Commentary on Apologetics from a Review of Portions of the Dillahunty/Scrivener Dialogue

There we go. Okay, starting over. It's working. Yeah, so we're supposed to be starting now, even though I don't have anything up on the screen.

And at least hopefully maybe we have audio now. I don't know but hey, welcome to the dividing line. There we go Early morning edition that may not have been wise but I Don't know I don't know, you know, I just remember some guy years years ago that was just you know I was talking about you know.

Anyway, here we are. We have audio and video all at the same time whether they're synced up or anything who knows but here we are we're early today because I've got an appointment out in East Valley and then tomorrow we are headed for G3 hope to be seeing many of you on Thursday and Friday morning.

I speak Friday morning my assigned topic is in reference to Isaiah chapter 6 and so but I'm one of the first ones up in the morning 9 a .m. and So you early risers will be able to join me at that time.

I don't rate the evening stuff. I'm you know level C type stuff. So we get the morning stuff when people are chugging their Starbucks to try to stay awake and the big boys get the get the nighttime slots and so.

So we just if we just go with what we're what we're given and we're looking forward to seeing y 'all there. Um, we do not have a booth this year. I let you ask the person on the other side of the window about that.

That's Neither here nor there. I'm just like a beer there all that long because I'm gonna be heading on Friday Up to New Hyde Park Baptist Church and on Saturday and Sunday gonna be speaking there on New Testament text reliability issues in regards to where the New Testament came from things like that at the church there where Doug McMaster's is is pastor has been for a number of years now and I spoke there before Doug did actually many many many moons ago.

So we'll be we'll be up there and So we'll only be a g3 from basically Thursday morning. I guess there's a concert Thursday night. I know I'm supposed to be doing something with the cross-politic guys I think Thursday night.

Hope it's Thursday night if it's Wednesday night. Oops. And certainly can't be Friday night because I won't be there but rich will be there through Friday night. So if it was Friday night For that program Then Rich will do it.

Whatever. Who who does know how that would turn out? I have no earthly idea. But on Thursday, I'll have a nice Coogee vest on so I'll be easy to find but on Friday morning I have to dress up. So I There's absolutely no way on earth Josh Bice would ever allow me to preach in this A rich as me either so Lots of places on earth that would love me to preach in something like this.

But no, no, I got it got to go with what we got to go with anyways. So I mentioned that one of the things I wanted to do is I wanted to review the recent unbelievable debate. They're not formally debates, but you know what?

I mean between Matt Dillahunty and Glenn Scrivener Can can atheism produce a better world and basically the conclusion was either no, or we don't know. Dillahunty's fundamental response was I don't know.

We haven't been given a chance yet, basically. But Matt Dillahunty is definitely one of the more interesting Atheists out there speaking. He at times can be your standard In-your-face type atheist and there's other times when he manages to hold it in Dillahunty is a former Christian by his own profession obviously we would dispute that theologically but be it as it may and hence Falls into that category that it does seem That atheists in general like former Christians because there's that that added Element to it.

In fact, I mentioned and I think I might have played if I didn't play it I had intended to play it some of the audience Q &A from the Debate I did play it. I did play it the debate that Dillahunty did with Saiten Bruggeke and Made reference to a couple times where Quote-unquote former fellow Christians came up and talked about how their lives are just so much better now that they were they're atheists.

It was it was an interesting study in apostasy anyway. So we wanted to look at what was said for a couple of reasons and There's there's there's two one was I was just utterly amazed at Matt Dillahunty's Summary description of what Christianity actually teaches.

Not not that I mean it was it was the standard fare for atheists. But when someone claims that they were once a Christian and that they once were thinking about ministry and going into ministry and then can just Completely massacre any type of meaningful summary and then demonstrate and this is not unusual at all and then demonstrate that They do not understand the doctrine of the Trinity.

You know if you are once a meaningful Christian and Once had a meaningful understanding the doctrine of Trinity becoming an atheist does not Require you to stop having the understanding you and I don't care if it's been 10 years or 15 years.

You still should be able to You know accurately represent what you once believed. No that We we saw in the debate up in Salt Lake City the atheists had no idea what the doctrine the Trinity was very easy to misrepresent it and Matt Dillahunty does same thing.

So we're gonna look at at what he said, but then and And this is where a lot of folks go. Now. This is the part you shouldn't do. It's it's one thing for you to go after the atheist and point out the atheist errors, but why would you?

Engage in a discussion about anything Glenn Scribner said because he did a good job. He you know. Why why would you show cracks in the team in essence? And I Suppose I should offer an apologetic as to why it is important to engage in.

If you want to call it criticism Comparison in some way to do what a lot of people just. There there are a lot of Christian apologists that simply do not believe That we should have any type of discussion About differing methodologies by criticizing someone when they're doing a debate now I Get that.

Because there I Had I had a guy last last night on Twitter some young guy. He described himself as a community college dropout. That's how he that's how he described himself and he decided to pop into a into a thread to accuse me of having some type of unorthodox view of the Trinity because in a Q &A session in a debate.

Where the discussion was how do you define the term persons? Someone used a certain phrase theologist that well You'd call it that you call it this you're trying to trying to communicate and they're like I'm not gonna worry about any of the books that you've written.

I'm not gonna worry about any of the formal articles anything else. I'm gonna take that one thing read my my idea into it and accuse you of some type of theological aberration. So you have those types of folks out there that will just pick on anything for any reason whatsoever.

I I get that and. So when you have folks who have never done a debate. They've never answered a single question in cross-examination. They've never had to. I have I have a friend. I won't mention him, but he's got a upcoming debate.

And it's good he's listening right now I'm sure and he wrote to me a couple days ago and he's trying to write his opening statement and it's like How do you get anything meaningful into a 20-minute opening statement?

I'm like I know I know. It is there are just so many people who sit out there and watch debates and go. I could have done better than that who've never even tried and. So, you know. You listen to what those folks have to say just sort of smile and go.

Okay, you know and and you don't want to go, you know I'd really encourage you to get into debates because you don't want the faith to take that kind of beating I've seen. You know, I remember when those those two poor Baptists debated Keating in Madrid in in Denver and it's just like oh, oh.

It's just painful painful painful painful to watch or when Oh Jimmy Swagger when Jimmy Swagger debated Ahmed D dot Oh Entertaining but you don't know it's you don't you don't you don't watch it. Anyway, the point being that it's one thing When it would be one thing to criticize What someone's doing if you don't have any experience doing it yourself.

It's hopefully useful and I've had a lot of people a lot of people found the video we did for example where it just so happened that Frank Turk and I have both debated some of the same people. And specifically in this case the same atheist Who I don't know is involved in leadership anymore.

He got caught up in the me too stuff. But Anyway Silverman. And He threw the same question at both of us and we have very different apologetic methodologies and so Comparing my response to Frank Turk's response was Incredibly enlightening to a lot of people because here you've got the same atheist same question.

Here's the two different responses and. Then when you discuss it and go and this is why and this is how theology relates to this and this is this is why? Your theology has to determine your your apologetic and and so on so forth.

I Think that is while we still have the freedom to do it Extremely important to be doing and it doesn't mean that I hate Frank Turk. That that that's what's that's what the problem with social media is is if you if you criticize somebody.

Why do you just hate these people? No, it's not a matter of hating them at all. Yeah, but but if you say something bad about them, well Part of me wants to go. Have you ever googled my name. I get bad stuff said about me every few seconds on on the on the web that's.

That's just how it is but. But it is I think Vitally important. I mean if you want to see how it ends up going the wrong way. Look at what's going on the Southern Baptist Convention where you can't question anybody.

That's. You know, you can't say anything against a fellow Southern Baptist man. I ran into the 11th commandment in 2004 and got run over by a bus. I wasn't even in the Southern Baptist Convention, but I was teaching for a Southern Baptist school.

And so I got run over by a bus for daring to question somebody who's now a Lutheran, I think. And appropriately so but anyway, that's that's neither here nor there. The fact is that seeing multiple perspectives.

Let me use this. Can I use a quick sports analogy? For some people just find sports analogies to be helpful, then I'll use a theological now. The Tour de France is the greatest bike race in the world.

Giro d 'Italia Vuelta a Espana are almost as good but look the the tour is the tour and. So Probably the most iconic stage in the Tour de France is L 'Alpe d 'Huez 22 corners switch back up this mountainside.

That when they do it, I'm not sure if they're doing it this year or not. I haven't looked yet. You'll have over a million people line that route for More than a week beforehand. I mean, it's crazy. It's insane and The tour has been won.

People have built the foundation for having won by winning L 'Alpe d 'Huez so When you when you look at how people have won that that particular stage. There are people who've gone on solo attacks. There are people who've gone from the breakaway there are people who've waited in the peloton and then caught the poor guy, you know 100 meters from the end and and You can by comparing.

You don't just look at one video and also look at who won last time you go back as far back as you can and You compare all of the methodologies and all the planning and and where the where the stage was in the course of the race and and what the weather conditions were and you you you look at everything and You're gonna find all sorts of different ways.

That people have won and you're gonna learn something from looking at all those different different ways. And so just on on a sports analogy basis. It's good to have comparisons of how you approach things theologically speaking.

What we learn and what we hopefully will learn today is That the theology you bring into a discussion like this Should and I think it did and so at least on that on that level. I'm I think it's appropriate that Glenn Scrivener responded the way that it did but it your answers will reflect your fundamental theology and as a God centered theology.

Conflicts with a very man-centered culture more and more and more and more. I mean this is happening very rapidly. There is great pressure To adopt theological positions that are more defensible or do not hand The atheist or the critic or the skeptic or whatever whoever you're debating Does not hand them more bombs to throw your direction more weapons to use.

There are many people involved apologetics whether they've thought it through or not that fundamentally function upon the idea that You need to minimize What the enemy can throw at you now? There is a an appropriate Utilization of that thinking and that is you need to have a decent debate topic That's specific enough that you can You know sort of force the the conversation to remain in some manageable spectrum.

That's not always possible. It doesn't always happen. But More to the point when When you have cross-examination and have a less Less formal and more open discussion like this was it wasn't a formal debate, obviously.

Your theological presuppositions should come out and should be clearly seen and The problem is there are certain Biblical realities that people in our society find to be extremely problematic and We need to realize that I mean we are in the day right now we already know this where the Bible's teaching on sexual morality is considered to be hateful and so if you So what are you trying to do as an apologist?

Who are you trying to impress? What's your final goal? If you're if your goal is to score points with them as many people as possible within your audience. There are certain fundamental Christian beliefs that you're gonna have to diminish minimally or deny otherwise to Get people to like what it is.

You have to say Obviously, I believe we have are utterly dependent upon the Holy Spirit of God to Restrain the rebellion that exists within the hearts of men and Draw men to his truth. You don't you don't diminish the truth in the process that'll sort of come up in just in an extremely extremely extremely controversial aspect of The conversation that that happened, but let me just before we start that once again There's been some There's a great deal of Discussion pretty much every day on Facebook and other other places as to What anyone means when you talk about presuppositional apologetics and I think as we listen to the conversation, this is going to come back up.

When I talk about presuppositional apologetics, I'm simply talking about that apologetics is take seriously the biblical revelation That God has revealed himself that the basis of our knowledge of anything is found first and foremost in our acknowledgment of God and that therefore there we must have a biblical doctrine of God a biblical doctrine of man and That if we have a biblical doctrine of God and a biblical doctrine of man that is going to provide us with a solid foundation for understanding the laws of logic rationality.

But that I Must continue to function as a Christian in doing apologetics. I Cannot I dare not I am NOT allowed to cease being under the Lordship of Christ When I begin to reason with the unbeliever. There is no Neutral ground upon which we can stand because anything that exists exists because Jesus Christ made it if it's a fact Jesus Christ made it a fact and Jesus Christ who finds it and So I cannot abandon the Lordship of Christ to then attempt to establish the Lordship of Christ so I Do not believe that a non-reformed individual can consistently be a presuppositionalist.

I don't because Part of presuppositionalism is a recognition of the fundamental rebellion of man against the knowledge of God the suppression of the knowledge of God and So I just point out that for example in first Corinthians chapter 1 verse 18 The word of the cross is indeed to those who are perishing foolishness but to those who are being saved to us who are being saved it is the power of God you have a Message of the cross which contains particular historical and theological assertions and facts the death burial resurrection of Jesus Christ fulfilled prophecy in his coming the reasons of his coming etc, etc, and so the message of the cross is indeed to those who are perishing foolishness, so there is a description of an individual Individuals plural as those who are perishing in contrast those who are being saved now.

The text is going to say and which one you are is up to God. So there is a very strong reformed element in what is said here, but the point is that it's the same message and the conclusion for the one foolishness the conclusion for the other power of God and It is what state you are in That determines how you're going to interpret this.

You cannot alter the Logos to staru the message of the cross. So as to make it the power of God to those who are perishing you can't do that. If you try to do that It's no longer the message of the cross and So the point is it is a fundamental biblical reality.

Brought out later on by Paul in the same text where he's saying, you know The the Jews they're seeking signs the Greeks seeking wisdom. But to those who are called by God to the elect Christ the power of God Christ the wisdom of God so on so forth.

It is a Fundamental necessity to recognize the work the necessity of the work of the Spirit of God and That the Spirit of God can actually accomplish what God intends to accomplish in that situation. Not that the we're not talking here some Marshmallow prevenient grace stuff we're talking about the grace of God that actually grants spiritual life insight.

Takes out a heart of stone gives a heart of flesh. The only heart that's ever going to love God is the hardest it's a heart of flesh not the heart of stone and in the same way in in Romans chapter 1 You have this exchanging the exchanging.

You know, they profess themselves to be wise they became fools. Their foolish hearts were darkened the very seat of What makes man man? Loses that natural light of revelation when a person is in sin and it is not until There is that fundamental change that that light Can then function as that light is intended to function?

And and will function in in that in that fashion. So the point is that at key elements in New Testament revelation concerning the nature of the fallen man. You have biblical teaching. You have direct biblical teaching of the necessity of the work of the Spirit because of a fundamental problem in in the person who is fallen and This must therefore impact apologetics when you don't have that underlying theology and that is not the majority theology.

Never has been why has it never happened. Because it is utterly Destructive of human pride. It's utterly destructive human pride. God's the one who saves. We can't save ourselves. We can't save somebody else.

We're totally dependent upon God. We are used of him we are called to be the ones that proclaim his message and we should have a Boldness to do so, but it is foolishness to think that I can trick somebody into doing the right thing.

That I can trick someone into making the right decision and so When you have that understanding it's it's going to fundamentally impact how you do Apologetics you are going to be looking at the presuppositions That are created by the rebel sinner that fundamentally Make it impossible for the claims of Christ to be real to that person and You're gonna focus upon that and you're gonna pray that God will use you all the arguments in the world aren't going to change that person's position because they are not a Moral neutral a neutral moral agent or a moral neutral agent either one.

Their reasoning has been fundamentally impacted and as long as they are perishing That message will remain to them foolishness. And the only one that can stop them from perishing is the giver of life so apologetics has to be done in the hopes of God self-glorification in the salvation of his people also recognizing that apologetics has the function of Edifying the Saints building the Saints up in their faith and Both the proclamation of the message and apologetics has another function That most people don't even want to think about and that is increasing the judgment of the rebellious.

Again, I don't want to hear that. I'm gonna tune you out now but the the fact the matter is That when you have that level of light being given to someone Why did Jesus go to Bethsaida? Why did he go to Chorazin?

Why'd he go? Why'd he go to places where they they want to throw him off of a cliff? Hmm. Were there people saved there? Well in God's sovereignty, yes, but the reality is that Jesus said that if Sodom and Gomorrah which were watchwords for the most evil people in Ancient history amongst the Jewish people anyways If Sodom and Gomorrah had had the light the Chorazin and Bethsaida had they would have repented long ago.

That's not some dumb middle-knowledge argument. It's a it's making a point and The point is if you can if you can see God's justice and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. How much more should you see God's justice in the destruction of Chorazin and Bethsaida?

The Son of God walked amongst them the Son of God taught the truth amongst them and They didn't care. Now you say but but God could have changed their hearts. Yes, he could have so there is a purpose why God is demonstrating the sovereignty of his grace and the salvation of a specific people and There will not be a single mouth that will open to argue That God was unjust to judge anyone that he judges.

Because when the books are opened all the motivations of the heart will be seen and Once again Question I've asked many times before Romans chapter 9 What if God? Willing in patience to deal with vessels of wrath prepared for destruction for what purpose.

For the demonstration of his power and if you can look into your heart and Honestly say I want to see God's power glorified I want to see his holiness known. I want to see his justice done Along with his mercy and his love and his grace.

There are not many people Who can honestly look in their hearts and say I want to see God's power Displayed when they do say that it's to give me a Cadillac or a Lexus or something. That's not what we're talking about the Power there is God's power in the judgment of sinners in Romans 9 the vessels of wrath prepared for Destruction.

Yeah, it's it's right there in the text. Okay. So with that let's Let's take a listen. Oh 1 .6. No, that's not gonna work. They were talking fast enough as it was. That wouldn't that would not work at all.

All right this is from the unbelievable broadcasting it was last week and This is Matt Dillahunty Glenn Scrivener, and let's just dive in here really fallacious reasoning.

Except that Christianity is about God the human. I mean Foundationally Christianity is Christ. It's it's foundationally God. The Sun has become God our brother. We've just celebrated Christmas. It's it's the the time at which the word became flesh.

Which is just a stunning a stunning religious idea that is found nowhere else. Disgusting to my Muslim friends, you know, it's disgusting to the Greco-Roman minds and yet. The Christian claim uniquely is that God took flesh and even became a single cell in Mary's womb.

Became the weak and despised thing for the sake of all we can despise things and I think from there you get the principle That humanity in and of itself has a dignity because God has so dignified it. Otherwise, it's us Elevating humanity to a certain, you know position.

Why should we elevate humanity to a certain position? Why should there be such a thing as human exceptionalism? Why shouldn't there be is that just a power play, right? I mean, I don't. I'm not just asking that until I yep, you know, you have an answer like what do you think?

I don't I don't really see any reason why it should. Okay. So that's Glenn Scrivener speaking and I There is there is everything good in talking about the condescension of God incarnation God choosing the weak things the world around the things that are mighty.

All of that is true, but I think it has its its deepest reality In the fact that God is Demonstrating his power his glory and his majesty in the redemption of an undeserving people. If you start with the people first then What the primary purpose is becomes? secondary.

So I think you need to start with the with the primary and I'd say with an atheist that's not gonna work. Well, no you still speak the truth but let the atheist deny the truth if you want, but the reality is that The primary purpose is God's self-glorification and The mechanism that he uses to bring that about Involves the incarnation outpouring of the Holy Spirit divine actions in the salvation of a particular people.

And so when you take the last section there and Make it central and then you have to go back and try to Add the actual important stuff on later on. I'm not sure the foundation is really solid. So I would simply say that now Dillahunty is is responding.

Let me pull this back here.

Yep, you know, what do you think?

I don't really see any reason why it shouldn't be. Well, of course, we're gonna be concerned about our own well-being. Mm-hmm.

Can you talk about. Yeah, there's a moral though, or is that just a power?

So this is the thing when we talk about what is moral so that quite often they'll say well the thing you're describing. That's all well and good, but it's not morality. Fine. Then I don't care about morality.

You need to tell me what what you're going because if the only thing you're gonna count is morality is some sort of you know divine command or a a Supernatural being that serves as a grounding for whatever you want to do.

That's not what I think anybody's ever really cared about for morality when we were talking about morals. Now, of course, you know.

As soon as you listen to atheists reasoning about morality. It is always so frustrating because You can never get past the shoelaces. It can never get off the ground. Because it's it's all it's just me and it's it's one cosmic accident.

Fizzing one way talking to other cosmic accidents that are fizzing another way and it's never gonna get any farther than that. You can get a bunch of people to fizz the same direction if you want. But if the next generation decides to fizz otherwise Then that's the good fizz now.

I mean, they're just They're there. The need for an objective universal Ground is built into us. We recognize that this accidental fizzing stuff is never gonna get anywhere. Now now why is that. Because we live in a world that tells us that that's not going to get us anywhere.

We talked about this. We're evaluating the consequences of our actions with respect to some goal. And does it ultimately? Increase decrease or have no effect on our well-being, which is why I think Sam went with well-being.

I didn't used to use that. I used a different language when I did my.

Fundamentally agree with Sam Harris that that's something we can objectively measure. Okay, so this is this is the Sam Harris.

Well-being of human beings as the ultimate moral guide stuff and of course. Get into it right now, but Who gets to define that and we're seeing with with how rapidly? These definitions are changing today.

That this is quicksand, I mean I saw a video yesterday of this This guy in Canada who pretends he's a woman and who tries to get poor women to wax his male parts and files lawsuits and it's just a Complete deviant.

Attacking a guy this this reporter comes up to him after after a thing and and After some because he's guys in court all the time because he's constantly filing suit against this that and you know, and The and the guy attacks the reporter.

We're looking at this kind of. The society is saying that the rest of us have to celebrate This level of confusion and insanity. The the the library Cross-dressing drag queen Insanity evil that is just and the society is saying no this is this is good for our well-being.

You've got to have a standard that is meaningful and again, atheism can't get above its own shoelaces and It's with something it just just can't go there.

Through say scientific means as long as we know what benefits what generally humans want in their lives.

I think you can do objective assessments eject objective evaluation. You don't have an objective reason why you care about that standard just like you don't have an objective reason why you care about A God.

If there was a God he should come along and kind of clarify all this. I would think that would be a duty, but the the the beautiful story you're talking about. Where. Okay. Here's here's here's where.

You know at this point, you know, he's talking about morality and all the rest of stuff and now. He you can tell he's been wanting to say this for a while and here it comes.

You know the most powerful being comes down and becomes a cell becomes one of them, you know one of the week one of the Fallen in order to save them. That's an incredibly nice way to package it, but that's I have I guess a completely different take on it because the story is a little different.

The story starts in Genesis where God creates everybody and then it all screws up and then he tries to fix it and it screws up. He tries to fix it and it screws up. It's this parade. It's this comedy of errors and then you get to a spot where okay, so You you do wonder.

What His church background was I don't know I suppose it's out there someplace. I'm sure there's somebody out there that has what church he went to or whatever. I I don't know but. There I guess there are people who sort of present the Christian faith in in that way.

That you know God made it good and wonderful and all sudden it screws up. And so he tries to fix it and screws up again and tries to fix it again. So I he's probably talking about the flood and stuff like that and and so if you if you do have the idea of an open theism Process theology or some really strange forms of dispensationalism Where God's trying to do one thing a plan eight and work with plan B plan C, but but.

Then yeah. Okay. That's certain. None of those, of course reflect any type of historical understanding of scripture or anything along those lines that are very strange and weird, but.

Yeah, God. Who's been demanding that we slaughter animals and burn them because he likes barbecue is Now decided that he's going to come down and take human for now because he likes barbecue.

He's gonna mention it before he's gonna I'm sorry. He's gonna mention it again. The sweet sweet smelling aroma God loves the smell of burning flesh is. He's gonna put it and. Again, did he really believe that when he was a Christian did did he really think that it was the specific smell or?

Was it the obedience of his people in doing what he commanded them to do in the recognition of their sin? And the Thanksgiving for the provision of a means of having peace the Holy God and. Why why the surface?

Why is it that so many atheists? default to the most absurd Literalism. I mean there are some absurd literalists that rager guy the you know, the IFB Preacher guy. Okay there but they are a very very small number of people.

And I I don't get the feeling that he came out of a group like that. Maybe I could be wrong I guess but Whatever it is they're responding to they're not responding to anything that's had serious impact For centuries thereafter not responding to an Augusta not responding to a Calvin.

They're not responding to people like that. But did he really believe that you know, God likes barbecue. Is that is that really where he's gonna go with that.

Is now decided that he's going to come down and take human form and sacrifice himself to himself for a weekend to fix everything for everybody. Now there.

Do you get the feeling that this is not the first time that Matt Dillahunty has said that I? I get the feeling that this is a fairly well-worn phrase that he's gonna come down and sacrifice himself to himself now this is where and it's gonna Glenn's gonna push back on this and I Get the feeling that at least at this point that is what Matt thinks this is he does not understand The relationship of father son and spirit.

He does not understand that there is a relationship that exists between The divine persons that Jesus for example in John chapter 17 Specifically makes reference to that time before the world began When he was glorious in the presence of the father.

So there is a relationship prostant. They on John 1 1 B. It almost sounds Like Dillahunty has a modalistic understanding of the Trinity But without Without having been a part of a specifically modalistic denomination.

So in other words, he'd be a lot like a lot of evangelicals Who also are modalistic and they're understanding the Trinity simply out of ignorance and not out of out of confession, which by the way take a look cannon press is supposed to be dropping the The sweater vest dialogues number two Which is on the Doctrine of the Trinity.

And I was supposed to be released this morning sometimes. So I'm not sure if it's Because it's only eight something in Idaho right now. Yeah, I was gonna say it may not be up yet, but let me know if you if you track it down Like let people know that but it's coming out today.

So take a look at it like look for it one way or the other. That's not.

That's blood magic that is sacrificial blood magic thinking and nothing to do about human value.

Blood magic sacrificial blood magic. Thinking with nothing to do with human value. Well if you have made your primary argument that God's first priority is human value rather than God's first priority is his self-glorification and Because he's our creator and has chosen to glorify himself Through the creation of mankind and the redemption of particular people Therefore there is a grounding for man's value demonstrated the cross.

See See the importance from my perspective of where you start. You got it. You got to start the main things the plain things. Really really really important actually believes that what you.