Voting, Racialism, TGC Article, Chesterton’s Romanism in a Jumbo DL

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line on Election Day 2018 in the

United States. I am reminded that people overseas invest significantly more energy in knowing about our elections here than we ever invest in knowing about elections someplace else.

Wasn't it Al Mohler? He was at the Field Conference down in Brazil. And so he did this whole thing on the briefing about the election down there.

Well, actually he did two, before the election and then when the super conservative guy who identifies as a

Christian won, who back here, you know, he's being identified as worse than Trump and all the rest of stuff.

It was interesting to get more of a perspective from down there. But anyway, he's going on and on and on and on.

And I was thinking to myself, man, this is the most I've known about a foreign election. And I mean, we sort of follow a little bit about what's going on in like Germany or the

UK. We know about Brexit, you know, stuff like that. But for most

Americans, they don't know who the prime minister or anything is of any place. They know who

Putin is. That's about it. There aren't any real elections there anyways. So yeah, here in the

United States, as the Babylon Bee pointed out, this is the most important election of your life until 2020.

And 2016 was the most important election of your life. And on it goes and goes and goes.

I did vote today. My wife does the early voting thing. I don't like early voting.

I'll be honest with you. I don't know when we started doing that. I wonder how many people, for example, all those

Kirsten Sinema videos came out only in the past couple of weeks. How many people had already voted for her who then see those videos of her mocking

Arizona and Arizonans and go, I don't want to vote for her. Too late.

You already did. So, you know, back when we were kids, you showed up on the first Tuesday in November and you voted.

And I wouldn't mind if you're going to know you're going to be gone and you have a reason to do something like that.

But this this early voting stuff. Something like that. Yeah. But all this. I am highly skeptical of it personally.

But anyway, I did I did vote today because I don't do the the early ballot thing and I get to the polling place.

It's just walk down my street. I like walking down there. It's all of like 300 steps and walk in no line.

There have been lines in the past. No line. But they're all staring at the computers.

And so I scan my driver's license. And I had my voter

ID card, but evidently mine's so old that it doesn't work. So I guess I'll have to get a new one or something. I don't know.

I haven't I've been at the same place. Do you realize this is 2018 means 20 years, 20 years, the same, same, same place, same address.

And it just sits there staring at me. It's doing the spinny, spinny thing. And there's only three places where you can sign in to get your ballot.

And so there's somebody at each one. We're all just sitting there going, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do. And then it keeps coming up.

Do you live at such and such address? And yes, spinny, spinny, spinny, spinny. Do you live at such and such address?

Yes. Spinny, spinny, spinny. So the poor lady is on the phone and she's calling.

And then I hear her say, total reboot, huh? And and about 30 seconds later, oh, it's it's working.

But, yeah, they had to reboot the 386 computer using Windows three one that they were running it on and it started working again.

So there you go. Wow. So, you know, I get the ballot and I had worked through it with my wife before she mailed hers in.

So that at least helps, you know, at least, you know, what what's going to be on it. There's a socialist in my neighborhood.

There's two socialists in my neighborhood right across the street from each other. And they're on one of the routes I normally run.

And I almost I am so tempted to drop a note in their mailbox to say, thank you very much for filling your yard with campaign signs, because all

I have to do is take a picture. And then when I fill out the ballot, everything that you are for, you know,

I'm against it made it really easy for me. But but I mean, seriously,

I mean, they were big Bernie fans and they're almost right across the street from each other. And so it's sort of like, well, this makes it easy.

As long as they're for it, that means it's probably pretty bad. And I think, honestly, on everything that they had to sign up about,

I did vote against the person, either the person or the thing. But it wasn't just because they did that.

It was that once I sat down and looked at it, I said, oh, yeah, they are socialists. They are promoting everything.

So what guided my voting today? Well, obviously, what guide my voting today was an issue of of worldview.

And there are certain aspects of worldview that I'm starting to notice.

I noticed, especially over the past number of weeks, an interesting divide in social media between those who are promoters of the social justice perspective and myself on what defines a

Christian worldview. It used to be fairly obvious that if you promote homosexuality, that you are clearly opposed to creational revelation from God as to the proper function of male and female in the sexual realm.

If you promote the redefinition of marriage, if now you promote the concept of transgenderism, if you use terms like homophobia and transphobia, and if you're doing all the phobia stuff, it used to be fairly obvious which side was doing that and which side wasn't and what that meant.

And, of course, I commented to Tom Buck on Twitter this morning.

It seems to me that a lot of people who are woke are now broke when it comes to the issue of abortion.

All of a sudden, what I'm seeing are people saying that, and I challenged one of the wokest of the woke on Twitter a few weeks ago,

I pointed out that they seem to be buying into a narrative that greatly minimizes the genocide.

And that's a proper term. When you start talking hundreds of thousands and millions, that's genocide.

The genocide that has been released on the black American population over the past century by Margaret Sanger and her grandchildren called

Planned Parenthood. And oh, many of them will play lip service. Oh, yeah, it's terrible.

Yeah, I'm against that. But they'll vote for the people who make sure the Planned Parenthood stays open and gets all the money they can because they fit better with their idea of social justice.

And, you know, when you think about it, there's obviously some kind of overriding, overarching thing going on here when you could ignore hundreds of thousands of black babies aborted per year.

Some say 18 million since Roe v. Wade. In New York City, more abortions than live births.

And then you can be so quiet about the thousands of blacks being killed by fellow blacks in Chicago, Los Angeles.

How many would it take to get to a thousand? Chicago plus one other city would do it.

Or is it much more than that per year? I'd have to look it up again.

But I think Chicago does that by itself, doesn't it? Yeah. So it's many, many thousands when you throw in L .A.

and some of the other places. And then the only thing you hear from these woke people is not about that and not about the abortions.

And so you're talking hundreds of thousands of deaths right there. What you hear about are the 15 unarmed black people shot by police in the

United States each year. That's about the pace run, 15 to 17. And of course, let's assume every one of those was a bad shoot.

They weren't. But let's assume every single one of them was a bad shoot. So 17 in comparison to what?

A quarter million? And one predominates and the other is like, I don't want to talk about that.

It's got to be something going on there. There's got to be a reason for this someplace.

And so when I see the wokest of the woke trying to focus our attention on, well, have you noticed, man, this is at least those of us who are presuppositionalists saw this coming and shouldn't be as subject to it.

But have you noticed how quickly the definitions of words change in our society now so as to serve political purposes?

Let's take a single word. Immigrant. Now, I'm starting to push 60.

We're going to get there before long. I'm on the downward slide of the 50s into the home base of 60.

And I pretty much know what immigrant has meant most of my life.

And I've lived in a border state since 1974. And we never used the term immigrant of people that snuck across the border.

They're real eagles. You recognize the difference. And my

Hispanic friends here in Phoenix have expressed to me many times how strongly they feel about this subject because they know it's the people that sneak in that give them the bad name that they have to live with.

And they don't like those folks. There's a strong division in the community between the illegals and those who are here legally.

And so I know what an immigrant is. I studied about the

Irish and the Scottish and the immigration issues and what happened in New York and Ellis Island and all that stuff.

And it's just a given that a nation has an immigration policy and has certain rules.

And those rules make sense. But that's because back then we also recognized that every nation had to have something called a border because that's what defines a nation.

If you don't have borders, you don't have taxes, you don't have law, you have anarchy, pure, utter anarchy leading to globalism.

Hmm. Okay. So this was before globalism became the flavor of the day, the

Ben and Jerry's flavor. I'm sure Ben and Jerry's has a globalist flavor somewhere, knowing Ben and Jerry's. And so an immigrant was someone who made application, followed the law, and was seeking citizenship in the

United States. That was what an immigrant was. That's not what an immigrant is anymore. Now the term is used of anyone in the world somehow now has the right to simply come to the

United States and move in. We shouldn't have borders.

We shouldn't have immigration. If somebody in Central America doesn't have as much as people in the

United States do because of the governmental choices that they've made and because of, well,

I guess anymore, I guess even religious people don't think that God blesses one nation over another. But biblically that's been the case down through the years.

We believe that that was the case, but I guess no more. As long as you in some way can tap into the victimization oppression meme and start working with intersectionality, then you just get to go wherever you want and do whatever you want to do.

And so the very term I'm seeing, quote unquote evangelicals, right now on Twitter, right today, you can go to their feeds and see them.

These are people in educational institutions and have a lot to do with Christian publishing and all sorts of stuff like that who are using these new terms that are laden with all this stuff.

And the result is they seem to be more concerned about these kinds of movements than what has historically defined evangelicals in regards to fundamental

Christian worldview issues of, you know, when you murder your unborn children, you really don't believe that people are made in the image of God.

And they love to use that term too. They seem to think that as long as anyone is in the image of God, that means that everybody has to be on the same level.

So it's the Marxist thing. So this is the Christian Marxist version.

What you do is you invoke the Imago Dei. You ignore the rest of the scriptures that reveal the

Imago Dei, which talks about God blesses some and he places some in positions of authority and he gives some people blessings of riches and some other people he don't.

So you ignore that part. You take the Imago Dei part out and you say, ah, that means we should all have equality of result.

We should all, it's Karl Marx's dream. We should all have the exact same amount of stuff, basically.

And that's what's being promoted. That's the new good. And it's happened so fast.

It has happened so fast. It is truly amazing to observe what has been going on.

This leads me to a Twitter thread that, well, this is

Timothy Isaiah Cho is the editor, I believe, of Faithfully Magazine, which is the most woke publication ever found.

So it's Christian wokeness. So Christian left. And he is quoting, a lot of people went after him without recognizing that these are the words of Jamar Tisby from The Witness, the old

Ron, someone who has been very instrumental in introducing critical race theory and these types of concepts into reformed society.

Circles over the past decade or so. And he's quoting

Tisby. And here's what appeared. This was, well, five days ago already.

But this is from Timothy Isaiah Cho's Twitter feed. What if we applied

Matthew 23 to race and justice? What if we exercised a little creativity and thought about what

Jesus might say to the church in America when it comes to race and justice? What if Matthew 23 were to read,

Woe to you, reformed Christians and racial moderates. No idea.

Hypocrites, for you hold events to commemorate civil rights activists and read books about the martyrs of anti -racism, saying if we had lived during the civil rights movement, we would not have taken part with the racists and shedding the blood of the protesters.

Thus, you witness against yourselves that you are sons and daughters of those who murdered Martin Luther King Jr.

Oh, I think that's pretty much what Thabiti Anabili said, right? Right.

Okay. Fill up then the measure of your slaveholding and segregationist fathers and mothers.

You racists, you racial moderates. I don't know what a racial moderate is. I'm sorry. How are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

Therefore, I send you social justice warriors. Think about that one for just a second, because initially

I send you prophets and apostles. Social justice warriors and community organizers and activists, some of whom you will put in jail and lynch.

Some you will call Marxists in your churches and troll on social media so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth from the blood of the righteous

Medgar Evans to the blood of Emmett Till, the son of Mamie Till Mobley, whom you lynched in Mississippi.

Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this millennial and Gen Z generation.

What if Christ is speaking those words to us? Powerful words by Jamar Tisby. Watch the whole lecture here.

So I assume you can watch a whole lecture. You haven't seen that? Yeah. This is what it means to be woke.

This is what it means to divide the body along racial lines. This is what it means to get up in the morning and everything you see is determined by this narrative and by this worldview.

That's what you get. Sounds to me like somebody woke up in the

Twilight Zone. That's what it sounds like. Well, look, Jamar Tisby sits at the big tables.

Let's put it this way. There are far more doors open to him today in reformed academia than to me because he takes this position.

That's how quickly this has infected even our seminaries at the highest levels.

Now, we notice, I hope you noticed, no definitions, no careful thought.

Taking Jesus's words about the scribes and Pharisees in the first century and applying them, utilizing

American categories, and hence making accusation against one's ancestors in this fashion.

It's reprehensible. It should bring censure upon Jamar Tisby and upon Timothy Isaiah Cho for repeating it, but it will not.

This is now what is promoted and considered and lauded as good, and if someone says anything against it like I just did, oh, you're terrible, you're a racist, you're hateful, you're a bigot, just start the roll.

I'd see it in my feed over here right now if I hadn't already blocked or muted so many people.

But that's where we live today. That's what we've got.

Fascinating. Fascinating. And by the way, turning a little bit,

Reformation 21 just posted, I think, today the second of the articles that I have written in explication of and expansion of the statement on social justice and the gospel.

And so I've tweeted that out. I think I may have put it on my Facebook feed.

I'm not sure. If you go to Reformation 21, you will be able to read that, and it is on the subject of sexuality and marriage, which a lot of people said was, we just tacked that on to get people to like what we were saying about race or ethnicity.

No, it actually happens to be central to the whole point of our worldview.

But that is out there now as well. Hmm.

Oh, what's what's what's I'm sorry. All right.

Well, I know I tweeted it. So let me see here.

What's never seen a senior. Oh, I see.

I just see someone going after somewhere there. Interesting.

Interesting. Which do I do next? Well, I'm 23 minutes in.

Let's let's go ahead and do this one next. Two more subjects I want to get to, but they're going to take some time. They're going to take some time.

And they are important. An article appeared on November 5th, so that's yesterday, by Sam Albury on the,

I think it was the TGC website, titled

Where to Find Hope and Help Amid the Sexual Revolution.

Now, there's a lot in this that is that is good. And I'm going to agree with a lot of it.

And then there's others where I'm going to go. Not sure what's being said here. I'm concerned that this is being said or this is being ignored or something along those lines.

But I would recommend it to your reading, though I would recommend it to your critical reading as anything these days and everyone these days need we need to read critically and carefully, myself included.

So, Where to Find Hope and Help Amid the Sexual Revolution. He begins by saying much has changed and it's changing very quickly.

He says, The Christian view of marriage as being between a man and woman and the basic assumption that we're all made as men and women may not have always been championed by our culture, but it was at least seen as a legitimate, if quaint, part of Western thought.

Well, actually, I would say that if we're talking about Western culture, Western culture was based upon the idea.

You can't understand our law or anything else without the Christian assumption of marriage as between a man and woman and the gender binary that is the only sane way of viewing mankind.

Now, such views are increasingly seen as an actual danger to society. That is true.

It is very difficult for us on the older side of the spectrum to even understand how to interact with gen, iGen,

Gen Z, whatever you call the people who are younger than the Millennials. Now, it is hard for me to not laugh when talking with someone who is so disconnected from the reality of life around us that you could actually contemplate the idea that the gender binary, for example, is not the reality that we face.

It's difficult. Yeah, it is difficult to make that. That is a chasm that I'm not sure

Evel Knievel would be able to jump. And I just dated myself because half the people, Millennials and below, don't even know who

Evel Knievel was. So there you go. That is a major, major problem.

He lists four significant cultural changes, and I wish that he had more clearly identified the origins of these changes.

I will do so. Number one, our moral intuitions have changed. Well, actually, what it is is the necessary worldview changes that accompany secularization and the abandonment of any meaningful identification of man as the creature of God results in moral intuitions changing of necessity because there is no longer any objective revelation by which morality or ethics is to be judged or defined.

And so there's something much more basic here. He says,

As this being so, we can see how Christian culture so quickly embraced gay marriage, applying the first of the three moral taste buds.

Does it do harm to anyone else? See, so harm, rather than glorification of God, transcendent purpose, self -sacrifice, promote the good in light of divine revelation, secularism has no place for that.

Therefore, does it do harm to anyone else? Surely if the lovely gay couple down the street is allowed to marry, it's not going to affect me in any adverse way.

And yeah, that was the reasoning. That's all you have left. Of course, the lovely polyamorous quadruple couple down the street, same thing.

The father -daughter or mother -son or father -son couple, incestuous relationship.

The guy married to his three dogs. Lovely people, right? Again, there's no moral standards anymore.

So as long as they're down there, they're not allegedly going to affect me.

It does affect you. You just no longer have the moral and ethical sensibilities to be able to see how it affects you and how it impacts the entirety of the culture around you.

Second, prohibiting gay marriage feels oppressive rather than freeing. Notice the language.

Prohibiting. No, redefining marriage to even allow for the concept.

We tried, but again, you have to have ears to hear and people weren't willing to hear.

Prohibiting gay marriage feels oppressive rather than freeing. Surely someone has the right to love whom they want and to express that love in the way they want.

That's our society. You no longer have to worry about a Christian definition of love or a definition of love that will have any meaning after you're gone.

You just get to whatever. Call it love. And third, it seems deeply unfair to oppose this.

How can it be fair for just or just for one couple to be able to marry but not another couple?

Viewed this way, supporting gay marriage seems intuitively right. No wonder many once opposed have shifted their thinking in recent years.

Why? Because the Christian worldview and the shadow that it cast in our law and in our educational system is now gone.

The shadow is gone. And so these next generations, the Millennials, the

Gen Xs, Gen Zs, whatever you call them, iGen, that shadow is gone.

That influence is gone. There's no longer concerned about the Imago Dei or anything like that.

And so moral intuition becomes moral anarchy. And that's why you can, on the one hand, have the hand wringing in the

Kavanaugh stuff, which of course is now unraveling right, left, and center.

And people are even being brought up on charges, rightly so, though nothing will ever come of that,

I don't think. I don't think it can any longer for lying about, you know, making false accusations, all the rest of that kind of stuff.

But you had people hand wringing about the alleged events there, who at the exact same moment will say that any biological male should be able to expose himself to young girls in the female bathroom.

As long as he thinks he's a female. Okay, that's insanity. It's evil insanity. It's disgusting.

It's horrific. But it is irrefutable, given the secular worldview and its incapacity to generate consistent, meaningful, transgenerational moral and ethical standards.

That's the way it is. And then Albury points out that he says,

I remember watching a TV debate about whether evangelical churches should allow gay marriage. The proponent for doing so made it succinct and to the audience compelling case.

God is love. I have found love with another woman. And so this is something God wants to bless and the church should celebrate.

Where have I heard that before? Oh, in the debate that we did in Florida last month.

Or was it a month before last? I don't know. A few weeks ago, when Michael Brown and I debated two folks, we heard that exact same argument.

Notice what he says. In response, an evangelical pastor kept replying, but the Bible says marriage is between a man and woman.

He is right. And yet he was appealing to something, the authority of scripture, that had little traction with those watching.

Now, this is the Andy Stanley thing. And there is no question that if you're just working on the level of,

I want to convince these people of my position on this particular issue, rather than I want to present the lordship of Christ in an entire worldview, then, yeah, you got to find some way to trick them.

Now, notice what he says here. The response to God is love argument is to point out that God being love doesn't mean he approves of everything we think is love.

But notice what is presuppositionally behind that sentence. You have to know what

God thinks love is, which means God has to have spoken in scripture, in a standard that is available to everybody.

Again, the importance of thinking presuppositionally. He goes on, it means God knows far more about love than we do and has had to reveal that to us.

And so we must listen to him, in scripture, if we are to know how to order our lives, as if God's revelation is clear enough to tell us this, and thereby love one another appropriately and well, in light of what he has said in scripture.

So, Alberry's argument is right. That would be a part of the proper response to the

God is love argument, but it all presupposes what the pastor was saying in the first place, and that is whether God has spoken.

When all of it comes down, everything always comes down to whether God has spoken. Look at all the debates we do, whether it's with atheists or Muslims or Mormons or Roman Catholics, it doesn't matter who it is.

Every debate eventually comes down to has God spoken? Has God spoken? That is the dividing line.

That is why this program is called what it's called. That's the dividing line. Always will be. Always has been.

Always will be. He says, number two, our view of minorities has changed.

Secular people today look back on previous discrimination against LGBTQ plus people and feel appalled.

We are now aware of the pain caused by past homophobia and demonization of the gay community.

Well, I'm not sure why he says we when the first line is secular people today.

Eventually, there's no way around this. Eventually, these words will be written about pedophilia, about incestuous relationships, about bestiality, about everything, because there is no stopping point.

And for someone to say, well, you know, I, as a pedophile, feel that my community and I, I reject the utilization of such language, but it's common.

It's a common folks. We've been saying this for decades. It's a common. My community has been demonized by the church.

The church is wrong. Now, right now, most people aren't going to buy that argument right now, but I wouldn't be surprised.

All you need is a just a couple of good Hollywood movies. All you need is a couple of good

Hollywood movies and the iGen, especially, will be going, ah, let's make it illegal to say anything against pedophilia.

And, I mean, you, you, you think I'm crazy. We could go out there and find people right now that go, oh, yeah, we don't want to hurt anybody's feelings.

Yeah, there you go. We see movies like The Imitation Game and TV shows like Transparent and our move to compassion for the people our culture once overtly victimized.

I'm sorry, never seen either one and don't feel moved to compassion over terms of alleged victimization, especially when it comes to morality.

I mean, it's in the vast majority of instances, what's being said is that in the past, our culture, because it had clear moral standards, pronounced shame upon violation of those standards.

And we're supposed to now feel shame for ever having shamed anyone.

So this is, this is the moral and ethical revolution. Turn everything upside down. So shame the people who once held to norms that held our society together.

It's not going to last long because it's all going to come crashing down like house cards, but that's the, that's where we are right now.

Then he says, in many ways, we Christians can applaud this change. There is ample biblical reason to be appalled at bullying and of this or any other kind.

I'm sorry, shaming people who have violated their covenants and violated the morality and standards of the society is not bullying.

That is not bullying. Bullying is sticking somebody else in a trash can upside down because you can at school.

It is, it is not the fact that there have, that there is a, there is a necessary place for shame and morality in a culture.

If your culture has none of these things, your culture will devolve into pure anarchy before long.

There's, there's no way around it. Then he says, this sense of societal shame over past discrimination has led to the phenomenon of intersectionality.

Well, let's be perfectly blunt here. Once again, intersectionality comes from certain movements and perspectives that now, if you even point out the

Frankfurt school, neo -Marxism or anything else, not only are you yesterday's news. Oh, you must've been listening to Jordan Peterson.

But now it's, it's, it's sort of like you're a nationalist.

Oh, yeah. I mean, in, in six months, entire meanings of words can change.

I mean, at the last Olympics, I was a nationalist.

I sort of wanted the U S to win. Uh, I, I rooted, I mean, have you ever watched the, the, what, what'd they call it?

The miracle when the, when the miracle, miracle on ice, when the U S hockey team beat the

Russians and see those guys with the

American flags and crying and that's now evil. You are evil.

You're a, you're not even a Christian. If you actually went, yeah, cool.

We won. No, you're, you're evil. You're it's now sinful in six months, six months.

You know, this, another term I mentioned on Twitter today, I had never heard until this year, dog whistle, dog whistles.

I, I, what? Wow. Anyway, I must be, must be.

Yeah. I don't know. I don't know. This dynamic has also led to great concern about minorities being emotionally or psychologically harmed.

Sometime ago, I was invited to speak on sexuality and the gospel for a Christian group on a secular university campus and the campus LGBTQ plus advocacy group organized a protest.

I met with the protesters shortly before the meeting started to listen to their concerns and see if there was any assurance I could give them as they voiced their worries about the event.

It became clear the most significant concern was that my words would be harmful to any gay people of faith who might be present at the meeting.

When I pressed further, I discovered that at least part of what they meant by harm was simply the presence of a contrary opinion, however graciously it might be expressed.

What this means is, is that the secular

Western worldview produces children who are adults.

This is infantile thought. It is irrational. It cannot be dealt with. These are people completely controlled by their emotions.

There is no reasoning with such people. This idea of damage by the mere expression of another perspective,

I am sorry, but there cannot be a society that shows respect for this because there won't be a society for very long.

Period. We don't live this way. We weren't created to live this way. We can't interact with others this way.

This is so destructive to everything that's good that to pander to this, to do anything other than to say, man up, you grow up, man up, listen to what somebody else has to say, and learn the deep, ages -wide wisdom of the philosopher who said, sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

That was one of the first rhymes I ever learned, and that is now societal heresy.

Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words will absolutely crush you, and we will absolutely make you illegal, and we will silence you.

There can be no scientific advancement. There can be no government.

There can be no law. There can be nothing in a society that embraces that mentality of a three -year -old.

It's a mentality of a three -year -old, and if entire groups adopt the mentality of a three -year -old, then we need to invite them to realize they're not living consistently with that, but we cannot give in to it.

We are giving in to the barbarians at the gates when we do that. That's the end of society.

That's it. When that becomes something that becomes honored and respected, when was the first sacking of Rome?

Yeah, that's where we are, and eventually, just like we go to the

Colosseum in Rome today, and they've shored enough up that you can walk in there without stuff falling on you and dying, but it's ruins.

It's what it is. It's ruins, and every apocalyptic movie out there shows the

Capitol or the White House in ruins after some normally nuclear war or the apes take over, whatever else it might be.

I mean, I'm old enough to remember when Planet of the Apes first came out, and that camera pan to where you see the

Statue of Liberty, and it's tilting over, and now you understand everything that's taken place and all the rest of it.

Yeah, that's what is coming when people who have the maturity, the emotional and intellectual maturity of a three -year -old are invited to sit at the table.

Yeah, that's what's coming. That's what's coming. Okay, our view of sex and marriage has changed.

She's absolutely right here. For many, sex has been uncoupled from procreation.

It's simply a means of recreation and shouldn't have to be anything more. No question about it.

No question about it. The pill has changed everything. Roman Catholics like to use this as if today, looking at Rome and everything going on in Nicaria and stuff would even allow them to do so, but like to use this as one of their big banners.

See, we've been right about this all along. Well, they have been right on the fact that sexuality is given by God and disconnecting it from procreation, hence within marriage, is what the whole issue is.

No question about it. But they didn't come up with that. And give them time.

That's going to change too. Just watch. If you're following what's going on, Rome is in deep trouble.

Ye who recently converted, bad timing, dude. Bad timing.

Worst time possible. I mean, anybody who converts at this time is demonstrating beyond all doubt that they just want the accolades of others.

They're not doing it. Francis, really? Seriously? Wow. Okay, anyway. We're going to talk a little bit more about Romanism at the end of the program.

Probably going to go for jumbo today because I'm taking too long here.

But anyway, it's not ultimately, now notice, this goes some way to explain why despite advances in ultrasound technology and growing understanding of the sensitivity and development of an unborn child, the pro -abortion lobby is so vociferous.

It's not ultimately about the status of the fetus. It's about the right to have recreational sex without reproductive consequences.

There is a deep element of truth to that, but it's only a partial truth. If you have ever looked into the eyes of those people outside an abortion clinic, if you ever looked at the people who work in the abortion clinic, it's not just,

I really love to have absolutely recreational, responsibility -less sex.

These people, Moloch lives. There are more people worshiping

Moloch today than he ever could have dreamed about in the days of the high places of Jeroboam.

The culture of death is the biggest religion in the world today.

It is. It's the biggest religion in the world today. It takes all sorts of forms, but it's the biggest religion in the world today.

But yes, recreational sex, you got it. Then marriage, our view of marriage changed.

Marriage is no longer a lifelong covenant ordered toward procreation, or even greater than that, toward the honoring and glorifying of God in the maintenance of that relationship.

It's now effectively a flexible romantic contract. An opportunity to celebrate deep, fulfilling romantic feelings for one another.

Or he and she, or he and he, or she and she, and she and he, and he and she and Rover.

Doesn't matter, as long as they're fulfilling. And should those feelings subside, should one partner no longer be a means of romantic fulfillment for the other, then either or both are free to dissolve the marriage.

Yep, that's very, very true. Our anthropology has changed.

Quite true. Today, the real you is the you that you feel yourself to be deep inside.

Or maybe not even deep inside, just today. The hero narrative of our day is the person who searches deep within, discovers who they are, and then persists in expressing what they've found, even in the face of opposition.

The real you is someone only you can discover. No one else can determine your identity. Yeah, not creating the image of God, no transcendent value, no transcendent duties to one another, to one's culture, to one's nation, to one's

God, to the faith, glory of God, anything else. You're right. In addition, the physical body is entirely accidental.

In atheistic evolution, the body is simply the lump of matter that you happen to be attached to. Stardust, as Jeff Durbin likes to say.

It has no intrinsic meaning or significance. Yep, because it's going to die, and it's going to become stardust again.

I mean, even if it's buried in the ground here, eventually the sun becomes a red giant, the earth gets vaporized, gets blown out into space, and you become space dust again.

That is the ultimate end of everyone and everything here in the secular worldview.

Because it is. I mean, if that's all there is, that's going to be the end of everything. Space dust. Once again, you were space dust once, sort of got organized for a while because of the input of energy, but entropy wins out at the end for everybody.

So, these four changes reveal something vitally important if we're to navigate our cultural time. The traditional

Christian understanding of sexual ethics and gender identity isn't just quaint and old -fashioned, it's dangerous.

And that's why the Millennials and the iGens, that's why

I fear government. I fear government because as a Christian, government is a conglomeration of sinners.

And you put sinners together and give them power, and what are they going to do? It frightens me when

I talk to Christians from more liberal nations who are just,

I just love my government, I just think it's wonderful, and they are the proverbial frog in the pan.

And it's just not hot enough yet for them to croak. Croak, really croak, as in die.

Government must be limited. It has to be limited. That's what was good about our system.

The American system was deeply influenced by the Christian worldview. And the limitations and divisions of power were a recognition of Christian anthropology.

Even by people who weren't Christians, they saw the truth of it. They saw the truth of Christian anthropology.

No longer. No longer. And so it's absolutely dangerous. Absolutely dangerous.

From their perspective, to believe the things we believe. And they will use the power of government to silence this.

That's why you're seeing totalitarianism on the rise, on the left. And of course, once it rises on the left, you're going to see it rising on the right in response to it, leading to the anarchy and revolution and everything else that comes with it.

We need to bear in mind that the above changes affect not just secular society. They're also deeply ingrained in many people within our churches.

For those younger than 25, this is the oxygen they breathe. It's the only reality they've ever known.

Man, that's something we've got to hear. You may not want to hear it. And those of you who've listened to this program for a long time, you know

I've used the illustration for decades. I wish we could install a device at the door of the church that would rip the secular worldview out of people so that they could come in there and receive a true

Christian worldview built upon scripture and the proper mature spirit -led application and everything else.

But we don't have that. And that's why you have to preach and teach the whole Council of God. That's why

Andy Stanley's dangerous, because he can't preach and teach the whole Council of God. Because the whole Council of God includes the law of God.

And one of the criticisms that I would level at this article is the term law of God never appears anywhere in it.

And for many people, and I don't know if Sam Albury takes this perspective or not, but for many people, the phrase law of God is no longer meaningful.

Meaningful or relevant. That's a frightening thing. But he's exactly right.

That we must recognize that the totally secularized culture that we are now called to minister the gospel to we cannot assume that they possess even the adult thinking capacities that we gained just in society only 20, 30, 40 years ago.

That means that our proclamation of God's truth has to be even more vigorous and full and explanatory and applicatory than it's ever been before.

Absolutely no question about any of those things. Now, very, very quick. Seven ways we need to respond.

We need to listen well. Well, he says the danger of not listening is that we speak reflexively without giving due thought and consideration to our words.

We can be unsympathetic, not having taken time to discover sensitivities that might be present. Well, I've been told many times, you're just not willing to listen.

And what that language now means to certain people on the left is you are not willing to presuppositionally accept the foundational elements of our perspective.

That's not a matter of not listening. It's actually a matter of having listened well enough to reject them to start with. There is obviously a word of wisdom here.

Obviously, in speaking to anyone, it's good to know where they're coming from. It's not necessary, however, to capitulate to the spirit of the age in showing respect for infantile rejection of meaningful epistemological and cultural necessities.

It's sort of like what Doug Wilson said to that chick at the college a few years ago.

I often have thoughts that require more than one sentence to express them. That was his way of smacking her down and going,

Woman, you don't know what you're talking about, and you aren't even listening to what's being said to you.

He had listened well enough. He didn't have to keep listening to that kind of drivel. Then I was asked by a friend to especially look at number two.

Given the time frame, I may limit myself to this. Don't say to someone what you can't say to everyone.

Don't say to someone what you can't say to everyone. He talks about talking to a homosexual who had read his book and was meeting up with a pastor to look at the

Gospel of Mark. He explained, when he asked him what's drawing you to Christianity, he thought for a moment for saying,

I realize Jesus treats me the same as he treats everyone else. He explained that the advocacy group he'd led had been predicated on the notion that we're different, we have a parade, you celebrate us.

When it comes to Pride Month, we try to see which companies we can get to give us the most stuff. As he began to look at the message of Jesus, though, he realized he wasn't different.

He didn't want to be. At the most fundamental level, the message of Jesus is exactly the same for him as it was for everyone else.

Again, as with so much of today, it is discerning elements of truth with elements of error or imbalance.

There is an element of truth. Jesus does treat us all the same. Repent, or you shall likewise perish.

None of us gets to tell Jesus what we will and will not repent of, which is one of the big problems here.

Because the LGBTQ plus people want and demand that exact right.

That exact right. At least those who want to try to wed Christianity with their perspective.

He says the best way to correct this misconception is to show how the gospel puts us all in the same boat. Jesus always levels the playing field.

All of us are fallen and broken in our sexuality. All of us have disordered desires. None of us is all we should be in this area.

All of us will have to learn to say no to certain sexual desires if we are to follow Jesus. Now, I disagree with this statement.

He should not have used the term disordered desires. Homosexuality, pedophilia, bestiality, incest are disordered desires.

A man's lust for a woman is not a disordered desire. It is an out -of -proportion desire. It's not a disordered desire.

It is not a desire for something that is fundamentally opposed to the created order. It is a part of the created order, but it is being exercised outside of its proper realm.

There's a difference between the two. We have to recognize that difference. And the gay,

Christian, live -out stuff is denying that difference. That's where the problem lies.

Now, later on he says, Nor is it to say that all sexual sin is alike.

Some sexual sins are more grievous than others. Some represent a greater departure from the

Genesis 1 -2 blueprint of one man and one woman in covenant marriage. Bestiality represents a more significant departure than adultery.

Homosexuality than heterosexuality. But in a fallen world, none of us has grounds for feeling superior.

All of us by nature fall categorically short of the glory of God. True and false at the same time.

What I'm concerned about with Alberry here, and what I think needs to be addressed, is that places things on a sliding scale, a spectrum that does not take into consideration the disorderedness of Romans 1 in regards to homosexuality.

It just simply says, Homosexuality is a greater departure than heterosexuality.

Well, heterosexuality isn't a departure at all. The abuse of it, adultery, fornication, is a departure.

But it is not a disordered desire. It is a natural desire, designed by God.

Homosexuality is not. Bestiality is not. And so, I had a problem with this section.

Because then it goes on to say, The same is true for gender identity. And here

I have to go, no. No, it's not. We've got to draw a line somewhere, and no, it's not.

We all come to God with deeply flawed views of our own identity. No, we don't.

I'm not claiming perfect knowledge of who I am, but I know I'm a man.

And I know what my responsibilities as a man are. It says,

None of us truly understands who we are, and all of us locate our deepest meaning and sense of self in the wrong things.

When it comes to gender dysphoria, all of us experience forms of brokenness of our physical bodies.

This is where I say, there's lots of other true things, but someone's got to shine a light on this and say,

No way. This is attempting to make connections that are absolutely inappropriate.

No. First of all, I am firmly convinced. And I'm no expert, but I did go on the

Dr. Drew Show once to talk about this, and met some... I was on the program with the same transgender dude that Ben Shapiro was on with.

Remember that? And he's a former military guy. He was a helicopter pilot.

And he's the one that reaches over and puts his big man hand on Ben Shapiro's shoulder and physically threatens him in a nice, deep, guttural man voice.

It was testosterone to the max. That's a guy threatening another guy.

I don't care if he's wearing a wig or had his hair grown out and is wearing a dress. He's still a guy. He does not have gender dysphoria.

He is in rebellion against God. He has a sexual, rebellious nature against God.

He isn't confused of what he was. He wasn't confused when he was in the army. I think there are a very small number of people who seriously, not because they've watched movies or because it's now cool or because, hey, if Bruce Jenner can become woman of the year, maybe

I can too. Not those folks. Small number of folks who have a serious mental problem.

The same folks who have the problem where they're convinced their right arm is not a part of their body and they need to cut it off.

That's a mental problem. That's miswiring up here. It's a disease.

It's a mental disease. I think there are a small number of people who look down and go, that's not supposed to be there.

Very small number. I'd say 99 % of people who call themselves transgender, that's not their problem.

Their problem is sexual rebellion against God. Just as homosexuality. 99%.

It may be because of abuse, it may be because of a lot of things, but it's still rebellion. To try to say, we all come to God with deeply -followed views of our own identity, as if that can be then connected to the open rebellion of those who want to cross -dress or whatever else for sexual fulfillment or whatever other reasons they might have.

Sorry. This is, when it comes to gender dysphoria, all of us experience forms of brokenness with our physical bodies.

No. Not in that sense. That is an inappropriate connection. None of us is in a position to be looking down on others, however different their fallenness might look to our own.

This is an attempt to remove the deep disorderedness of homosexuality and,

I would say, even the deeper disorderedness of transgenderism, which is a fantasy.

There is no such thing. You can't transition. There is no way to change. You can mutilate the body, but you can't change the reality.

So anyways, I went longer on that than I expected to, but there are some thoughts on Olvery's article that came out just yesterday.

Let me get to the last section here. Boy, did

I start a firestorm over the weekend when someone, the

GK Chesterton Daily Twitter, whoever the Twitter people is, put together a list of tweets from GK Chesterton against Calvinism on October 31st, which was

Reformation Day. Here's what he said. I am firmly convinced the Reformation of the 16th century was as near as any immortal thing can come to unmixed evil.

Even the parts of the Reformation that might appear plausible and enlightened from a purely secular standpoint have turned out rotten and reactionary also from a purely secular standpoint.

By substituting the Bible for the sacrament, the Reformation created a pedantic cast of those who could read, superstitiously identified with those who could think.

By destroying the monks, the Reformation took social work from the poor philanthropists who chose to deny themselves and gave it to the rich philanthropists who chose to assert themselves.

By preaching individualism while preserving inequality, the Reformation produced modern capitalism. The Reformation destroyed the only league of nations that ever had a chance.

It produced the worst wars of nations that ever existed. It produced the most efficient form of Protestantism, which was

Prussia. And it is producing the worst part of paganism, which is slavery.

Now, I have noted over the years how many

Protestant Christians would quote Chesterton at times, just like they quote

C .S. Lewis and stuff like that. And Chesterton was obviously a brilliant mind, as was

C .S. Lewis. But there are brilliant Muslims, there are brilliant Buddhists, there are brilliant atheists, there are brilliant Hindus, there are brilliant minds all around the world.

And I've known all along obviously that G .K. Chesterton was a

Papist, he was a Romanist, he was a follower of the religion of Roman Catholicism.

And Roman Catholics can say true things. I sometimes catch

Pat Madrid. He has a program on EWTN.

Oh, that's stale water. And he and I are about the same age, we've debated each other numerous times and it's a strange thing to see we're at the same time of life and when it comes to politics and things like that we're pretty much on the same page.

We find the same insanity of our modern age to just drive us crazy.

But he's Patrick Madrid. His answers are fundamentally different from mine because I have a gospel defined worldview.

And he has a Roman Catholic defined worldview and therefore I'll be going along, yeah, that's crazy, that's wrong, it's going to be destructive, and all of a sudden his answer has something to do with Mary.

And we end up going completely different directions. And so I'm getting a crick in the neck.

It's been an hour and ten minutes. And I've got a crick in the neck.

I'm not going to be able to look to the right for the rest of the day because yeah, exactly, I need to go see

Nicoletta. So I have said this program many, many times.

I went to a seminary far to the left of me. So I learned at a young age to abandon the fundamentalist concept of separationism.

I can read people who disagree with me, recognize what the fundamental issues are, benefit from their insights, and at the same time not end up going, oh, that means

I need to join whatever group they were a part of. No. You have to think critically.

You have to be able to appreciate the good and go, nope, your application is totally wrong and here's why your foundation is flawed.

So there are things that G .K. Chesterton will say. They're just pithy great stuff.

He would have been great on Twitter. And same with C .S. Lewis. I love some of C .S. Lewis's stuff.

But look, Lewis was terribly flawed. It just drives me nuts when

I see people just fawning all over everything that he did and making excuses for comments about purgatory and just the huge blind spots and errors in his theology that existed.

There's no question about any of that. I simply put,

I took this I took a screenshot all my videos are still dead thanks to iOS

Mojave but it does have this cool feature It has the best screenshot capacity now.

It's just part of the iOS. You don't have to use all the programs we used to use to grab screenshots. So I grabbed this whole thread and I posted and said, public service announcement

Chesterton was a Romanist. Well how dare

I again what was given only a few years ago is no longer given.

There are so many who call themselves Protestants who are completely out there in the middle of the

Tiber River paddling around and enjoying themselves They will no more seek to evangelize

Roman Catholics than the man on the moon because they've been enlightened Protestants you see and they recognize that it's cool to quote

Chesterton and it's not cool to tell that brilliant Roman Catholic philosophy professor at the university the simple gospel of Jesus Christ it doesn't need to be stuck on that treadmill of penances and sacraments even though he doesn't care much about that anyway, he's not much of a believing

Roman Catholic anyway. Oh, the responses Well, yeah

I have a lot of papists following me and you can't say Romanist and papist anymore because nobody reads

Reformation literature. They don't read anything on either side for the past couple of hundred years and so Romanist and papist are terrible, horrible insults when in point of fact they both point to the reality that Rome's central affirmation is the authority of the

Bishop of Rome Roman Catholic is a horrific misnomer it's a contradiction in terms it's not universal it can never be universal and the claims of the papacy are anachronistic to the early church

I know enough about church history I've defended these things most of the people who came after me didn't even want to take the time excuse me didn't even want to take the time to look and to think let's try the melted ice when the last dash of root beer has now been diluted into nothingness by the melted ice at least it's better than that anyway they came after me with pitchforks and yet how many of them had read any of the books

I've written on Roman Catholicism looked at any of the nearly 40 some odd debates that we've done over the years or even these days could care less to do the kind of research to meaningfully address the subject so what

I discovered very quickly is that there once again is a need to remind folks about Galatians Galatians chapter 2 and that's what

I'll do in the last 15 minutes we have here I will limit myself to that in this epistle which is the most strident of Paul's epistles anybody who reads it in the original language knows that it's choppy it's not smooth like Romans or Ephesians and it's choppy and it's emotionally written and sometimes you just skip lots of verbs and stuff and get to the point and says some pretty strong things and it starts off by anathematizing whoever these people are in Galatia, in the churches in Galatia that are preaching another gospel what is this other gospel?

is it a gospel of the Jesus who isn't risen from the dead? no who didn't come to flesh?

no well, what is it? well we are we can only put that together from a number of different texts and in Galatians chapter 2 you have these words but it was because of the oh the false brethren secretly snuck in and here's false brethren pseudedelphos the pseudedelphoi in the nominative form so pseudos you are familiar with pseudo false, adelphoi brothers so these are individuals who claim to be brothers they are in the fellowship they are baptized they name the name of Christ they are in the fellowship of the saints but Paul says there are certain who are false brethren they're false brethren and they had secretly been brought in why?

they had snuck in these are not nice terms

Paul is not being politically correct here, he's not saying well you know they had good motives and you know we need to be no, no, they snuck in in order that they might spy out check out the

Eleutherion the freedom the liberty that we have in Christ Jesus they're checking out our freedom they're checking out our liberty in order that they might enslave us that's what the term means they might enslave us so these are false brothers they've snuck in they do not have the right motives they're checking out the freedom we have in Christ so they might enslave us well so much for Paul leading in the voting for greatest ecumenist of all time he's not really into the ecumenical stuff very much but we did not yield in subjection to them for even literally it's an hour or a period a short period of time why?

in order that the truth of the gospel might remain with you wow now today unfortunately everybody says every issue that they address is a gospel issue everything whatever disagreement you've got gospel issue well here is an apostle and there are lots of folks today that don't want to give him much authority but here is an apostle of Jesus Christ and he is saying this is a gospel issue in other words if we had put up with them if we had allowed them to take us into slavery then the truth of the gospel would not abide with you it would be lost so this is a fundamental gospel issue there is no way about it no other way about it and so what

Paul is saying is I presented the gospel that I was preaching to the other apostles

I received it from God I presented it to them they heard what I had to say and they extended the right hand of fellowship and go to the

Gentiles we're going to go to the Jews and then as a result of that verse 7 on the contrary seeing that I have been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcised just as Peter had been to the circumcised then they recognized the grace that God had given to me so in other words there was unity among the apostles at this point they only asked me to remember the poor the very thing

I was eager to do then what happens but when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face because he stood condemned and so now we talk about what happens at Antioch when

Peter has come to Antioch he's engaging in table fellowship with Gentiles and then the men come from James from the mother church in James who are deeply

Jewish in their practice Peter now withdraws table fellowship and sits only with the

Jews there is now a division in the church and the rest of the

Jews joined him in hypocrisy with the result that even Barnabas the son of encouragement was carried away by their hypocrisy and so Paul says but when

I saw that they did not orthopodeo walk straight in accordance with the truth of the gospel

I said to Cephas in the presence of all if you being a Jew live like the Gentiles not like the

Jews how is you compel the Jews the Gentiles to live like Jews and he goes on to explain what justification by faith is all about there is only one righteousness that is imputed to believers this is the foundation of the gospel and so what was the error of the pseudodelphoi the false brethren they denied the one means that creates the one body the one righteousness of Jesus Christ by which we stand before God justification by grace alone through faith alone that's what they were denying you have to become a

Jew before you can become a Christian you gotta go into the old covenant go into the new covenant

Acts 15 it said no but they're continuing on and that's their teaching in the churches in Galatia now well what does that have to do with Rome real simple

Rome makes the same error in denying justification by faith alone and that's just one of a complex of fundamental denials of apostolic teaching that are bound upon the conscience of the

Roman Catholic by the allegedly infallible decrees of the Roman Catholic Church and I'm talking here about historic orthodox

Roman Catholicism conservative believing Roman Catholicism I'm talking about a

Roman Catholicism significantly more easily definable than that of the current

Pope because nobody really knows what in the world he believes which is again one of the main reasons why convert to Rome now really while the

Bishop of Rome is clearly unorthodox in his beliefs does not stand even

I was just reading a fascinating article about the division that now exists between Bergoglio, Francis and Ratzinger, Benedict pre preceding

Pope and how this whole dynamic has now developed in Rome between the two who saw that coming these two people do not believe the same thing there is no infallible leadership of the church here, it's a fantasy on your part, you're having to stand on your head to try to get past that that's the reality of what you're seeing today, but if the one addition to faith that the

Judaizers presented led the Apostle Paul to say

I do not nullify the grace of God for if righteousness comes through law

Christ died Dorian needlessly Dorian can mean as a gift but in this context, needlessly that's the result of what the

Judaizers did in the destruction of the gospel Rome's gospel goes so much farther than what the

Judaizers ever did, they never dreamed of stuff like a Pope who bears the names of the

Trinity you realize the Bishop of Rome willingly bears the names of the

Trinity in himself he is called Holy Father, the only time that phrase is found in scripture is when

Jesus addresses the Father as Holy Father in John 17 every priest, including the

Bishop of Rome is called an alter Christus in their ordination go back and listen to the debate I did with Mitch Packwood, he admitted it he admitted it in the debate

Vicar of Christ, that's the Holy Spirit of God, so in one man he bears all the names of the Trinity, that's blasphemy absolute blasphemy they never dreamed of something like that they never dreamed of a celibate sacramental priesthood, they never dreamed of transubstantiation the mass performed by the celibate sacramental priesthood they never dreamed of purgatory and satispassio none of one of them ever said a word about Mary being the all the exalted titles and dogmas that have now been promulgated about Mary by the

Roman Catholic Church nothing never said a word about any of it and so as long as Galatians is in the

Bible and the error of the Judaizers brings the anathema, it's a false gospel that does not save then what must you do with Rome?

that not only has the error they made but expands upon it greatly let alone the blood of the martyrs that goes on the hands of the

Roman Church down through the ages people don't care too much about that anymore that's theology that's just your interpretation you're not going to worry too much about history you know all that Inquisition stuff can't we just didn't they apologize for that?

doesn't that make it all good? what it demonstrated to me once again is that there are many who call themselves

Protestants out there who have been unfortunately deeply influenced by either the spirit of the world or by certain theological positions held by some that cause you to look at people like Thomas Aquinas a little bit more favorably than you should leading to half of you becoming

Roman Catholics anyways there is a real lack of passionate understanding of what the

Reformation was about and why it's still important today hey, it's been a whole year since the 500th anniversary we've still got 499 years to go before we can really get excited about it again yeah, you know it's only been a year it's like everybody already forgot why it was so important or what the relevance was or maybe they were just reading

Martin Luther all those Luther quotes last year and not really reading them in much of a context I don't know but hey,

I know I could have so many more open doors for me if I would just shut my mouth about Islam and shut my mouth about Rome but then

I'd have to shut my mouth about the Gospel and that's the problem so there you go, folks

I would imagine we'll have some interesting things to say come Thursday we'll see we'll see what happens tomorrow

I do not stay up late on election nights I'm going to go to bed I need to cover a minimum 40 miles, probably 50 would be better tomorrow

I gotta get at it I'm not going to be listening to the radio I'm reading a bunch of books on Masada right now since I got to climb

Masada so I'm learning everything there is to know about Josephus' life

I've already learned a bunch of stuff about Josephus I didn't know, so that's good you gotta keep learning even as you're sliding down you know, one last thing

I just said you gotta keep learning do I hear the music? I found this old, old picture of myself when

I was six and a half years of age and I happened to look down and I saw my lunchbox and I remembered the texture of the metal in that lunchbox and what the little thermos inside looked like that was 50 years ago and yet,

I go to Target and I can't remember why I went to Target right?

those of you who are young enjoy your youth before this kicks in, because I can remember what the lunchbox felt like 50 years ago but you'll find me standing in the center aisle of Target going, oh man this is the third time

I've come here and every time I forget it, what was it? and you start looking down all the aisles going, I don't know it's just how life is anyway, there you go we'll see you on Thursday, thanks for listening