Open Theism, More 'Just People' and a Follow on Nick Peters on Today's Dividing Line

And welcome to The Dividing Line on a Tuesday evening for some of you on the East Coast and afternoon for those of us here on the West Coast. Three topics, at least a possible fourth, depending on whether I get done with each of the other two, which is possible.

I might make it. We'll try. Anyhow, lots of interesting things to get to here. I'm going to start with announcement. Generally, it doesn't work this way. Generally, it does not work this way. But some of you may recall about what?

You're moving the microphone. And so you're looking like... Does that make you nervous? Yes, very much so. Yeah, it does. Is there something you wanted to... Oh, okay, good. Some of you remember a little while back, I reviewed the flaming toilet of death, Peter Hyatt's video.

And that was because it had been played by the fellow up in Salt Lake City that I haven't heard a word about in ages now. So that was probably March, April, somewhere around there. Well, we didn't arrange a debate this trip up to Colorado because I'm going...

I leave next week and go up to Santa Fe. I'm going to be speaking in Santa Fe. And we've got information up on the website about that. And seeing Paul Skazafava, say that three times fast, and the guys there at the church where I've been...

Well, that's the only church I've been to in Santa Fe. Actually, I don't know if there are any other churches in Santa Fe. That's just where I go. And the poor people there, they actually like me. I don't know.

They call it the discern conference. They're having me in all the time. I'm not sure if that's showing a lot of discernment. But anyway, and then from there up to Colorado, which is my want during the middle of the year, as you may have noticed over the past few years.

And I'm going to be doing some insane climbing on a bike up there, like up to the ski station in Santa Fe. That's only 10 .1. I am going up Mount Evans, Lord willing, maybe more than once. And Mount Evans is 14 ,000 feet above sea level.

And so I've never been that high on a bike. Could be interesting, but I'm looking forward to it. But anyways, we were going to try to work something out with Peter Hyatt. We might still be able to do so.

We're actually going to get together while I'm up there at some point for September with Peter Hyatt, I hope, on the subject of universalism. So I was a little disappointed because I wanted to work something out as far as a debate or something like that up there.

And then just a few days ago, somebody in channel, I think it was in channel or maybe by email, one of the two ways, because it's one of our channel rats, contacted me and said, have you ever declined an invitation to debate Bob Enyart?

Now, I knew the name. I've been up to Denver so many times that a lot of people had mentioned you two really ought to debate open theism. And it had come up sometime since 2005, because I remember riding in South Mountain Park and listening to something by Bob Enyart on the subject of open theism.

That was a number of years ago. So I responded and said, no, I've never declined an invitation to debate Bob Enyart. Why? Well, somebody is saying that you did. No. And so I thought across my mind, I knew he was up in Denver.

So I'm like, why don't you see what you can arrange? Well, lo and behold, this is not normally how it's done. But in a very, very brief period of time, we have arranged for a debate Tuesday evening, July 8th.

Don't have the time or location yet. They're working on that up there in the Denver area. But sometime Tuesday evening, July 8th. This is assuming that I don't fall off of the mountain in Santa Fe and I don't fall, don't die on Mount Evans, which I will have climbed at least once, maybe twice prior to this.

And no offense, Bob, but maybe, maybe at 14 ,000 feet, open theism will make sense. That was a great joke. And I went and used it now. I was thinking about waiting till Denver for that, that maybe the higher altitude you are.

And now in Colorado, there's a lot of things you can do with Colorado highs. There really, really are. Yeah, you can do a lot of stuff up there. Well, you know,.

If it actually pans out that, you know, the track record of your opponents listening to your shows,.

He will never. Oh, no, no. I think, I think, I think, no, no, I, I don't. In fact, when I mentioned it on my Facebook feed, uh, he retweet, he re he posted it to did something with his, I don't know. He did something with it in Facebook.

The word is share. Okay. Maybe I know you want to retweet.

Everything because everything surrounds, you know, Twitter, but you know, Facebook it's share. Yeah.

Sure. Yeah. It's tells you a little bit about Facebook, but anyway. Um, so no, I'm, I'm sure they're listening in or, or if not right now, they, they will be, but, um, anyhow, I'm sure he has a sense of humor.

He does, does radio. He has to have a sense of, uh, uh, cause everybody in radio is insane. But anyhow, uh, I say that as a person who used to work in radio a lot. Um, so that's coming up on the eight.

So what I want to do is I want to start off and give you some idea. It has been, uh, 13 years. Was it 2001? Was 2001 the Sanders debate? That's the, that's the year I have in my mind is 2001. Uh, I could be wrong about that.

Uh, and I forgot to actually, uh, unarchive that, but it's in, it's in Dropbox anyways. But, um, last time I really seriously addressed subject of open theism was when I debated John Sanders at reformed theological seminary.

And it's not that we haven't had some comment on it since then, but, uh, there have been a couple of people who have tried to get Greg Boyd, uh, to debate on that, on that subject, but he doesn't seem interested in it.

And, uh, so this will be the first time. So there've been some books that have come out since then. And I thank everybody who jumped on the ministry resource list today. I think there's, I've put a couple other things since there were people going, I wanted to help out, but by the time I get there, it's already taken care of.

Um, so there might still be some things up there. I don't know. Maybe you can tell me if it's already been taken care of, but, um, so I put some stuff up on the ministry resource list and, uh, obviously I've got many hours of writing, uh, over the next two weeks to do.

Uh, there's one thing left on a ministry resource resource list right now. Uh, that's the more expensive book on homosexuality. No, really? That one went, it's the Kindle edition on, uh, on hell. Okay.

Yeah. Um, so, um, anyways, there's, there's still some, there's still at least one thing there that someone can grab if they really want to, which we appreciate very, very much. But, um, so what I want to do is I want to give you some idea of, uh, where Bob and yards coming from, uh, to give you some idea of what the debate's going to be about.

It's very, very interesting to me. Uh, you say, well, how do you know? I mean, you're just now getting this material. Well, again, I listened to something a number of years ago. And then when I knew this was a possibility, they had called us yesterday because you know, my person talked to their person in the net person, whatever.

Um, so this morning I did a fairly short ride at 38 mile ride. And so I put a couple of things for the program on, and I thought, let's see what I can grab, uh, from Bob and yard. And so I grabbed this brief little, little thing where he was talking to a church of Christ, I'm sorry, Calvary chapel pastor, up there in, uh, in Denver.

And, uh, so I want to play some portions of that to help you understand. And it's interesting because the, the perspective that he's coming from is to emphasize, he even says, uh, that we want to approach this from a Trinitarian perspective.

And the emphasis, what you're going to hear is, well, we believe God is free to change the future and to write a new song. There's the, um, there's the perspective. God is free to change future. And basically what he's saying is if you believe that God knows the future, then God is stuck at this.

The future takes on a life into itself. And this of course is my primary, uh, response is that it creates a view of time and God's knowledge of time that just does not represent orthodox Christianity is ever viewed.

Now, obviously my biggest objection to theism is, it's plainly unbiblical. I mean, the Bible is clear in its teaching that God not only knows what is knowable in the future as in his own actions. Um, but it is just beyond question that God knows the actions of free human creatures.

And, uh, so obviously I will be focused upon that. But the point is that, that in presenting it, what he does is he's basically saying, well, I'm defending the freedom of God. And I have real problem with that because I don't think that's what you're doing at all.

Uh, first of all, I don't believe that my God is unfree because his knowledge of the future is based upon what his own will accomplishes in the future in first place. So what you're saying is God is free to do something less than the perfect will that expressed his decree, which created time in the first place.

Um, okay. But you know, these are things that I will, it'll be up to me to be able to point these things out and say, I don't think this is an appropriate way of expressing this because, um, how is God free if his actions are circumscribed by human actions that he does not know?

How can you say God is free when on September 10th, 2001, he knew what could possibly happen the next day, but he didn't know if it would happen the next day. He knew the plans in the hearts of men, but many of the plans in the hearts of man.

I mean, Psalm 33 comes up once again, I think Psalm 33 is a, is a, is a pretty tough text for anyone to deal with. Who's a Molinist or an open theist or Armenian. Um, and by the way, he criticizes our minionism as well.

At least our minions who hold to a concept of exhaustive divine foreknowledge, uh, not sure how they have a grounding for that, but that's another issue. Uh, so anyway, I wanted to, uh, play a little bit of this in the first half hour.

Uh, then in the second half hour, I'm going to be responding to William Michael. I'm assuming it's Weiss. I didn't ask him. I should have asked him. We were chatting on, on, uh, cause it wasn't, I don't believe it was in the film as far as the pronunciation.

I would say why is it could be with, I suppose, but Weiss is much more. Well, it's, I don't even know what the background of that is. It looks Eastern European. W Y S S that looks very Eastern European to me where you, you use word, you use letters for vowels that, you know, yeah, no, no, no, not even German.

No. I mean, William Michael sounds a little bit, but we'll go with Weiss. Anyways. Uh, he was one of the students featured in the just people video from that, uh, uh, was shot at grand Canyon, which I found out yesterday was shot two years ago, was shot two years ago.

Didn't know that. Um, but we're gonna respond to some of the things he had to say. And he has agreed that, uh, once I get back from Colorado, I guess he's still in the Valley here between semesters. Um, we have to figure out how to move that camera.

So it shoots over there and he'll join me in studio. Uh, well, as long as I'm nice today, I imagine I will be, but I have respond to some of the things he said. Uh, so hopefully that won't be too much of an issue.

Then the last half hour going to be, uh, responding to a Nick Peters and on defining inerrancy. Cause remember very briefly, I think it was on the last program or the program before that I mentioned some stuff about the Lordship of Christ and the last chapter of defining inerrancy that really bothered me.

And so he's responded and so I'll respond again. So, uh, lots of interesting stuff on the program. And if I happen to get through all of that, believe it or not, I have a video that we might get to, but I don't have a lot of confidence.

We're going to do that. Let's listen briefly. Uh, cause I'm not doing much interacting here. Uh, but let's, let's listen briefly to, uh, Bob starts off his program here. This is all the way back. It's seven years ago.

Starts his program off, um, complaining about what a local Calvary chapel pastor said, had a caller who asked him some things. Clearly they'd been listening to Bob. And, uh, here's the clip that he, he didn't, uh, he didn't like,.

I'll walk you through it. Okay, go ahead. Let me start you from the beginning. Okay. The person that you were listening to on the radio today, never listened to them again. Well, I turned it off. Good for you.

That'd be me, Bob. And you're a pastor, Bob. Hey,.

Come on. Never listen again. Now. Now he says, this is, this is rough. This is tough. Well, um, Bob, it put yourself in, in my position. I'm a pastor and this, uh, Calvary chapel pastor is a pastor. And if you really believe, as I believe that open theism is fundamentally anti-biblical unbiblical, and that it has an incredible impact on how you and I would respond to tragedy counseling.

There are so many, I mean, that's why I've debated this in the past. I think it's important. Just like you think it's important. Um, wouldn't you warn your sheep away from those who are teaching something that you think is fundamentally erroneous.

I'm not, I'm not sure why you wouldn't take that perspective. Um, and then he called into, uh, the program of that particular pastor and the pastor knew who it was. And so here's, here's some of that.

Conversation. That's cool. What can I do for you? I heard the caller, you guys were talking about the future and whether the future is settled or open. The open theistic argument. Yeah, right. Exactly.

That the future is open and that God in fact, has the power, the ability to change the future. For example, that God, if he wants to, he could write a new song.

Okay. So there's obviously the N Yartian, is that a word? Well, we just made one up the N Yartian formulation of open theism that God can change the future and write a new song. Now, obviously from my perspective, that's not the issue because what you're saying is God could invalidate his knowledge of the future and do something less perfect than he had decreed to do because his knowledge of the future flows from his decree to act in a particular way to bring himself maximal glory.

And so what you're saying is God's knowledge of what God him of God himself can be invalidated if God chooses to invalidate his knowledge of himself. So there's gonna be some of the issues that we will be looking at, but Hey, I'll give you props that that's a really, let's put it this way.

John Sanders didn't come up with a really nice sort of marketing approach to what open theism should be about. John Sanders approach was,.

You had 1500 years to figure this out. We're still working on it.

He did say that during the debate, didn't he? I, I, I sat there going, really? Um, really? Okay. Um, there, there you go. We, we continue on that. God is creative.

That God could do something creative. God is the one who designed the garden of Eden, right?

And today if God, now again, God is creative. I agree. Does that and his providence and his decree continues that creativity and it's perfect creativity and it's what he has intended to do from eternity past.

So much of this argumentation is, is man centered, looking upward at what God is doing. And once you have a God-centered perspective, it, this doesn't flow.

God wants to, we talk about the future and we say it's comforting to think that the future is totally settled, but God exists also. And so God, he has the ability.

And notice how the future is, is something that exists outside of God here in this mindset. And, and it's not the future is settled because God has a decree that represents his creativity and his freedom and his self-glorification.

And therefore it flows from his, his being. It's not something that exists outside and constrains God's freedom. It's the expression of God's freedom. God was free to do exactly what was perfect according to his own will.

And this is, this is, you know, and I'm being consistent here. Has this not been my criticism of Molinism as well? That the Molinist looks out and goes, well, the extent of God's freedom was limited by the true counterfactuals of human freedom to these particular feasible worlds.

I'm, I'm, what I'm saying is the only people that allow God to actually be God and to be free and totality, I think that that's Calvinist. I really do. And I, I'll defend that. Tuesday, July 8th, I live in Denver, Evergreen, Boulder, my friends at Flatirons, Eric Ellis and the guys, yo, I hope you can make it, make it down that night once we know where we're going.

And the power to do new things. So I don't think it's heresy to say that God is a creative God, that he still is creative and that he could write a new song. He could do a new thing. Well, it all depends on what direction you go, Bob.

If you're, if you come from the direction of not the creative power of God, but the knowledge from God that he lacks knowledge that he's yet to gain. And he waits for our activity to gain that knowledge.

Now, now here again, what is the Open Theist saying? Remember what Sanders said in our debate? He admitted God had, when God created, he had no idea you were going to exist because if he does not know the actions of free human creatures, then how could he know any one of us would ever exist?

Because we are the result of thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of decisions by free human creatures. So there's no way he could know that you as an individual would exist. Not possible, not possible.

So that means God learns. God's things on September 11th. God learned things on July 7th in, in the UK. He knew the possibilities, but even then he hadn't known those possibilities from eternity. That's the only way to, to safeguard absolute libertarian freedom, which again, I say only God has.

We have creaturely freedom. We do not have libertarian freedom. Nowhere does the Bible say so. The Bible actually contradicts that concept over and over and over and over and over again. The only way you can defend that is by saying, well, if this, this, this, this, then this, and have to just ignore the plain passages.

No man is able. No man is able.

Straightforward. Which is the more popular Open Theistic argument. Well, I hold the very popular Open Theist position, but forget about mankind for a moment. Think about just God from eternity.

Past. Okay. So this is where he's saying, let's not go talk about man and freedom. Let's just talk about the Trinity, which could be interesting. At least it'll be different than the Sanders.

Debate, to be sure. God is creative. It's not that the future was always settled. God decided to create, he decided how he would design a monarch butterfly. He decided to save us. Well, let's pause there for a second, Bob.

Yeah. He decided to create the monarch butterfly. Could he then decide to make the monarch butterfly something different or is that fixed? If God wanted to, he could design another kind of butterfly for the new earth.

No, I agree. And at this point, I'm not sure that we're really focusing on what's really important because the issue with Open Theism is not design issues. It is the interaction of God with his creatures.

If God had chosen to use a monarch butterfly to change the course of a battle and hence change the entire course of Western civilization, that's the issue. And having decided that, could he then undecide to do that?

Or could he have wanted to use a monarch butterfly to accomplish something? And because of the human decision, this thought just crossed my mind. But sometime over the weekend when I was riding in Flagstaff, I was climbing Snowbow Road, which you don't climb very fast.

It's steep, it's long, it's high altitude. And at one point, I'm going along and I see this beetle-type, it wasn't one of those really ugly ones with the big old legs, this type of beetle-type thing in front of me.

And I had just a split second to decide, am I going to even put out the effort to get around this thing rather than run over it? Split second. I mean, because you know how you just happen to notice it moves a little bit, you see it, and your mind does the, I'm going to be rolling right there thing, and you split second.

What? What? What? Oh, great. So you have this split second type thing. So what I decided to do, if I recall correctly, was to avoid it. Well, what if God had chosen to use that particular bug? That's the bug instead of the monarch butterfly.

Maybe it was, there were some caterpillars out. And of course, butterflies come from caterpillars and so on and so forth. And so what if my choice, that split second choice, which God cannot know, what if I was just too tired and I ran the thing over?

Now there's not going to be the butterfly to do the thing God wants to do to change the entire course of the world. So now he's got to change everything. See? That's really where.

The issue is. But in the space and time continuum that we live in today, will the monarch butterfly always be a monarch butterfly or will God speak from heaven and change? I imagine it will always be, but when he creates a new heaven and a new earth, he's still the creative God.

It's not as though the future is utterly settled and he's trapped because he's creative. I would agree. I would fully agree with you. Okay. So then let me ask you, let's say God decides to write a new song.

God has the ability to affect the future. Like our prayers, the Bible teaches that our.

Prayers can touch the heart of God. Okay. But this brings us to the whole prayer issue. I don't have time to get into today. I've got two more topics to get to. And I'm already down to five minutes here, but obviously the issue of prayer is extremely important.

I'm sure that's going to come up as did issues relating to, obviously, there are only a couple texts that open theists generally tend to focus upon, but Abraham's sacrifice and Now I Know and that kind of thing.

We'll get into those. But especially the issue of prayer and what is interesting at this point is obviously Bob's response to Calvinists is going to be different than Bob's response to Arminians at this point, because the perspective being presented by the Calvinists can be very different than that of the Arminian, especially in regards to the actual relationship between the God and the will of man.

And the Arminian has just a completely different viewpoint on that. It is interesting that there's a, according to what I heard here, a 250-page debate with a professor from Knox that, of course, I'll turn into MP3.

I'll listen to that too. But I didn't see any debates with an Arminian on the subject. Now, obviously, the Calvary Chapel guy, who knows, but most Calvary Chapel guys are not exactly Reformed. But that's, you know, this touches on all of these things.

That's why I say it really does impact so much of our beliefs as to what we believe God's knowledge involves.

Let's talk about this. Would it be possible for God to write new theology? Well, theology is a statement of reality.

And at this point, I would go, what about prophecy? When God says, I'm going to do x, y, and z through Cyrus, does he have the freedom to not do x, y, and z through Cyrus by writing a new song? That's where I would see a little bit better questions might have been asked, a little more focused question might have been asked at that point.

God's not going to change the truth, right? When Jesus Christ, when he suffered for us like he did, that was a change, right? Many Christians are taught that God is utterly immutable.

That was a change. I don't know what that means. Was the incarnation a change in the actual divine being? If that's what's being said,.

I'd have a serious problem with that. That he can't change in any way, but God the Father loved us so much that he sent his Son to die on the cross for us, and Jesus Christ suffered for us, he became sin, he became a curse for us, as Paul writes.

And so that was different. God the Father had never before poured out his wrath on the Son, and Paul—.

Now, what you have here, again, it's backwards from a biblical perspective. It's from the bottom looking up. The Bible gives us a perspective to see this and not end up causing all the contradiction that open theism causes in the Bible, because what we see is not that God has changed.

This is simply God's free choice to interact with his people in time. The choice that he made from eternity past. So anyways, the point is, what you're hearing here is a standard enunciation of an open theistic perspective.

I think it has tremendous impact. There is a later call, I won't be able to get to it, let me just summarize it real quickly because we're going to run out of time here because I do need to get the other ones as well.

There is a call later on where Bob talked to a woman who asked about a text in Ezekiel where God knows our thoughts. And basically what Bob said was, well, he knows our thoughts, not that he will know our thoughts five billion years from now.

And I felt, first of all, that's not really dealing with the text real well because the point of the Ezekiel text was that God always knows our thoughts because he knows us completely. He knows the words before they're on our lips.

And while I wouldn't try to push that specifically to prove that God knows all future events, I think that's found in Isaiah, that's found in Ephesians 1, etc. The point was that there was a fundamental distinction between the view of God, which he will not affirm that he is omniscient, he would affirm that God learned, and historical Christian orthodoxy, which wasn't just simply created by speculation by a bunch of people that were influenced by Greek philosophy.

There are fundamental issues of God's knowledge, his activity, his sovereignty, his purposes, prophecy, the very means by which God demonstrates he's God, the very tests he gives us but whereby we can test who is the true God.

Fundamental to that is God's absolute knowledge of future events. That's the whole trial of the false gods, Isaiah 40 -48. I don't believe an open theist can walk through those texts and survive, at least not in a cross-examination situation.

So, it's going to be interesting, but once again, it's been so long since we've actually dealt with it that some of you might have been going, what in the world is open theism? Well, that's going to be interesting.

OK, good. Yeah, just a quick update. That was Bob Enyer calling and there I kind of thought maybe he was listening and wanted to chime in. No, they're up there feverishly looking for a venue and he's apparently...

Don't they have a place? I'm not sure what they're trying to work in here. He apparently are working on a Calvary Chapel up there and thought that the Calvary Chapel guys aren't necessarily his biggest fans, kind of the way he...

They're certainly not mine either. And he thought maybe a call from us might help. And I'm like, no, I don't think it will. I don't think it will at all.

Let's keep looking. Yeah, let me say, yeah.

I'm sitting there remembering a particular reaction you got from Hank Hanegraaff when you pointed out that George Bryson's position logically worked into open theism and they were not happy about that at all.

That's true.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Well, anyway, so it's going to be interesting debate. I'm looking forward to it. I think it's important. And so there's the first half hour. Okay. Do you have the video?

You do have the video all ready to go over there, right? Okay, good. Let's move on from there and let's transition. For those of you who did not see it last week, I think most of you did. We responded to a video that was now I know produced two years ago.

And was sat on for two years regarding homosexuality at Grand Canyon University. Grand Canyon University is a Christian university here in Phoenix. I am, as my alma mater, I was at Grand Canyon when it was Grand Canyon College, a Southern Baptist school from 19, fall of 1981 till I graduated in 1985.

I was a double major in Bible and biology, single minor in Greek. And so I am an alumnus. I taught there. As soon as I graduated from Fuller Seminary, I was asked to teach church history at Grand Canyon starting in 1991.

Well, so not immediately, it was two years. And then a couple of years after that, Dr. Bill Williams, who had been the president when I first went there, he gave me a presidential scholarship when I graduated high school.

He made me scholar-in-residence at Grand Canyon in 1995, 1996, 1997, I believe is when I did that. And so I was teaching church history again and apologetics and a few things there at Canyon during that time.

Around 2000, Canyon disassociated from Southern Baptist Convention. And things started going south. Around 2004, it looked like Canyon was going to close. They were deeply in debt. And things weren't going well.

Today, Grand Canyon is one of the fastest growing universities in America. Amazing. I had no idea. I mean, I had driven by the campus, saw all the new buildings. They are putting buildings up, multi-story buildings up at a pace you would not believe.

And their plan is to have 30 ,000 students on campus in the not too distant future. They are providing affordable education, especially in science, engineering, nursing, all sorts of stuff. It's an amazing story.

So obviously, given that it's a Christian university, there is a statement of faith. There is obviously a moral standard that is affirmed by the leadership of the university to have a student-produced video that talks about homosexuality online is an issue.

We reviewed it last week or the week before, somewhere around there, and responded to, I felt, the most important stuff. One of the things that I skipped was the discussion. Well, I mentioned it, but I didn't spend much time on it.

It was a discussion that seems to be a very common thing, where there was a discussion of someone persecuting, threatening one of the homosexual students. One of the things that really bugs me is I've discovered since then, discovered only yesterday, in fact, they didn't tell the whole story.

And by not telling the whole story, it was deeply dishonest, deeply dishonest. Because what they didn't bother to say, though they knew they had to have known this information, is that the leadership of Grand Canyon found out about this that very same day and dealt with it immediately.

And while all those students continued at Grand Canyon, the student responsible did not. Now, that changes everything. That changes everything. To all of my homosexual friends, this victim mentality thing does not serve your cause very well.

It does not. How many times now have we, remember the two lesbians in, what was it, Washington State someplace, talked about the spray painting of nasty stuff on their, a year ago? I was told two years ago.

Yeah, yeah, the color is challenging your source. He said it was made, sounds like the color was part of the video. I can't hear you? It sounds like the color is part of the video. He's saying that it was made a year ago.

I was told yesterday it was two years ago. So I've got contradictory information. Yeah, and I let him know that. Okay. So this whole victim thing, you know, the lesbians that said that they sprayed paint on their house and stuff like that, and then turned out that they did it themselves.

That does not help anybody. And if you all knew what, the fact that this was dealt with and didn't include that, bad stuff, bad stuff. What was it they said in Peter Pan? Bad form, bad form. You just don't do that.

I'm sorry. It is, this was one-sided. This was badly one-sided enough to then have that. Okay. Anyway, the point being that the only person I've heard from is William. And that was on Facebook. Now, most of you know, I've been trying to do more on Facebook, but I still think it was an interface designed by someone in 1996.

I really do. And I don't like the interface. And I do not get the messages or things like that, or friend requests and stuff like that. You know, Rich is the one who wants me on Facebook. So he said, I'll deal with all that.

Because between the icky stuff that I don't like about the interface. And then when I did try it a while back, I started getting flooded with all this stuff. And for a while, I was trying to deal with my own friend requests and stuff.

And I would literally just be sitting there, you know, clicking, clicking, clicking. Oh, and I finally, just one day I said, forget it. Don't want it. Just get rid of it. And so I don't get that message stuff and all the rest of that stuff.

So William had actually posted a comment in that thread. I think it was the 19th or 18th. I think it was like four or five days ago. I didn't see it. And in fact, Rich had to point out to me because he hadn't seen it either.

And so I want to respond to that. But I wanted to play just what had started all of this from the video itself. So here's the clip that if I'm correct, my comments in response to this is what got William to respond to me.

Now we get so caught up in it because I think I'll start this by saying that I think God is so much less concerned about homosexual or heterosexual or pansexual, whatever sexual you want to be. I think God's so less concerned with that rather than just getting to know the actual people and being in relationships with them.

If I could use an example, it's almost like doing math. Like no man is ever going to start with math, this giant broad scope of the subject with frigging calculus or trigonometry. No, we don't do that in elementary school either.

We don't go to the big giant stuff. We start with 2 plus 2 and 4 to the 1. We do subtraction and addition long before we ever touch the big stuff. And I think the same is true with faith. Before you can ever argue theologically or semantically about the versions of the Bible and translations and the different rights and wrongs, you have to get the basics down first.

And the biggest basic of it all is that Jesus loves you so much. And that's anyone. That is anyone who wants to be in a relationship with you.

The Bible is not just... Okay, so my response to that, there was a lot of stuff there. And my response to that was, I don't see any evidence that William has listened to the side. That he has really got a grounding for saying the things.