TikTok Lady Theologian Refuted, Comments on Dr. MacArthur and Losing Down Here

Totalitarianism, Humanism, and the Coercive State

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line. We are back here in the regular studio for now. We have to work through some issues as to how we will play video and be able to hear it, which is a trick. And something tells me I'm gonna have to have it on a different computer.

I'm not gonna be in control of it. Someone else will have to start and stop it and stuff like that. It's gonna be, it's a little challenging. So things to work through, that's fine. We still want to address these things, important things to be talking about.

Here at the top of the program, I want to read you a little something and hopefully it'll be useful to you. Let me just read a couple of paragraphs and hopefully we'll move on from there. In economics, redistributive legislation in Marxist countries means the open transfer of land and wealth from private ownership to the state as the trustee of all the people.

In the democratic nations, the same restributive goal is achieved by a variety of means, most notably the inheritance tax and the income tax. In the United States, 75 of all farms, businesses and activities are wiped out by the death of the owner because of the confiscatory nature of the inheritance tax.

The income tax works annually to redistribute wealth as does the property tax and a variety of other taxes. In fact, the goal of taxation can no longer be said to be the maintenance of civil order and justice.

Rather, its goal is social revolution by means of taxation. Taxation has indeed become the new and most effective method of revolution. It is the reactionary redistributionists who still think in terms of the armed overthrow of existing orders, the more liberal ones know that taxation is the more efficient means of revolution.

In politics, the redistributive state works to equalize and scatter all independent sectors, whether religious, racial or economic, which can form pockets of strength and resistance to the saving power of the state.

Catch that phrase, the saving power of the state. The redistributive state wants no dissident minorities, only an undifferentiated and submissive majority. Now this stuff, I'll tell you what this is in a second, but do you remember when I read the story of the Uyghur woman in China who survived two years in the Uyghur re-education camp?

Remember what they were being taught. Remember what they were being asked to find to be good was a populace of undifferentiated people. I happened to be a certain kind of Chinese people they want to be in the majority, but that's what they want.

They want an undifferentiated and submissive majority. That's what China's doing right now. These words were written almost 50 years ago, almost 50 years ago. In brief, the redistributive state wants a world beyond good and evil, where there is no good nor evil, there can be no criticism and no judgment.

So we are forced to conclusion, I'm sorry, in a world beyond good and evil, there is no standard for condemning a civil government and the civil law is thus beyond criticism. Moral judgment disappears and coercion replaces it.

In fact, where there is no moral law and no God whose court is the source of all law and judgment, then the only binding force in any social order is coercion. Thus, the more humanistic a state becomes, the more coercive it becomes.

The brutal slave labor camps of the Marxist states are not aberrations, notice it says are, this is before the fall of the Soviet Union, are not aberrations nor errors of principle on their part, they are the logical outcome of their humanism.

The humanistic state replaces God's predestination with man's plan of predestination by total coercion and it replaces God's moral law with a purely coercive law whose purpose is alien to man's being and destructive to it.

As we are facing new realities and people who are openly unashamed to be promoting pure totalitarianism, just straight up silence everybody but those that are saying what we want them to say. We are now seeing this, Bob Gagnon, scholar, researcher, writer, gone from Facebook.

That's not, they didn't come and shoot him yet but tech is saying, nope, if the new regime says that transgenderism is the new great good thing, then it is, period, end of discussion. Can't argue it, you can't do worldview critique, nothing, just like this is saying, if there is no higher law than the state, then the state becomes God and if the state had transgenderism as the greatest good, there can be no appeal, there's nothing to appeal to and so when we Christians say but that's not how God, nope, that you have no word from God, ours is the highest authority, you're gone, you're out of here.

Right now, you just can't talk anymore, we don't want your opinions being heard but if you dare keep talking and find ways for your opinions to be heard, that's what gulags were designed for under the Soviet Union and under whatever country is gonna continue along those lines.

Thus, the more humanistic a state becomes, the more coercive it becomes. Talk to me about the United States of America, talk to me about Canada, talk to me about the United Kingdom, talk to me about Germany, talk to me about all these nations, are they becoming more and more humanistic, are they becoming more and more secular?

Is there becoming an ever greater fundamental acceptance of the idea that mankind is nothing but an accident, has no transcendent meaning, there is no moral law above that which the state defines, just that's it, yeah, that's where we are, that's what we're facing.

And some of you know, in fact, the last, I think it's the last, I didn't check this morning, but the last blog and Mayblog entry from dougwills .com, Douglas Wilson, was really excellent. And no matter how hard some people might want us to try, we cannot help but recognize that there are people who lived 40 and 50 years ago, who saw what we are now living through.

They saw it coming, they talked about it, they mentioned it, they warned us. Most of us just could not imagine the possibility of it coming true. One of them was Francis Schaeffer. Francis Schaeffer spoke prophetically, but a less popular individual was named Rufus J. Rushduni, and I was just reading from him.

And his analysis of the coercive nature of the state, once it is freed from the moral constraints of cosmic law, God's law, the law that exists above what any gathering of human beings can ever vote into existence, that criticism is being validated with every shaky signature Joe Biden is placing on his dictatorial commands.

And if you think that's a, you shouldn't be so mean. The man has signed more executive orders in one week than his three times more than the collection of his four predecessors did in their first week.

And more coming, and more coming. The entire concept of this being a representative republic where we have representatives who are actually doing that thing called representing is simply being tossed out the window.

This regime doesn't care. Doesn't care about those restraints, doesn't care about any of that stuff. And you combine that together with the new mantra that if it even crossed your mind that something weird happened in the counting of votes, you are in deep trouble.

You should lose your job. You should be kicked out of government. You probably should be put in jail for just thinking it. Just having had the thought, go, you know, that was pretty weird. Like, oh, look at that, go da, da, da, whoop, whoa, where'd all those, if you even thought that, now it's a thought crime.

It's a thought crime. It's scary to even tune into MSNBC right now because it's like, whoa. I mean, big brother is just sitting on the set now. You know, he's just sitting there going, Orwell may have imagined me, but here I am in living color.

And they're loving it. They think it's great. They don't realize they're useful idiots. And if they ever dare cross big brother, they're toast, but most of them would never, ever, ever do that. So here we are.

Wow.

The more humanistic a state becomes, the more coercive it becomes. And therefore a humanistic state must see as its most mortal enemy, what? The claims of the one that it can never, ever suppress because the stone was rolled away from his tomb.

Because there's a lordship they cannot in any way, shape, or form get rid of, ameliorate, buy off, redefine, not that they don't try. I mean, they're buying off, quote unquote, Christians right, left, and center.

They've got them doing their bidding right now, like anything, but there you go. There you go. So I think that's what lay behind. I did not, there's a lot of stuff I haven't, I have seen coming and I haven't seen coming.

One of the things I haven't, I did not see coming that is all over us right now is this is forcing anyone who wants to seriously try to prepare for the future, try to think things through, try to teach their children to persevere and to withstand what's going to be coming.

Everybody is now learning to think presuppositionally. We presuppositionalists have been saying all along that the outcome of the debate is determined by the foundations, the epistemological foundations upon which it's based.

And if there's rebellion down here, if down here at the basic level of where you start, man's autonomy is allowed to have its central place, you're never actually going to build a stable Christian argument up here.

It's not going to happen. Well, now we are seeing with a vengeance the need to always think presuppositionally. And if you've watched any of my debates, you know I've always worked this way. When I'm listening to an argument, I am analyzing it presuppositionally.

What are the foundational elements that would be required to substantiate the assertion this individual just made? And if I can tell they haven't done that work, then that's what I'm going to ask them in cross-examination and that's when the wheels fall off, thinking presuppositionally.

Now we have to do that while we still have the freedom to do it. Now we have to do that. It's the only way to understand the motivations of the people who can with such impudence engage in such outrageous hypocrisy.

They don't care about hypocrisy, it's part of the system. It is meant to break us down. It is meant to humiliate us. That Dalrymple quote is, we should all memorize it. Just put that one down for the memorization.

It is the purpose of the people on the left to engage in hypocrisy because why is hypocrisy wrong for aggregates of stardust? It's not because hypocrisy, the reason hypocrisy has been wrong in the past is because it involved dishonesty in regards to what?

God's creation. You are God's creation. They are God's creation. You are to be honest in your dealings with other people who are made in the image of God and therefore hypocrisy is your attempt to deceive them, to put on airs, to put on a face of whom?

The people observing you or even before God. But if there's no God to observe and the people on the other side of the room have no transcendent meaning and there is no objective truth and hypocrisy is merely a cultural concept, that might be colonial.

It's probably racist. See, you can just throw terms out there that have actually no historical connection. There are no logical connection, but being logical is also not something that a person who is just a collection of stardust has to worry about either.

A Response to the TikTok Lady Theologian on Homosexuality

So I mentioned on the program yesterday, toward the end, I was talking about this hit piece against right Reverend Dr. Tom Buck, that's like to put them all together, by Mark Wingfield, SBC pastor calls Vice President Kamala Harris a Jezebel two days after inauguration.

And I read the actual quote. I can't imagine any truly God-fearing Israelite. Okay, stop right there. What's a God-fearing Israelite? God-fearing Israelite is a person who believes not only that God exists, but is in covenant relation to him and therefore is in submission to God's law and therefore has objective truth and objective moral values.

I can't imagine any truly God-fearing Israelite who would have wanted their daughters to view Jezebel as an inspirational role model because she was a woman in power. So what's his point? The idea of woman in power is irrelevant to whether we should be pointing to someone as an example, an inspirational role model to use specific words that Dr. Buck used.

Woman in power, I can guarantee, I'm not gonna pretend to be Dr. Buck, but I would say he's one of my closest ministerial friends in the world. I really do. I hope he feels that. I think Derek Melton and Tom Buck and some of these guys I've been in their churches, they mean the world to me.

And so I think he'd allow me to say on his behalf that what he was talking about is that a woman in the home who is a godly wife and mother training up her children in the fear and admonition of the Lord is because of the content of her character and the consistency of the worldview that she is living in is the true and only real inspirational model that we should need to have.

And the idea of transporting her out of the home into a position of power, actually, I would suggest she's in the greatest position of power she could ever have. In shaping the next generation, being right there in the home and being mom has the greatest power.

But the idea is people say, here's a woman in power now, we're so excited. And as Christians, we should be going, and what is her moral worldview? And when we examine that, we find it to be utterly debauched, utterly debauched.

And so I stand with Dr. Buck and what he said in that tweet. And if Mark Wingfield would like to write an article or maybe do what he didn't do with Tom Buck, like contact him, like get the context for his words, maybe Mark Wingfield would like to come on this program where we can have a discussion of what the appropriate example for young girls would be and whether Kamala Harris's worldview in regards to abortion, infanticide, the profanation of marriage, transgenderism, and a whole host of other issues would be what we should be pointing our young girls to.

Or do we point them simply to the outward rather than the inward? Might be some questions to think about. But this is the point. This is the same, it's the issue of thinking presuppositionally. What is the presuppositional basis of looking at a quote unquote woman in power and analyzing whether this should be a person that we are seeking to emulate?

All those worldview conferences we've been doing for the past 25 years, now all of a sudden they'd be packed out because we know. Now we see, here it comes. That's the important part. That's the important part.

Okay, along those lines, along those lines, last night I was sent a video. Let me see. That's gonna be about the best we can do there. Are we good on that side? Okay, I've got her plugged in over here.

That's fine. I was sent this video. I think this is the first TikTok video that I've ever played. Rich says, I know it is. And so that means, I think Rich is a little concerned.

You would know?

Okay, all right. Okay, well, I don't do TikTok. I don't have TikTok. My understanding is it's basically a Chinese spy program. So whatever, as is Zoom for that matter. But I was sent this last evening.

And once I listened to it, I was just, well, part of it, you gotta understand, we could link you right now to, how many hours did I do with Matthew Vines? I think it was five, at least five. And then Gushy was at least four, maybe as much as five.

That's about 10 hours. The debate with John Shelby Spong, the debate down in South Africa. So that's about three, six, nine. Other two, maybe, let's just go small, eight. That's minimum of 17 hours worth of stuff we could just link to right now.

Going in depth on these issues. And not just me sitting here, I'm actually playing the other side. I'm playing the best the other side has to offer. This ain't low hanging fruit. We're going at the best they've got.

And of course, there's a little book back here, Same Sex Controversy. And this is a subject that we have addressed many, many, many times. But it doesn't change the fact that Christians still struggle to provide a confident and gracious response to some of the wilder claims that people make.

Now, what's interesting is this woman claims to be a former clergy person with the United Methodists. That tells you a fair amount right there in most situations. I'm sorry? Oh, well. Yes, I had some United Methodists with me at Fuller many, many, many years ago.

And she is going to claim quite a level of expertise in the biblical languages. And she claims to have translated books of the Bible. That's, I think, where some Christians go, oh, folks, you have to demythologize scholarship.

You have to demythologize scholarship. Some of the people that I've known in my life that had the least amount of simple common sense in their brains had the most degrees after their names. And some of the smartest people I know who are able to take information from numerous different fields and bring them together into a cohesive whole that produces deep and sound wisdom across the spectrum had no degrees after their names at all.

We are now living in what I would call the post-educational period. You are not being educated if you're being told what to think. You're educated when you're told how to think. And so when you see people from big name schools today, especially that are as young as this young woman, there is a 99 chance they've never listened to any other perspective than the one that that educational institution wanted to implant in their minds and therefore control their behavior.

I know that in seminary, whether it was when I was in it or teaching in it, we would listen to the other side. We would analyze what other people believed. Most of the books I had to read in seminary were from people who would not have ever been allowed to stand in the pulpit of my church, vast majority of them.

So conservatives actually listen to the other side and learn from the other side. And when you disagree, you know why you disagree. Liberals, leftists do not do that. They do not do that. I can guarantee you this bright-eyed young lady doesn't have a clue about the mountain of documentation that demonstrates that she has no idea what she's talking about, none.

And they don't even believe that there is another side. I've told you, when I debated Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman didn't care what I had to say about any of the texts we'd be looking at. He doesn't think that we have anything meaningful to say.

When I debated John Shelby Spong, I read all of his books. I listened to his lectures on all the subjects that would be relevant to our debate. He didn't even know who I was and he didn't bring a Bible to a debate on whether homosexuality is consistent with biblical Christianity because they don't think we have anything meaningful to say and they have no intention of listening to what we're saying to begin with.

That's just the way it is. So these people will confidently say, I've studied Koine Greek and I've studied Hebrew and the reason that they used homosexual was because they wanted to do this. Now, to actually substantiate that kind of assertion would require a wide range of knowledge and a fair handling of that knowledge, none of which this woman possesses by any stretch of the imagination.

But that's why they make very confident statements. They're confidently wrong, but they make confident statements. So let's take a look at it. Let's analyze it. And here we go.

I literally want nothing more than for this to be a valid argument, but I'm gonna tell you why it's not a valid argument. As a former clergy member, somebody who used to work in the Methodist church, who has a master of divinity, I know biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek.

I've translated multiple books of the Bible. It's not a valid argument because the word homosexuality literally does not exist in the original text. Nope, in the 1940s, the word homosexuality was invented by biblical scholars translating the RSV translation in order to propagate homophobia.

So it's listed nowhere in scripture nor does Jesus ever talk about it. And before anybody's like, oh, well, in Leviticus, it talks about man shall not lie with man. Well, first and foremost, an American publishing company did that.

That's not in the original text either. Because if you look at the Martin Luther Bible, the German word that's used is Krabben, which means boy. Talking about pedophilia. So take several seats.

Take several seats. I guess that's how you say sit down or something. I don't know. But so there you go. Now, again, on the one hand, I understand why that kind of a presentation could cause people to sort of stand back and go, okay, I don't really know how to respond to that.

I'm not sure. She threw some stuff out there. I don't know about what happened at such and such a time or anything like that. I'm trying to pull up. I should have had this up before.

I apologize.

I love having all of my Bible stuff here in accordance. But the problem is when you try to find a specific thing, it can be very, very, very, very, very, very difficult to do and there it is.

I found it.

Thank you. I'll bring that up in a moment when we replay this. All right. What should be the first thing that absolutely stands out to you in hearing something like this? First, don't be intimidated by such claims.

Okay? She's got an MDiv. Most people can get MDivs without even taking Greek or Hebrew anymore. So don't be intimidated by that kind of thing. It's easy to make that kind of claim. Most of these people couldn't translate their way out of a wet paper bag.

Of course, I've taught both Greek and Hebrew at the same level where she was a student. So if that makes you right, then she's wrong, I'm right.

Yay.

Argument from authority. No, I'll demonstrate she's wrong from texts. Demonstrate the reality of them. Secondly, what is, and I've seen a lot of Christians who've been caught by this because we think somewhat anachronistically.

In other words, we don't automatically think about what has to come before something else chronologically and logically. So the term homosexual, recently I made some comments about William Tyndale and the number of words that Tyndale brought into the English language.

And it's hard for us to imagine that there was a time when the English language had a whole lot fewer words than it has today, but there was. And when you look at the list of words that Tyndale brought into the language, you're just astonished.

And we can't imagine bringing new words in, but we do.

Meme.

Meme is a relatively new word. I remember what was first brought in by Richard Dawkins. And it's still being redefined over time, but it still happens today. It's not just, well, we invented something new and we need a new word to describe the thing that this does, but there are, the language does grow.

It also loses words. There are all sorts. You read books from the 1800s and modern people are going, I don't know what that word means, even though it was quite common in the past. So languages evolve and change.

It doesn't mean that meaning evolves and changes as in there is no objective truth. Language is what we use to describe these things. Anyway, but the term homosexual in the Bible would be determined by what?

By Greek and Hebrew, by the original languages. If there was any references in the few chapters in Aramaic, that would be relevant too, but I don't think there are. So Greek and Hebrew. And so when you look at texts such as Leviticus and you look at the Hebrew words that are used there, then they have to be defined in that context.

The English language did not exist in the first thousand years of the Christian era. And in fact, scholars argue as to where you could even put down, okay, it starts existing here. It's not like one day it didn't exist and the next day it did.

It's a slow process of development. But English as a language is relatively young. And so what does it matter what terms we use in English? The question is, did the scriptures as originally written describe homosexual activity?

That's the term we're using today. In the past, it's been called sodomy. Sodomite, a term used in the King James. There were other terms that were used at that time, but we know what it refers to. Ars in equites, the term in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 means, well, I've told the story before, but I did a radio program back in 99 or 2000, and I was joined in studio by Jeffrey Neal.

And he and I took on two homosexuals on a talk radio program here in the Phoenix area. And that eventually led to us writing this book, The Same Sex Controversy. I don't know how long this is still gonna be in print.

I appreciate that it's been in print as long as it has been, but you and I both know. And during that discussion, Jeff said, almost direct quote, ars in equites means that which men do with men in bed and that ain't eating crackers.

That's pretty much direct quote. So what English words develop, well, almost two and a half millennium after Moses writes what Moses writes is irrelevant. It doesn't have any meaning. If someone comes up some new language, it's not gonna change what was written by Moses, does it?

So the issue is how accurately the English words we are using represents the intention and meaning of the original language. So to say homosexual does not occur in the original language is not saying anything at all.

Homosexual behavior, men lying with men as they would lie with a woman, engaging in penetrative sexual intercourse men with men, women with women, that's what's being described. Call it what you will, use whatever words you want to use, but that's what's being described.

And yes, that's in the Bible. That is right there as we'll take a look at it. So let's go back through this a little bit more slowly now, now that you have the argument and let's demonstrate the truth of these issues.

Sorry about that.

There you go.

And okay, let's start at the beginning.

I literally want nothing more than for this to be a valid argument, but I'm gonna tell you why. It's not a valid argument. As a former clergy member, somebody who used to work in the Methodist church who has a master of divinity, I know biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek, I've translated multiple books of the Bible.

It's not a valid argument because the word homosexuality literally does not exist in the original text.

Okay, the word homosexuality does not exist in the original text. Homosexuality is an English word. So a meaningful statement, if she's actually arguing that the concept of same-sex attraction and behavior, men engaging in sexual behavior with men, women with women, is not in the text of scripture, that's absurd.

If she's saying that the word homosexual doesn't appear, it couldn't have because English didn't exist. So the only meaningful way to address this is to talk about the actual original language itself and say, well, what is said back in Leviticus.

Let's say, let's look at Leviticus chapter 20 and let me add a parallel here because that's what he had said and somehow it's relevant, which we'll get to in a moment. German is older than English, but it's not as old as Hebrew or Greek.

But if there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman. Okay, so what does lie with a woman mean? I mean, again, this is pretty obvious stuff, but if there's a man who lies the male as those who lie with a woman, that is about as succinct a description of homosexual activity as you could have.

So you lie with a woman in a particular fashion that has a established meaning, numerous examples in the Pentateuch of exactly what that means. There is clearly a complimentary physical structure that allows that possible.

And when a man lies to a woman, the result normally is babies, okay? So if there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed toevah, toevah, a detestable act, an abomination.

That's also a term that's used to describe idols in the book of Isaiah. They are toevah, an abomination. They are a violation of God's created order. That's what an idol is. And that's what that kind of physical behavior is.

They are toevah. They should surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them. So this is a capital offense in the Mosaic law. This is not the first time it's referenced. It's not the first time it's referenced in Leviticus chapter 18.

And this is very, very important, but you can take a look at it. When you go and look at the beginning of the holiness code in Leviticus chapter 18, you have an entire listing of behaviors, especially incestuous behaviors, the nakedness of your sister, the nakedness of your father's daughter, et cetera, et cetera.

There's a number of verses that go through in essence, every possible incestuous relationship and saying, you shall not do this, you shall not do this, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival, she is alive to uncover nakedness, et cetera, et cetera.

You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife or to be defiled by her. You will not give any of your offspring to offer them to Moloch. And then Leviticus 18 .22, you shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female.

Same thing. Here, it simply says it is an abomination because Leviticus 18 is not mosaic, establishment of mosaic law with penalties. Because what's gonna happen at the end is Leviticus 18 .24, do not defile yourselves by any of these things for by all these, the nations, which I am casting out before you have become defiled for the land has become defiled.

Therefore, I have brought its punishment upon it. So the land has spewed out its inhabitants. All right? So you had a listing of all of the sexual perversions of the people of the land who are being dispossessed and spewed out of the land in Leviticus 18, which is interesting because that's before any prophets were sent to these people.

This is not just mosaic law. This is not just cultic law. Cultic has a different meaning in scholarship than it does in popular usage. Cultic law would be in regards to the temple cult, for example, worship in Israel.

Leviticus 18 tells us that without the presence of prophets, natural law that God writes upon the conscience was enough for them to know that this was an abomination, that they should not be engaging in these behaviors, but they were.

And we know from history that they were. The pottery, the statues, figurines, debauched, just really bad. So you've got the two references, Leviticus 18, 22, and then you go to Leviticus 20 in the holiness code.

And now you're into Moses saying to the people of Israel, and that's why the death penalty, their blood guiltiness is upon them. That requires revelation and revelation is being given in regards to that.

So Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20. There you have those texts. And so, well, let's keep listening to what she has to say and I'll get to how this is relevant to the New Testament here in just a second. Oop, can't hear it.

Got back up here.

Nope, in the 1940s, the word homosexuality was invented by biblical scholars translating the RSV translation in order to propagate homophobia.

Okay, now that obviously is an absurd statement. It's just absurd to propagate homophobia. I remember homophobia, oh no, wait a minute. That's a brand new term, isn't it? She's doing exactly what she's accusing them of doing.

Nobody knew what homophobia was back then, but they wanted to propagate it. No, actually, if anything, if that was even true, that would be attempting to use a less offensive term as then sodomite or other terms that would be used from earlier in the English language.

It's simply trying to describe men lying with men as a male lies with a female. Okay, homosexual, same sex. Makes sense, it's descriptive, accurate, has nothing to do with homophobia at all. Has nothing to do with homophobia at all, that's absurd.

Where do you get that? Prove it, document it. They can't because we know today, asking for proof and documentation is, well, it's racist. Or white privilege or colonialized or whatever other term you use to get around actually having to do meaningful.

It's white European, yeah, yeah.

So it's listed nowhere in scripture nor does Jesus ever talk about it.

Okay, okay, okay. It's listed nowhere. What is listed nowhere in scripture? The word homosexual or the clear obvious action of homosexuality? Did we skip Genesis 18 and 19? That all the males, the technical word for male, all the males of the city said, bring them out that we might know them.

This was not the welcome wagon. This was not we want to sit down, have a few beers, talk about sports. This was knowing them and Lot knew what knowing them meant. And that's why he said, do not do this evil thing.

The ways of trying to get around Genesis 18 and 19 are astonishing. They really, really are. This may be 20 years old this year, but the biblical arguments haven't changed. I mean, I really would love to be able to update this, but I don't know if even this can stay in print.

But the chapter on Genesis 18 and 19, I wrote it. That was one of my assignments. That was part of my duty. And we have gone through it in the past. We can go through it again if we need to. But Genesis 18 and 19 is very clear.

When they said we want to know them, they wanted to have homosexual sex with them. That's they wanted to do. And Lot identified it as evil. And that's when they turned on him. And the amazing thing to me is, and maybe we need to go over it, but the amazing thing to me is, read the story.

God struck them with blindness. God struck all the men with blindness. Can you imagine being in a group? Now, cities weren't as big back then as they are now, but there's at least a hundred people in this group.

And you're trying to bang on the door to get into Lot's house because he has, who is this man who's acting as judge over us? And all the men have gotten together and you're trying to get into that house.

And then all of a sudden, you can't see anything, darkness. And the first thought across your mind is, did somebody put something over my head? And then you're listening. And all of a sudden, for a second, it's quiet because it's happened to everybody at the same time.

And then someone cries out, I can't see. And you go, I can't either. And you feel a fate, you feel a hand, and you feel arm, and everyone's feeling. And it would take a few seconds, but it wouldn't take all that long for the realization to hit you.

Everyone can't see. We've all been struck blind. Now, what should be the immediate response? If you are not completely given over in your evil, but have you ever noticed something? They didn't stop trying to get in the house.

That has always blown me away. They didn't stop trying. They were struck blind and they didn't stop trying.

Wow.

That's called being given over. That's called being given over. And so we know what the moral evil was to which Lot made reference. And it wasn't just a lack of hospitality. Yes, Ezekiel says they were inhospitable.