentences to express, and that's what I was thinking, is that on CNN, HLN, what passes for...

In fact, I mentioned in the brief little thing I put on Facebook, which somehow didn't get deleted, brief little thing I put on Facebook, when Dr. Drew said, this is a complex issue. This kind of deep conversation just doesn't happen very often on television.

I was having a real hard time just not laughing. Deep conversation. Wow. Okay. There you go. There's what our... Yeah. It's amazing. It truly is. I tried contacting yesterday, didn't get hold of anybody.

I'm going to try again today to contact the producer of the program and communicate to them some of my thoughts and invitation to actually address the issue meaningfully, because that wasn't addressed meaningfully.

I mean, I just can't see how anybody can think that that, I don't even know what to call it, was a meaningful conversation.

About anything, but we'll see. I fear that we walked into the norm of the culture. Oh, yeah. And that's how all of these people think and function, and frankly, it was an eye opener for me. Oh, yeah. And as I've told you a few times, we have the worldview of the Lord Jesus Christ against the worldview of Jersey Shore.

And if anybody's ever even seen a commercial for Jersey Shore, you know what I'm talking about. It's vacuous. And that's what I walked.

Into the middle of trying to communicate with vacuous people. Yeah. The emptiness of that worldview and the emptiness of the thought process, and of course, watching the tweets that came in afterwards.

Oh, my goodness. I haven't done it yet, but I was going to repost using the Logos visual thingy, you know, create that nice looking background and put it on Twitter and Facebook. But I am reminded once again of the Hebrew term Zuloth.

Zuloth. Zuloth is a term that is used in Psalm 12, and it means that which is vile. I'm sorry, Zuluth. And the statement that is made in Psalm 12, 8 English Bible, Psalm 12, 9 in the Masoretic text. Is the wicked strut about on every side, and it literally starts off with surround, surrounded.

The wicked strutting, strutting about we are you become surrounded by wicked people who are proud of their wickedness. And when does that happen? When that which is Zuluth. That which is. Vile. Repugnant.

Is praised and exalted amongst the sons of men. Amongst the sons of men. So when a society praises and exalts vile behavior, the wicked are encouraged in their wickedness and they strut about. So many times the psalmist talks about how grieved he is at the reality of the behavior of the wicked.

And how many times do we read in scripture of God having to remind the righteous that this life isn't all there is, and that there will be judgment, there will be justice, and that that is the foundation upon which we are to base ourselves and to say, we will survive.

Maybe not physically in this life. I mean, those who hate God have often killed those who love God because they are convicted by that. But the reality is the judgment will come, justice will be done, and we are called to be a prophetic voice and to try to warn those who are.

I mean, I truly feel for these young people. I mean, their worldview is so completely self-destructive. It cannot provide them with the foundation to be able to live any kind of life of human flourishing.

It can't. It's not possible. They have been robbed of any transcendent meaning. And they really think it's wisdom to sit there going, he can do anything he wants with his body. You don't believe that.

That, psychologically, does not believe he can do anything he wants with his body. Yet, I mean, I suppose, eventually, sure, you know, every expression of sexual deviancy will be normalized. Can you even use the term perversion any longer?

What does that mean? I get the feeling that, from their perspective, the only perversion is morality. The only perversion is righteousness. And that's when you've gotten completely to the point of woe to those who call white black and black white, who call good evil and evil good.

And that involves a giving over on God's part. And there's judgment. There's judgment. So, just some thoughts. I truly am amazed at the speed at which this has taken place. But what will it bring in the future?

What happens when there is a true national emergency? And this has become the fabric and fiber of this country. It won't hold together. It won't hold together. But that's what we're facing. That's what we're facing.

All right. There's some thoughts about half the program on that. Everybody wanted to know. There you go. There's much more could be said. I, for one, let me address this. I do not believe that we as Christians have any way out in taking a stand on this issue.

Man's name is Bruce Jenner. Will always be Bruce Jenner. And to start calling him by any other name, start using other pronouns, no matter what the pressure of the society, is to fundamentally agree that mankind has the right to change the reality of God's decree simply by their own autonomous will.

Now, those of you who believe in autonomous will, I'll let you figure out what you're going to do. I mean, I honestly do look at those of you who just bang away at autonomous will and free will fully against the testimony of Scripture that we have provided to you over and over again.

I say, y 'all do what y 'all want to do. I don't know how you're going to deal with these issues, but your human traditions on that matter absolutely destroy having any solid foundation to deal with this subject.

But to capitulate to this sudden demand that, well, you know, Michael Fallon says, I want dolphinplasty. He wants to be a dolphin. And I think the government should pay for it. Well, government's paying for a guy in prison who's a traitor to the United States to be transformed into something he's not.

So why not? I mean, the insanity of it all is shocking, but that's where secularism leads. Secularism is empty. Man is not autonomous. And to capitulate on this issue is to fundamentally say, I am more concerned about what the world thinks about me than what God thinks about me.

And I must be faithful to God who made Bruce Jenner a male. Now, if you don't believe God made Bruce Jenner a male, but the Christian perspective is pretty clear on that, though there's a lot of people who don't want to give a second thought to it.

And so combine that with the absolutely disgusting action of ESPN in giving Bruce Jenner the Arthur Ashe Award for courage. That is not courage. What he did is not courageous. What those men in those landing craft did was courageous.

You cannot define the term courageous outside of the terms of duty, honor, character, that kind of thing. You can't. It's not possible. But that's exactly what ESPN is doing. And I am absolutely disgusted.

I know I put this on silent. You all saw me doing that at the beginning, but evidently it went up one little thing there. What ESPN is doing is such an insult, such an insult to those who actually do show courage that it is beneath contempt.

It is beneath contempt. I don't even know how else to put it. Anyway, there you go. There's some comments on that. Carla just said in channel, why can't prison inmates self-identify as innocent and therefore be allowed back on the streets?

There is a question. Who won the gold medal in the decathlon?

Who did? Well, there's no question. There really isn't. But you can't say Bruce.

Jenner did. Because Bruce Jenner doesn't exist any longer. Well, I guess he's dead. Is that it?

I don't know what he is. The Borg assimilated him?

Beamed the Enterprise, I think. I think that's the best way to handle it. The insanity of it all is amazing, but the other side is enjoying their insanity and doesn't want to be bothered. So there you go.

Hard to shift gears. I'd open up the phones because a lot of you would like to say the same things I just said, but repeating ourselves isn't going to do us a whole lot of good. So I'm going to continue doing what I promised to do.

David Barron, the Trinity, and Misrepresentation Claims

Oh, by the way, by the way, shifting gears here. After the program, right after the program on Tuesday, I briefly commented on the David Barron Turretin fan debate. Well, David Barron took to Twitter right after the program.

You probably didn't see it because you were trying to get Skype set up, and we got a program to do, and so it wasn't a major deal. But David Barron took to Twitter just complaining vociferously that I had misrepresented.

Now remember, I played his comments. You know, so playing whole sections of his comments. Well, you didn't say, though, that I argue that the apostles never enumerated. Of course, you're a Unitarian. Of course, you believe that.

And obviously, I completely disagree. You can't even begin to understand the New Testament outside of a Trinitarian paradigm. I completely disagree with the idea that they did not enunciate these things.

The entire gospel is Trinitarian. Their roles are clearly delineated. Don't give me that. But don't give me. It was really childish, immature, whining. Why not just interact, Mr. Barron, with what I actually said?

And what you said was that we don't find this view in intertestamental Judaism. Therefore, therefore, you're making a presupposition. You're demanding that, well, if it's not there, then we have to interpret the apostles in a different sense.

And I go, why? Are you saying God could not do what we said he did? And that is in the incarnation, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, do something that was unexpected. Prophetically, you can find it.

Sure, Isaiah 9, 6, things like that. But specifically, you have a presupposition that you did not defend, especially in light of New Testament evidence that, you know, give you an example. In the debate, Barron tried very unsuccessfully to get around the fact that in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, Paul painfully, obviously, uses the Shema and expands it so that you have the Father and the Son being expressed.

Tries to say it's actually Malachi 2 .10. It was really funny. If you listen carefully to the debate, he says, and even the Nesliallan text in its references refers us there to Malachi 2 .10. And then you can tell he looked at the page.

And also to Deuteronomy, also to the Shema, but also, and you can tell he wanted to say the text only directed us to Malachi 2 .10, but then he looked, which would be a good thing to look before you make comments like that.

Then he looked and realized, oh, drat, they also put the other one there. It's so painfully obvious. The Malachi text is put there because of verbal parallels. But if you ask yourself the question, what is Paul saying?

But for us, there is but one God. What is that coming from? Any meaningful scholar who has even a little bit of lack of bias knows what Paul's drawing from. It's the same thing with the rabbi thing about falling down in front of someone and kissing his feet versus falling.

It's sophistry, Mr. Barron. I'm sorry, but I'm identifying you as a sophist. Not as a serious theologian, but as a sophist. Yes, sir. That's exactly what I did. Live with it. Get over it. Respond to the argument.

Go from there. So I want to mention that I found that rather interesting after the program. Didn't pay much attention to it, though, for the obvious reason we had other things going on. Now, I want to get back to Anjum Chowdhury.

I saw this. Was it was it in this feed? I saw a picture right as I came in in. In Twitter, and I wasn't sure. Where where this came from, but somebody was taking a shot at Anjum because there was there was a picture of him with alcohol.

And of course, as a Salafi, that would be absolutely no, no, no, no, no. But I couldn't understand what. Who was posting it or why or what was going on with it? You know, it could have easily just been him pouring it out in protest or something, too.

I since I couldn't see a context on it, I wasn't able to follow up on it. But Anjum certainly is in the media a lot. And so understanding his his perspectives is somewhat useful. And so we can we go back.

Hopefully the sound thing is because I don't know what caused that sound all of a sudden start. I just hit the volume button to max and it was already at max. But all of a sudden, it started feeding. Strange how things like that work.

Maybe it was sending it to another source or something. Oh, yeah. Right. Yeah. How many times you reset that machine recently? Anyway, OK, let's let's get back to Anjum Chowdhury and his comments in the debate with Sam Shamoon.

And by the way, let me mention something. I didn't have time last time. Someone contacted me and said, you know, I'm a little concerned that you're reviewing this debate. You know, people could could take this to mean that you don't that you're somehow attacking Sam or whatever.

I don't know why they would think that. I said right at the beginning that what I find fascinating is that Sam and I hear things very differently because of our backgrounds. And we we have talked about the differences that we have and the disagreements that we have as to especially the shall we say, the temperature of response that should be allowed.

And I think Sam would would honestly admit that there are times that he loses control of his temper and and no. And I don't I would hope that he would not defend the times that he's done so. But what I brought out was that in this debate, it wasn't a matter of of temperature or anything like that.

It was a different decision on the part of Sam and myself as to what we want to communicate and to whom. I would have responded to Chowdhury's sometimes lengthy diatribes by focusing upon different things when you're in a debate.

You're listening to the other side. You'll see I'm quickly writing notes as quickly as I can. And you understand that what I'm doing at that point in time is I'm listening. I'm trying to accurately hear what the person is saying.

I'm trying to accurately accurately represent what the person is saying. But there's also a secondary process going on, which is absolutely necessary. And that is I am prioritizing in light of the commitments I bring to the debate in regards to what my target audience is.

I am prioritizing the points in light of those free debate specific commitments. Now, some people might go into the debate and not even realize that they have made those commitments. The more clearly you've thought it through, the more clearly you're going to apply them as well.

But we're looking at a different audience. And very clearly, Sam is looking to press upon Chowdhury and his specific audience and a specific range of his audience. Allegations of inconsistency that raise questions about the validity of the Quran and of the, especially in this situation, Salafi Muslim system of theology.

I'm not so much focused upon that as wanting to make sure that maybe a different portion of that audience, the Muslim audience, hears a compelling, clear, and shall we say knockout defense of Christian truth.

Now, that means I'm not going to be pressing as much on inconsistencies from the Muslim perspective. But it's a choice that a person makes. And it also depends upon what you feel your strongest areas of preparation and expertise are as well.

So, I don't believe debate should be cookie cutter things. I'll defend my choices as to before my Lord, why I chose to emphasize this rather than emphasizing that. But that doesn't mean that that's a necessary criticism.

Now, I said to, I said, you know, Sam asked, well, what'd you think? And so, I said to him on Facebook, I said, well, neither one of you stuck to the topic overly well. And it's true. I mean, sure, Sam presented an argument for the deity of Christ.

Chowdhury didn't even understand what the argument was and did not show any interest in knowing. So, you know, from Sam's perspective, hey, if he didn't refute what I already argued, I'm free to go after whatever else I want to go after.

Okay, you have that freedom. Would I do that? Probably not. What I would do is I would want to present more and more arguments because I'm not so much, you know, I want the Muslim in whose life the Holy Spirit is working to have as much divine truth to be used as the means of enlightenment by the Spirit as I can possibly communicate in that given situation.

Now, can the Holy Spirit use the inconsistencies of Salafi Islam? Sure. Again, it's a matter of, you know, choosing what your priorities are. So it's not meant to be a criticism of other methodologies.

It is meant to be educational in recognizing that when we who do debates do them, we have to make certain decisions as to what we're doing in the midst of that debate. And by the way, the thing on HLN wasn't a debate.

I mean, when you're given less than two minutes, grand total, that's not a debate. So it's a completely different situation in that context.

In Samuel 8, 13 to 14, God says, Solomon is his son. He said, I will be his father,.

And he shall be my son, talking about Solomon. Now, if you weren't with us last time, or if like me, you slept since then, this is Anjum sitting there with notes, trying to make the argument that Jesus being the son of God is irrelevant because everyone's the son of God.

And of course, this ignores the fact, as Sam's going to bring up, that this contradicts the Quran, which does not allow any ascription of sonship at all. And secondly, it completely ignores the context of the use of the phrase son of God, specifically in regards to Jesus, because he is the monogamous huyas, the unique son of God.

And the reaction of the Jews, that's funny, a lot of, even Sheikh Umar, a couple weeks ago, started off by saying, well, are we going to believe how the Jews respond to Jesus? And the answer is yes. When Jesus makes claims and the Jews respond, and Jesus does not correct them, then yes, we can look at that.

John chapter five, classic example, making himself equal with God. In the rest of what follows, Jesus does not say, oh, I was not making myself equal with God. What follows is Jesus saying, I'm not making myself a separate God, a competing God.

The Father and I, we do what is absolutely harmonious. I do not, I do not operate, op, heyau to, from myself. But I, what I do, I do in perfect harmony with the Father. But he doesn't say, oh no, that's not what I'm saying.

So it's funny, they want, they want, you know, they follow the old Akhmedidat, Jesus never said he was God, worship me. But when Jesus has opportunity to say, I am not deity, you are not to honor me as deity.

He says the exact opposite. He says, you're to honor the Son, even as you honor the Father. He, he talks about the dead will hear the voice, the Son of God, and will live. And every person listening to him already believed that God would call the dead out of the graves.