This Puerto Rican DEMOLISHES a Star Evangelical SJW's Retweet

If Social Justice Warriors had an honest life verse, it would be 1 Timothy 1 verses 6 -7.

The word of God says there, Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, desiring to be teachers of the law without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.

That is, that describes every social justice advocate within the Church of Christ.

Because they are making very confident assertions about what Christians ought to do and what justice is according to scripture, but it's very clear by what they say that they have no idea what they are talking about.

A good example of this, if you watch the most recent CrossPolitik video, go ahead and YouTube or you can download the podcast on the

Fight Laugh Feast Network, they did a conversation with an author named Jonathan Walton. And I don't know a lot about Jonathan Walton, from what

I heard I would probably describe him as a social justice warrior, but Jonathan Walton was very interesting because he was completely inconsistent.

And you can see the brothers on CrossPolitik trying to sort of pin him down, not in an aggressive way, but trying to figure out what is your standard?

How do you know what justice is? How do you know what to get behind, what to advocate, and what to be against?

And there was no consistency at all. He just had no idea what he was talking about.

He was essentially just flying by the seat of his pants, but actually it was even worse than that. He was for all of the safe stuff, all of the stuff that everybody agrees with.

In other words, you know, anti -slavery, anti -racism, all of these things that everyone in this conversation agrees with, all the safe stuff that even the world agrees with.

But the problem is, anything that was counter -cultural, in other words, anything that was contra what the world would say, what progressive liberal

Democrats would say, he would say, oh, we got to pump the brakes. It's not about law, it's not about justice, it's about the relationships and things like that.

It was weaselly. He was being a weasel the entire time. A good example of this was abortion.

He said if he was a magistrate, if he was a judge, if he was a lawmaker, he would not want to make abortion illegal.

Why? Well, there's no biblical reason, it's just because, you know, he still wants to be palatable to the progressives, he wants to be palatable to liberals, he wants to have a conversation with them and bring them closer to Christ.

This is all very seeker -sensitive. We've been talking about this for a year, it is a very seeker -sensitive kind of idea.

When it came to David Shannon, the chocolate Knox, he gave them a very clear, easy softball.

This is a softball because these people are supposed to be so pro -women and things like that. He gave them a softball where he said, look, look, you know, someone in my family was a victim of rape.

It's very sad, very sad. This is a serious crime. Someone in my family was a victim of rape.

What is the just penalty for rape? What is justice? When the rapist gets caught, what is justice?

The Bible says the justice for a rapist is the death penalty. Okay? So, all you people who think that conservative

Christians are anti -women and things like that, why is it that your just penalty for rape is a slap on the hand and God says,

I want to face that man right now? He offers his life for raping that woman.

And this brother was like, oh, no, no, no, I'm against the death penalty. Well, how can you? This is why first Timothy applies to that person, right?

The scripture says you're trying to be a teacher of the law, but you don't have a clue what you're talking about. How could you be against the death penalty and take the

Bible seriously? I know there are tons of people who do this and they're all either lying or they just don't take the

Bible seriously. They pick and choose. There's no consistency. All the people on the social justice side do this.

This is a, this is a tweet that I found. Hold on. Let's see here. This was a tweet that, that Jamar Tisby retweeted approvingly.

Here's what it says. This is, this is a Jamar is a person who has no idea what justice is. So I've heard the synopsis of his book, right?

The first half is going to be about history and the second half is going to be about liberal politics, essentially. That's what

I've heard. So I'll let you know once I get to the second half, if that's actually true. But Jamar has made it very clear numerous times that he doesn't have a clue what justice actually is.

He's for social justice, but he's made up the definition of justice on his own. In fact, actually he hasn't done that.

All he's done is adopted progressive liberal ideas of justice. He doesn't know what the Bible says. He makes confident assertions.

Yeah. You can go to his lecture. He sounds like he knows what he's talking about, but the Bible, according to scripture, he doesn't have a clue.

He doesn't have a clue. Here's what he, here's what he retweeted approvingly. Ready? This is Reverend Dr. Barbara. I don't know who this is.

I don't really care. He says, former governor Christie says he's never heard

Trump say anything racist. This is the problem, a concept of racism rooted in words and not defined by policies that have racially disparate impact.

And so the idea here is if you promote a policy that disproportionately affects different races, then that is racism.

That's a problem. That's racism. It's not about what you say. It's about the policies that you support.

And I actually would agree with part of this. Racism is not just about what you say.

So if you never call someone a spick, or if you never call someone a coon, which the liberals do all the time, by the way, if you never do that, but you, but you, but you act partially, if you act racially, is that a word, racially?

I don't know. But if you do that and you don't ever use those words, you're still a racist, right? Like we, we, we all agree with that part.

All right. Nobody thinks that just because you don't say the N word means that you're not a racist. Everyone agrees with that.

Okay. But this idea that if a policy disproportionately affects different races, then it's racist is false.

Jamar Tisby doesn't have a clue what he's talking about that you don't decide.

So this is, this is the problem. This is the problem. Really don't decide if something is just or not, if a law or a policy is just or not by seeing who it affects.

That's not how you decide what is just and what is not just. This is why I say Jamar Tisby and social justice advocates have no clue what they are talking about because if that's how you're deciding justice, then you are anti -scripture because the scripture specifically says you do not show partiality in judgment.

And if you're looking at who it affects and that's how you decide whether it's just or not, that is the very definition of judging with partiality.

And so if a law is according to scripture and then it affects poor people and rich people in different proportions, it makes no difference.

It makes no difference because if it's according to scripture, then by definition, at least if you're a

Christian, right? I understand why progressive liberals don't agree with this, but if you're a Christian, you should say if it comports with scripture and then it affects a certain class of people more in your context, it doesn't matter because God says it's just.

God says it's just and that you shouldn't judge according to partiality. You shouldn't judge the rich and the poor differently.

You should judge with righteous judgment, fair balance, even scales. And so it makes no difference if it affects a certain group differently.

Here's an easy example that I think we would all agree with, although I'm not sure because Jamar Tisby makes it up as he goes along.

So I have no idea if you would agree with this. But the reality is if you look at the statistics of crime, everyone in this argument would agree that murder should be illegal, right?

I mean, that's a softball. Murder should be illegal. Killing someone with malice of forethought in an unjust manner should be illegal.

Very easy. And you know how I know that should be illegal, by the way? It's not just because I'm guessing. It's not just because it's icky.

No, it's because scripture says so. So nobody can come to me and say, well, this kind of murder should be fine.

No, nobody can come to me because God says you shall not kill. So I know that if you come to me and say this kind of murder should be fine, then

I know you're wrong because scripture says otherwise. Now that's a very simple example. Most people grow up understanding that the law is written on our hearts, too, and most people agree that murder should be illegal.

Okay, great. But it should be illegal because God says so. But the reality is here's the thing about murder.

If you look at the statistics, like 80 % of murders are done by men, right? 80 % of murders are done by men.

So that's a disproportionate impact because not 80 % of the world is male, right?

I mean, that's obvious. Yet this policy decision of making murder illegal is disproportionately affecting men.

So is it a sexist law? Of course not. Of course not.

Because that's not how we judge what a partial law is. How we determine this is based on what

God says. Justice is defined by God, not by social justice advocates, not by the results. By the way, in the

United States, a disproportionate number of murderers are black, right?

A disproportionate number of murderers are black. So by making murder illegal, it disproportionately affects black people.

Does that make it not just? No, because that's not how we decide these things.

So any law, it doesn't matter what kind of law it is. You could take it to scripture and say, does the general equity, when you apply the general equity of God's law,

God's civil law, when you apply the general equity, does this law make sense? Does this law comport with scripture?

That's how you decide what justice is. But not according to Jamar Tisby. No, no, no. It's about if it disproportionately affects minorities, then you know it's unjust.

That's false. That is someone who's making confident assertions about the law, but doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

And that's why Jamar Tisby will never talk to a guy like me. I'm not saying me personally. He doesn't have to talk to me, but he will never talk to anyone like me.

Because he knows that while he's good at history, if I was going to debate Jamar Tisby, right? I'll just give him, look, this is the strategy,

Jamar. So if you ever do decide to talk to me, here's how I'm going to handle you, okay? Here's how

I will handle you. I will grant you every historical argument you make. I will grant you every historical argument you make.

Whether or not I think it's true. It doesn't matter because I don't care when it comes to the matter of justice.

Because we don't look back into the past to see what happened in the past to determine if something today is just.

Because here's the reality. God's law is for all time. God's law is for today.

God's law is for yesterday. And God's law is for the future. So I can look back at the slaveholders of America's past and say, those man -stealers should have been put to death.

Because kidnapping is a crime that the just penalty for kidnapping is death. So I can look back at those people and say, they should have been put to death.

But the fact that they weren't has no bearing on what's just today. Because God's law is the same today as it was yesterday.

And so I'm not going to debate you on the history. Even if I could, I wouldn't. I'm not a

PhD. I don't know the history as well as you do. And I don't have to. All I have to do is know what the scripture says better than you.

And I know, I know what the law of God says better than you. And even if I don't, I know I believe more of it than you do.

Because of tweets like this, where you're approvingly saying we should, the way we should do justice is by being partial.

You don't have to be a biblical scholar to know that partiality is against justice. God is explicitly against partiality.

Doesn't matter if it's partiality towards blacks or partiality towards whites. It is abhorrent to Christ.

He hates it with all of his might. This retweet of yours,

Jamar, Christ hates that kind of idea. And he hates that you're promoting it.

It's just that simple. It's just that simple. I can make a confident assertion about that. Because Christ's law word consistently condemns partiality, which you are promoting here.

This is not how we decide what justice is. We decide what justice is by what comports with God's law.

The general equity of the civil law of God. That is what matters. Nothing else matters.

Nothing else matters. I'll give you an easy example as well. If we outlawed abortion today, which we should.

It should be criminalized today. The death penalty should be applied to abortionists and people who hire abortionists.

That's what should happen. Because it's murder. I can be clear about that.

I know you would probably equivocate to the cows come home. I say it's murder. God says it's murder. God says the just penalty for murder is death.

If we did that today, it would probably disproportionately affect minorities,

Latinos, blacks, minorities of that nature. Because right now, minorities and Latinos and blacks disproportionately kill their children.

But you know what? It would still be just. Just because it didn't affect white communities in the same proportions as it affected black and Latino communities.

It doesn't matter because blacks and Latinos who kill their children are just as wicked and evil as white people who kill their children.

They get no excuse for being poor. They get no excuse for being the minority culture or whatever they get.

They have no excuse before God. They are just as wicked. Their hearts are just as sinful as white people who kill their children.

So justice is the same for blacks and whites and Latinos and everybody. I've got equal balances.