Mother Forces Six Year Old Son to Transition to a Girl in Divorce

Okay, so today we are going to deal with, again, some topics because, well, we have to.

They are popular in the culture being said quite a bit, big issues, and this is something we're going to deal with.

The issue of a six -year -old boy, a six -year -old boy who is in the middle of a divorce with his parents, and he is being used as a pawn in their divorce.

This can be very, very damaging to the rest of his life, what his mother and father are going through, not just because of divorce, but because of how the mother is dealing with it.

We're going to get to that on The Rap Report. Welcome to The Rap Report, Andrew Rap Report, where we provide biblical interpretations and applications.

This is a ministry of Striving for Eternity and the Christian Podcast Community. For more content or to request a speaker for your church, go to strivingforeternity .org.

All right, this is The Rap Report, and before we get into our main topic, well, let's just deal with New Jersey.

I'm from Jersey, and this is the insanity of New Jersey. A substitute teacher in New Jersey was fired for telling first graders that Santa Claus is not real.

That's right. If she would have said that God is not real, it would have been perfectly fine, but if she was to say, well, if she was to say

Allah's not real, I bet she'd be in trouble, but you cannot say Santa Claus is not real. Now, the interesting thing in the article,

I'll leave a link in the show notes to this article, the interesting thing was that the reason the superintendent gave for firing this person, it's called the

Santa matter, but firing her in Montville Township, that's in Northern Jersey, was because this teacher is ruining the wonder of childhood.

So, we're supposed to, I guess, in schools, teach fantasy and fairy tales to students.

Oh, wait, of course we do. We teach evolution. It's in the same category.

So we can't teach the truth in schools, but oh boy, when it comes to fairy tales, we can do that.

All right, so here's the thing I want to deal with, and folks, unfortunately, again, I have to give the disclaimer that if you have young children, this may not be a good episode for them to be hearing.

Oh, wait, I hope that if any of you young children are listening, they didn't just realize that Santa's not real.

I should tell the story. I was raised Jewish, therefore, I didn't believe in Santa Claus, and in kindergarten, first grade,

I can't remember which, I sat there and did the worst thing you can do. I mean, in hindsight, this was so bad, but I just didn't know better.

I was only like five, six years old, and there was a girl who was all happy about Santa Claus and what he was going to give her, and I basically said,

Santa Claus is not real. And she said, no, you don't understand,

Santa Claus is real. And the reality is I made the mistake of saying, well, your parents are lying to you.

And that was a mistake. She went home and asked her parents and said that someone said that they're lying to her and that Santa Claus is not real.

And they figured she was old enough to now know the truth. And they told her, that's true,

Santa Claus is not real. Oh, did she come to school the next day upset with me, crying and all because her parents lied to her.

So, if I've just ruined it for your kids, you shouldn't have lied to them in the first place. Okay, but there are going to be some matters here that we are going to deal with.

And I want to address these both socially, but also biblically.

And this is a matter of, well, here's the title of the article that I want to address.

Mom dresses six -year -old son as girl, threatens dad for disagreeing.

Okay. So, let me give you the background in this. This is dealing with a boy named

James. James is six years old. As far as I can tell from the articles, he's a fraternal twin.

He as a six -year -old boy has since the age of three, his mother has chosen to dress him as a girl and call him

Luna. Three years old. Now, at three years old, this would not be a choice he's doing.

This is a choice that the mother is doing. She obviously must have wanted a boy and a girl.

But here's where it gets really crazy because the father and mother are getting a divorce.

And in that divorce proceeding, the mother has charged that the husband is abusing this boy,

James, because when the boy is in the father's home, he prefers to be a boy.

He violently is against wearing girls' clothing. The mother has gone about in this divorce proceeding to actually argue that he's abusing the child and therefore wants all rights taken away from the father to have any access to the children.

How far is she going? Well, she's entered him into first grade as a girl. The parents and other students are unaware that he's actually a boy.

The teachers and administrators know, but they're unaware, the other children. He's being forced to dress as a girl.

The court has actually ordered the father, because when the child was with the father, he wanted to wear boys' clothing by the name of James.

But, and when given the choice, that's what he's doing, the court initially ordered that the father is not allowed to force him to wear boys' clothes or to go by the name

James. Well, that wasn't enough. Now the court is ordering that when he takes the boy to school, he must dress him as a girl and call him

Luna. Now, the thing that's so, also I should say the other part of this court order is that the father is not allowed to teach the boy, whether scientifically or religiously, that he is a boy.

In other words, you're not allowed to use science or religious teaching to argue he's a boy. Now the mother took this child,

James, to a, now she's a pediatrician by the way, took the child to a very pro -homosexual, pro -transgender, not,

I don't know if he was a psychiatrist, but a counselor, who identified that James has transgender dysphoria.

And the basis for that is the fact that when the mother was there and given the choice of would you like to go by, just two pieces of paper,

James, Luna. When the mother is there, he chooses Luna, and when the father is with him, he chooses

James. And so you say he has confusion on this. By the way, in this divorce proceedings, not only is the mother saying that the father is not to have any access to the child or to the children, but the mother wants the father to pay for the transformation from boy to girl.

At the age of eight, she wants to start to chemically castrate him.

I mean, this is going to be a permanent thing. This is not something you're going to be, he may never be able to have children.

And this, remember, I want you to think about this. This is a six -year -old. He doesn't understand all that's going on.

He is a pawn in a divorce battle. That's what he is.

And it is interesting, the reason I, we could go and deal with many issues like this.

This is not new in the news. This is not the first time we've seen this, but what is interesting is the scenario.

This is within a divorce proceedings. Now it is interesting because the person who's brought this to light is

Walt Heyer from TheFederalist .com. That's the article.

And he is someone who has said he was raised by his grandmother to be a girl.

Whenever he was with his grandmother, he was forced to dress as a girl. And when he was with his parents, he very quickly switched back to being a boy.

But because of that, they identified him as gender dysphoria, and therefore, they went through procedures with him, and it was put upon him at a young age.

This is the thing, a six -year -old is just trying to deal, I mean, think back when you were five and six years old.

Remember, this started when he was three. So, this is something that, and I'm sorry to say, but a lot of the times you see this in a case where typically it's a single mother, but there just always seems to be a mother behind the scenes in so much of this.

And that is part of the thing that is, I think there are some issues there that we see in the culture.

And here you have someone that now, if you want a girl and you have a boy, you just get that chemically taken care of.

I mean, that's really what it is coming down to nowadays. And that's the thing that I think is disturbing.

As we end up looking at this case, there are some biblical things we have to evaluate here.

Now, I do want to mention that this is a divorce proceeding. And this,

I believe, is where we see all of this coming from. Al Mohler on his recent briefing pointed out a thing about,

I'm forgetting the country, there was a country where just within the last decade, they finally allowed divorce.

And now it is the hotspot for homosexuals. It went from,

I think it's Malta is where I believe it was. And it's now this spot where they've seen this radically, and he's bringing up from a travel guide.

Why in a travel guide? Well, the travel guide isn't trying to push the social agenda, but the travel guide is noticing that there is this agenda.

What was the change? And the travel guide made the point that it started with the allowing of divorce.

I think even in the Western countries, this is what we see. As we've seen a change, we've seen this divorce being allowed for any reason, no fault divorce.

This is where it started. It was in an attack on the family. Why? Because this is something that God established.

The whole issue kept coming up until we finally had same -sex marriage.

Same -sex marriage is something that was being pushed, and now that they've destroyed marriage and the definition of marriage, they want to move on.

Why marriage? Think about this. Just put your thinking caps on for a moment. Marriage is a religious institution.

Now all the people that would be for same -sex marriage are also saying that we should have a separation of church and state.

Okay, if you believe we should have a separation of church and state, then you should be against same -sex marriage.

You should be against the state telling the church what to do. Marriage is a religious issue.

Yes, it's become an issue of the state because in America, it was something where we don't have a state religion, and therefore, it wasn't something that was just a religious thing.

But it was always part of a religious institution that was doing the marriages, and then you have the state confirming it.

In other words, my daughter just got married. It was a pastor who signed all the documents, and the state confirms it.

That's the way it's done because it's a religious institution that the state recognizes.

In countries where you have state -run churches, you don't have that separation. So when the pastor marries someone, that is also done by the state.

So what you end up seeing is a religious institution being corrupted. It was first attacked with divorce, and divorce is something that God does not see.

There are some cases that could be made for divorce in Scripture, but never for the person that's seeking the divorce, by the way.

It's the victim that could remarry. The issue is not the divorce. It's usually the remarriage. So here's the thing that we have to look at with this.

Started with the issue of divorce. It goes on to attacking what marriage is, and what you have with marriage, because if you think about this, anyone can be partners with someone without marriage.

The arguments they make for same -sex marriage, why there must be same -sex marriage, if you think it through, there's nothing that requires marriage, because they love each other.

But you can love people and not be married. In fact, there's people who are married that don't seem to love each other.

The fact is that love is not something that is necessary with marriage.

Taxes, the state can change that. I mean, the state changed the definition of marriage.

They could have just changed the definition of taxes. Benefits, well,

I had worked for a company years ago that referred to a significant other so that you can get benefits to someone you're not married to.

That's possible. Going and visiting someone in the hospital, again, hospitals can change the rules.

See, all those things can be changed without affecting marriage. So why was it marriage had to be the issue?

Now that they got that, you don't see them stopping, do you? No, this same -sex

LGTB revolution continues. Why? Because if they don't keep it going, they lose their victim status.

They lose their political power. Remember, this is a very, very small group. And this case that we're looking at is an example where people want to take this and they're going to try to create more people to fit into this class of people that they want to identify.

And so as we look at this, this becomes something, this is an attack on Christianity and God that started with divorce.

It went on to same -sex marriage. It went on to now you see where Christians are being told they have to accept homosexuality and promote it.

And in this case, I don't know the religious background of this individual, the father in this case, who

I think is the real, the six -year -old boy James is a real victim. The father is also being victimized.

I do believe there might be some background from the religious background from the father only because when they got testimonies of people who knew them, the reporter has some testimonies from a pastor.

I think it was Christ Church was the church. Yes, Bill Lovell. So I think there may be a religious aspect.

So this could be a thing where the mother knows the father's position religiously and is attacking that.

But this is a divorce where the mother seems like she just wants everything. If you know where there's been bad divorce proceedings, there's lots of times where both sides are trying to argue that the other side shouldn't have any rights to children.

And abuse comes in often. I know of two cases where a wife charged that the husband was sexually abusing the children to try to argue that he should have no rights to see a children.

But of course, he should pay everything. And fortunately, there's one case

I know where that actually got found out that it was actually the mother who was not so stable.

And she's the one that lost all rights to, or not all rights, but the rights to custody.

And so this is really a custody battle. And this is a mother that's pushing a child into this.

And I think that this may be a case where you usually, if you have twins, you usually have one that's more dominant, one that's not.

And I think that this is one that's the less dominant child that the mother can do this with.

And then she can have her boy and girl. I don't know. Not sure. But she clearly started three years ago to cross -dress this child.

Now, the thing is, is that biblically, we see that there is, back from Genesis, that God created male and female.

And I understand that this is under attack. This is Genesis 1 and 2, actually the first 11 chapters of Genesis, has been under attack.

It been attacked by trying to argue for evolution, try to attack the marriage, now trying to attack gender.

Now I think it's interesting that the court had to rule that the father could not basically do any teaching based in science or religion that the boy is a boy.

I find that very interesting because what that ends up doing is saying that the court realizes that religiously, doesn't fly.

Looking at it from a scientific perspective, doesn't fly. And it doesn't fly religiously.

What we end up seeing religiously is that religiously, God created male and female.

That's what we have. We have male and female. And this is the thing we have to understand.

When we look at this, this is how God created things.

Did God have to create Adam and Eve male and female? No, he didn't.

In fact, he has created several types of animals that are not male and female.

They're asexual. There's no male or female in them. But he has created plenty of animals and created humans that are male and female.

As far as we know, he created angels that are not male or female. So we end up seeing that there's much here that from Genesis 1 that comes under attack.

What the culture wants to do is say that basic common sense, basic biblical teaching is invalidated now and we can just decide.

In my mind, this is absolutely crazy because even the science doesn't support it.

This is where, I've said this on a previous podcast, but this is where we see that those atheists that promote this stuff have given up atheism and they don't realize it.

Because whenever you argue for transgenderism or this gender dysphoria, what you're actually arguing is for something beyond the physical chemical world.

If James is nothing but the byproduct of his chemicals, then he is a boy and will act only as a boy.

For the mother to argue that he has this dysphoria and actually has a desire to be a girl is to argue for something that's immaterial.

It is outside of the material world to have this desire against his biology.

And therefore, it is arguing against what atheism would argue in a purely material world.

That's the issue. This is an attack ultimately on God who created them.

As Christians, this is not going to stop. Now we can look at many scriptures that talk about homosexuality, talk about, you know, even there's some scripture verses that would talk about trans dressing.

But the reality is that we end up seeing that God made it quite clear that we are to have male and female and not change.

In fact, here would be what I think would be one of the clearer passages that we have in the

New Testament. When we look at the New Testament, you have 1 Corinthians chapter 11.

And this is dealing with head coverings. And this is a passage, we won't have the time to read through all of this.

But what you end up seeing when it comes to the head coverings is the issue that he is arguing for the fact that the woman is different than the man.

And therefore, they should have, basically, they should have, you know, for women have their head covered.

Now, what's that covering? I can't bring this up without addressing this. In the text, you end up seeing that it is her hair.

You'll see that in verse 14. Does not nature itself teach you that a man, that if a man wears long hair, it's a disgrace for him, but for a woman, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory.

The issue of what is that covering is her hair. He's making this argument from a separation of male and female.

He's saying there is a difference and he even says nature even shows us there's a difference between male and female.

And that is something that is clear throughout all the scripture in nowhere in scripture.

Do we see anything about us identifying against the way that God created us?

Now people will argue, but there's some people who have both sexes. Yes, it's like,

I think like one thousandth of 1 % or something. It's like a super, really small number of people that have a mutation, okay?

And we don't, we're not going to sit here and define the whole based on the few.

They're either having an X or Y chromosome. Do they have some mixture that is a deformity?

Yes, there are people that have deformities, but you're not going to make a case based on everyone else on that, that suddenly people can identify.

You see, even in the case where people say in these very rare cases, it's not an issue how they identify.

It's an issue back to the way that God created them, that somehow they have this deformity.

And so this is the thing as Christians we have to recognize. God makes it really clear that there is a separation of male and female.

And when people try to argue and push for pushing an agenda and make no mistake about this, this is an agenda that people have.

And I encourage you to read the article. I'm going to post the article and I encourage you to read it. And the reason being is when you look at this article, you end up seeing that here's someone who has lived through this and he talks about the horrific consequences to misdiagnosing people this way.

And how, I mean, think about this, put yourself in the position, you're going into first grade, you're a boy, you like hanging out with boys, you like doing things with boys, but you're now entering into school and have to tell the school and pretend to be a girl because your mother says so.

Is that going to cause confusion to him? Absolutely.

When James gets a psychological evaluation because of these things, will that affect the evaluation?

Yes, because the mother is forcing confusion upon him. The one who I think is actually doing the child abuse is the mother because the child seems to be, it seems clear that the child wants to be a boy unless the mother is around.

The article, the writer of the article says the same thing that he had that with his grandmother. And so the thing is that what you end up seeing here is that you have a case where the mother is causing the confusion.

She's the one abusing the child. I hope if the courts have any common sense, they would take the rights away from the mother to have anything to do with these children because the mother is pushing something upon a three -year -old and now forcing it upon a six -year -old and going to make it permanent upon an eight -year -old.

This child is not old enough to understand the consequences. This is not a child that can say, oh, you know,

I really want to think about having children when I grow older, but the mother is going to take that away from this child and he's not going to have that right because it's going to be surgically, permanently ended.

Does this child, is he aware, can he make those choices? In fact, because the child is a minor in the divorce proceedings, the child won't be allowed to speak.

And if all of this is going to be argued that the father is abusing the child based on a a counselor who is very pro -transgender, that's a problem.

That's actually the reason I will put the link in. There is a savejames .com

where they're trying to raise money because this father needs, it's going to be a huge legal battle now because the mother has a huge resource behind her, has the

LGBTQ whatever group behind her to push this issue.

And so she has a huge amount of finances and support, cultural support.

The judges are, no one wants to be against, there's no judge that wants to be against this because they don't want to be attacked.

This is a bullying that ends up happening. This is really a form of terrorism because people don't want to be, they're being bullied into accepting this stuff.

And this father has to fight for his children. Think about you as a father, would you want to do that?

He's putting everything behind it. So there is a way that people have a GoFundMe there to help him because it is a legal battle and he's looking.

Here's the interesting thing, what he's looking for is experts in the field because she has a whole bunch of people saying, yes, yes,

James is really Luna. He's struggling and there needs to be experts on the other side. This is the insanity of our world.

You know, the interesting thing, one of the articles that I'll put a link to and it's, they have a video that you can look at and I'll tell you why

I find the video interesting. The video, the guy starts off basically arguing for communism.

So he's a socialist, not communism, socialism. He's a socialist. He's a liberal.

He wouldn't be a conservative or religious person, you know, he's, he's arguing and it's kind of funny.

He just argues that, you know, somehow, um, you know, uh, he heard that, uh, judge

Judy makes 147 million. She's never given him a million. He's offended that she hasn't given a, he, she won't even know.

Bill Gates hasn't given him a million dollars and he wouldn't even miss it. He could give him a hundred million, not miss it. Somehow he's deserved.

I love what my, my bride pointed out. My bride said, well, this guy has a car. There's obviously people that, that have less than him.

Why doesn't he give to people? Why doesn't he give what he's earned to people? Cause you know, he can do 20 bucks.

There's someone that could use 20 bucks a lot more than he can. Kind of funny when you turn it on those, but point being is here's a, here's a leftist.

Okay. And he even can see that there is a problems with this and he's angry over it.

Why? Because the child is being abused, not by the father, uh, but by the mother, because the, the, the, the child's being given the choice when given the choice, the child is looking to have, to be a boy.

And that's what the father has seen. And so, um, I think that this is tragic and realistically though I have in the article, there's not mention of the father being religious.

There is, like I said, there is a quote from a pastor. I don't know if it's his pastor.

Don't know. But the thing that's interesting that I see in this is the fact that this does have a ramification on Christianity.

This is an attack that started long ago because people hate God and they're not going to stop.

Brothers and sisters, you and I have to deal with the fact and recognize the fact that this is an attack on us and it's going to continue to be as a slow, progressive attack.

And I'm sorry, but people who want to say, well, let's, you know, there was some, uh, contemporary music artist that came under attack because she, she said, well,

I have a lot of friends who are homosexual and I can't say that it's wrong. I just don't know. Okay.

For her career, she doesn't want to say, I'm not going to address that issue, but she's got to like, know going into this, that this is going to come up when she goes on Ellen Duran, Duran, Duran, or she's show, whatever you say her last name,

I don't know. The comedian who's, who's a lesbian. You have to know that these issues are going to come up when you go on these things and do these things.

Now, if you're going to stand and say you're a Christian, then you need to stand on those convictions. If you're going to say that you want to write music to Christian community, you got to understand the issues then and stand on convictions of Christianity because if you're going to say you're a

Christian, we need to hold you to a higher standard. But the reality is people like this don't understand that they're not going to get off the hook by trying to get along with the world.

You've heard me say this over and over again. There is a persecution coming in this culture against Christianity and we are not going to be let off the hook just because we want to get along with the world.

The world is not going to get along with us. The world hates

God. The world wants to get rid of God. And the reality is as Christians, we need to be in God's word, standing firmly on that firm foundation that does not falter, that does not change, even though culture may try to make it say otherwise.

The culture keeps changing. The scientific community has to keep giving up their theories.

Why? Because they are not based in truth. The reason the Bible doesn't need to change is because God, the creator of the universe who created everything, who cannot lie, who is faithful and good, wrote down his word through men.

Therefore, it is a firm foundation that we can trust and know that it is without falter.

It is solid. And it is that that we are going to base things on. We have to have an absolute standard.

And the only thing that can be an absolute standard is God himself. Why? Because God is the definition of the standard.

We do not know what good is other than the creator. See, what is good is by what he defines it as, because his nature is that definition.

It is so, not because we declare it so, not because the Bible says it so, but because he, by who he is, created everything.

Therefore, everything is defined by him. That's the problem that people have.

People don't want to be accountable to God. They want to remove the accountability. They really want to try to remove their guilty conscience.

That's what is the issue. And Christians, you better realize this is what they're battling with.

And a guilty conscience doesn't get eased. It just keeps having to try to convince itself that it's not guilty.

And so it pushes further and further and further. And that is what we see in our culture. We see people who hate

God and want to attack him and say he doesn't exist. And furthermore, no one is supposed to say in the culture, no one's allowed to say

God exists. That is coming. That is coming. If you think it's not, you're seeing right now as they push people into the church and say that everyone has to be in the church.

You can't speak about Christianity outside of the church. Well, guess what?

Time is coming and it's going to be very soon that you're going to see that they're going to say you're not allowed to say

God exists in the public square at all. After this break,

I want to bring Jim in, Pastor Jim Osmond, and I want to talk back and forth, see his points, how he sees this affecting both the culture, but also the church as a pastor.

The good news is Striving for Eternity would love to come to your church to spend two days with your folks, teaching them biblical hermeneutics.

That's right. The art and science of interpreting scripture. The bad news is somebody attending might be really upset to discover

Jeremiah 29 11 should not be their life verse. To learn more, go to strivingforeternity .org

to host a Bible interpretation made easy seminar in your area. Can you prove that God is a trinity?

Can you prove that Jesus is God? Can you defend the Christian faith? And what is it that Christians truly believe?

The new book by Andrew Rappaport, What Do We Believe?, will answer those questions and more.

Some people just don't understand what the church is today, but this book will go through the history and meaning of the church and what's more important than to understand man's sinfulness and God's salvation.

Get your copy at whatdowebelievebook .com or at the strivingforeternity .org store.

All right, so I want to bring Pastor Jim in and discuss how this ends up affecting the church.

It does, and I should, I should, before he comes in, I should give a plug and a thank you to our supporters.

We are a 501c3 ministry, a nonprofit. When you donate to us, that is going to further the ministry, the discipling that we try to do here through many different avenues, through conferences, through books, through podcasts, through discipling with other ministries.

That's where the money goes. We're unlike many ministries, our budget only 20 % goes to salary.

Most ministries it's about 80%. This is the way we've structured things so that most of the money that you donate is going to furthering the ministry.

That's how we want it to be. And I thank folks for this reason. Two years ago, we've been asking folks if they would donate to help us so we could get a new computer.

For folks who've been following us for any length of time, you know, my computer, which was 12 years old, could not keep up with the video.

I am speaking to you from a brand new iMac. We are grateful that we were able to purchase that.

Was it expensive? Well, it was, but it is what we determined was best for some of the video stuff that we do.

And it has been just wonderful. It's been a pain to set up, always cleared off my whole desk and had to redo things.

But this is the first show that we're doing on the new computer. And so with that,

I want to give a thank you to those of you who help donate monthly. And it is important to donate monthly.

Monthly donations help us because our bills are monthly, our expenses come in monthly. And so if you could donate monthly, it is a huge help.

I can give you one other thing that we're really needing help with. And that is Justin Peters and I, if you're familiar with Justin Peters Ministries, Justin Peters and I are looking to go to the

Philippines. It's all set. We're going to the Philippines one way or another, but we're going to the

Philippines to basically deal with some correction and discernment for the heresy that's being taught over there.

There's a lot of bad theology over there in the Philippines. We're going to be going to two different islands.

We'll be there for about two weeks and we need to pay our own airfare. We have to pay our way over there and we need help with that.

And so if you could donate, go to strivingforeternity .org slash donate.

If you can donate any amount, it would be great. But if you can help with a monthly, that would be wonderful.

You can go on to our Patreon and be a supporter on our Patreon. We have some big things that we want to do with this podcast community,

Christian podcast community. And we're hoping that we've talked, I've in the monologue gave you issues that I see that problems with this culture.

You know what it's going to take brothers and sisters, you know what it's going to take? It's going to take a voice. We have a

Christian voice and what we want is we want to help Christians podcast to get out there and start learning how to podcast so that we can spread a

Christian message in the culture. It's one of many ways, YouTube, podcasting, podcasting is starting to really grow.

That's why we want Christians in it. By the way, Christianity is the overwhelming largest number of podcasts.

There's about over 600 ,000 podcasts. I think it's about 40 to 50 % of them are in the,

I think 40 % are in the Christian category and religious category,

I think is about 50, if I remember correctly, 50 to 60. So what you end up having is that when it comes to this category, it is the largest category, but you know what it's filled with a bunch of junk.

You know, you have Beth Moore, yeah, she's not as good as many think.

She used to be conservative, but now who's she hang out with? Joyce Meyers. She's really bad.

Joel Steen. You have a bunch of bad stuff out there. We need to get an overwhelming number of solid believers, solid theologically to present a good biblical message so we can be discipling people, not just striving fraternity, every

Christian. And your donations can help us because we try to help these people that are starting out, don't know anything about podcasting.

We disciple them. We try to get them equipment. We try to do lots of things to help them out. And that's some ways you can help us.

So Jim, I want to ask you, this is, I know you looked at these articles.

This has been something you've been seeing for a long time, a trend you've been following. How concerning is this to you for the church?

I live in North Idaho where we're well armed, so I'm not concerned at all. He just always has to mention, you know, look, hey, look, and I don't have it here.

I meant to have it here. I have to go to the gun shop later,

Jim. I have to go to the gun shop. I was meant to have it here. Well, not only do

I have guns, but here's the thing. Are you supposed to turn them in? Is New Jersey going that direction?

No, what I have to do is turn in my magazine. I have a 15 round magazine. They're not allowed anymore.

I can only have a 10. So I have to turn in and get a 10.

I'm impressed and thankful that you used the term magazine and not clip. There are a lot of people who use the term clip, and it's entirely wrong.

Yeah, well, I've shot in big guns. The thing is,

I've shot weapons that are much bigger than what you have in your arsenal. I'm just saying for the record.

So transgenderism in the church, yeah, I think it's concerning. You look at this as an issue that is a pretending of persecution to come.

That might be the case. I don't think it's going to be the only thing that will cause persecution to come upon the church.

It may be part of what causes persecution to come upon the church. In the midst of this,

I think that the church, the true church, and I'm not talking about the Beth Moore, Joel Osteen, seeker -sensitive

Andy Stanley nonsense that goes on, but the true church, the people plugging away in the communities and the small churches with faithful pastors, is going to have a real opportunity to shine,

I think, in the midst of this. As someone once said, and I'm not sure who said it, the darker the night, the brighter the light.

And I think that that's where we are at. Eventually, I'm hoping that the common,

I mean, I've never been in my lifetime, we've never been at this juncture before where we've seen this type of complete deterioration of sanity on a widespread scale.

But I'm hoping that eventually the common grace of God will cause the people who have to live in a real world to look at this type of moral insanity and say, this is just crazy.

Who are the people that are making sense? Who are the people that seem to understand how to navigate this? And they'll look around and see the

Christians, the faithful pastors, and the faithful churches making a claim to absolute truth that will be able to help navigate this culture out of this morass of subjective rebellion that we're in.

So I see it as a great opportunity for the church to step up and to proclaim the truth and to love people through this confusion and the gender issues, but at the same time to use it as a segue for the gospel to show people this is what happens when a culture, when a nation is handed over to a depraved mind.

This is the very stuff that you get. This is what you see in Romans chapter 1. And I'm hoping that the faithful church will be able to do that.

And I do think the faithful church will be able to do that. If we think that Andy Stanley and your

Rick Warrens and those guys of the faithful church, they're not going to have the capacity to do this. I think that guys like that, churches like that, are going to start folding and compromising.

And you already see Andy Stanley setting himself up to do that very thing, beginning to compromise. Once you say you're going to unhitch from Old Testament, you're going to unhitch your

Christianity from basically half of Revelation or the first half of the book, then you're just setting yourself up to begin to reject piecemeal other aspects of Revelation as well.

So he's going to start doing that with the Old Testament, and I don't think it'll be long before he just says, you know what, we need to unhitch our

Christianity from the New Testament because the early Christians didn't even have a New Testament. That's the same argument he uses for them not having the

Old Testament. The early Christians didn't have the New Testament, and so we just need to unhook our Christianity from all of Revelation and just rest in the resurrection.

That's where Andy Stanley is going. So you get false teachers like that, all that to say you get a lot of false teachers like Andy Stanley.

I don't think that they're going to have the moral fortitude or the biblical discernment to help navigate anybody through the mess that is coming and the mess that is here.

I want to do an episode on Andy Stanley and the unhinged because I think

Andy Stanley may not realize how much of the Old Testament is in the New Testament. I don't think he's ever read the book of Hebrews.

Yeah. I was introducing a sermon because I'm preaching through the book of Hebrews right now, but I was introducing a sermon, and I used

Andy Stanley as an example, and I said, if the author of Hebrews believed what Andy Stanley believes, do you think we would even have the book of Hebrews?

And the answer to that is no. Hebrews is an exposition of one Old Testament passage after another, mostly

Psalm 110, but other large passages like Psalm 95 and others, a lot of Psalms quoted in chapter one.

It's an exposition of Old Testament texts. Yeah. I think this is something that as Christians, people have asked me, why do we keep bringing this up?

And the answer is we don't. We're reacting. We are reacting to what the culture keeps bringing up.

Yeah, and not just bringing it up. They're forcing it into us. They force the issue. They're not just bringing it up like, hey, let's have a discussion.

They're bringing it up and saying, you will comply, bigot. You're going to bake our cake. You're going to endorse our lifestyle. You're going to go along with this, or you'll be fired.

You'll have your tenure revoked. You're going to be excommunicated. We will destroy you.

We will end you if you don't go along with our agenda. And that's the thing. So we are reacting as believers.

We're reacting. We are not pushing the issue. So the question is, why are they bullying us?

I mean, the people who say they're against bullying are bullying Christians, and they'll say, oh, no, no, Christians are bullying the people that practice homosexuality.

Really? I mean, are we trying to get any of them fired? Yeah. I don't see that. Are we trying to make them affirm our perspective on marriage?

No. Are we trying to make them codify our perspective on gender? No. Let me just deal with what you said there, because I want to deal with that.

You said, do we try to make them defend our view of marriage? And they'll say yes, because you try to pass these laws to put bans on changing the definition of marriage.

But the issue is, that's us saying we want to uphold the law.

The thing has been the law all along. So that's not us trying to force a religious view on them, as they argue.

That is us saying this is the way it's been, you're the ones trying to change it, and we disagree with the change for good reason.

Yeah. We're not trying to force our perspective on it. We're trying to recognize what reality is. This is a real world, and we live in it.

It's God's world, and we live in it. And when you recognize that, okay, there are two genders, and this is not something that is assigned randomly at birth.

It is something that is inherent in the DNA. It's biological. It's scientific. It's observational.

It is a fixture of reality. When we recognize that, they think we're forcing our morality on them, and we're not.

We're not forcing our morality on them. We're recognizing reality as it is. Not only that, but the point is when someone tries to change the culture, that's the person trying to force their beliefs on others.

It is not us trying to force our agenda. If we had the control they love to say we have, then why would abortion be legal?

Christians have been against abortion, and yet it's legal, and it has been for many years. If we had that kind of control, it wouldn't be legal.

The reality is we don't have the control they like to claim we do so that they can claim that this is their argument why they need to have the changes in the culture.

But the reality is they're the ones trying to force it. And you look at the masterpiece cake baker.

He went to the Supreme Court. It was cited that he wasn't violating the way that he didn't have to make the cake for the homosexual couple for their wedding.

And what do they do? That guy got call after call after call trying to trap him again. Why? Because they're not happy that he won.

He won in court. And he won, and the Supreme Court basically said, look, the reason that we're throwing this back at you and saying that you overstepped your bounds is because you treated him harshly.

And basically the people in Colorado got the message. If we had been kinder to him while we took away his rights and ended his business and destroyed him, then we could have gotten away with it.

That's basically the message they got. And so why not go back for round two? We'll treat him more kindly this time. We'll try and slow it down and be more generous and just try and attack him without the prejudice and maybe we'll let it fly.

And they're going after him again. And that's exactly right. That's exactly what they're looking to do. They want to do it and be nicer this time.

Right. Yeah, the Supreme Court said you can end him, but end him nicely. Yeah. And for folks that aren't familiar with that case,

I'll drop in the show notes the link that I did with an attorney dealing with that case, dealing with the cake baker, because that was a case that really, it has ramifications because there are, there's just, there's things there that you end up seeing how they tried to spin this.

But, you know, it's, this was an issue of seeing how they're dealing with it.

Now we end up seeing that this is something, and this,

I mean, I did the podcast back in episode 15. So it goes back a ways, but, you know, but you end up seeing that this is something that they chose to argue that case narrowly because of the fact that they felt that was the best way to win in the

Supreme Court. Now narrowly meaning that they argued the way, as you mentioned, Jim, but they didn't argue based on religious.

And that's what I would have liked to have seen. It would have been a win is if he won based on the religious view, that as he has a religious right to not do something against his will.

Now notice they want to go after Christians to say, you must do this. You must do this.

And that is a forcing of their beliefs on us. Once we've already, we've already gotten to the point now where we're allowing nine people to determine whether or not we have the freedom to exercise our faith, the battle's already lost.

You know, we want, everybody in the country looks to the Supreme Court for permission to be a Christian. And when we're even having that discussion, it's game over.

And the fact is, if you really understand our constitution, the Supreme Court's not in that role. They're making law and they don't, they're not in that position, but that's the only way that the liberals can push.

And, you know, so the thing I want for folks to realize, should this article and this situation upset people?

Yes, it should. But should it be a warning to us as Christians? God made it very clear how he created.

He created male and female. And what they want to do is people want to avoid the accountability of God.

In fact, Jim, I know you're very proud of something that hangs over your shoulder. You have a picture of your favorite person,

I think. Well, my favorite president. Oh, favorite. Okay. Yeah. There's your,

I should let you talk so everyone can see you're on camera there. Well, he's right over there in the corner.

Ba -boom. Yeah. That's what I call Reynaldus Max. And this up here is another Reagan. Yeah, you had to flip that quickly because I think

I saw Trump. Well, there's a picture there of a Trump calendar somebody gave me for Christmas. See, now you're very proud of it.

But you know what? I bring this in for this reason. What they want to avoid, what culture wants to avoid is accountability of God.

Let me grab something from over my shoulder that I'm very proud of.

And I'll put this on screen for folks who watch on the YouTube channel. This is an ancient manuscript? That is.

Someone gave a gift. It's kind of hard with the glare. But that is called the

Ten Commandments Scroll. It's from the Qumran, from the

Dead Sea Scrolls. This is the oldest. This is a manuscript that is the oldest copy of the

Ten Commandments in full. It is from Deuteronomy. You know, we have sections where we'll have bits and pieces.

But this is from Deuteronomy 5. And what you end up seeing is this is the full

Ten Commandments. Why do I bring that up when I talk about accountability? Because this is what they want to avoid.

These people want to pretend like the Ten Commandments doesn't exist.

Why? Because if they can avoid that, they think they can get rid of their guilt.

But it won't work. I want to play a different game than we usually play,

Jim. Do what you did there, Andrew. So you asked me what my favorite thing is. And I show you a picture of Reagan. Then you Jesus -juke me and pull out a copy of the

Ten Commandments. I'll pull out your copy. I'm more spiritual than you, Kurt. That wasn't how it was meant to be.

It's just I know you really want to make sure that, you know, Reagan was in the camera shot.

Is that a recreation or an actual manuscript? This is a biblical reprint.

Okay. Reproduction, yeah. It comes certified. Nice. And it was wonderful.

Hey, if someone wants to get me an actual manuscript, I would love that. You've got $10 or $12 million lying around, right?

Huh? If you've got $10 or $12 million lying around. I know. I know. I'm going to be. Now, this is.

Okay. I'm a tad bit nerdy. You know this. I'm very excited. What am I going to do this weekend?

My bride and I are going down to the Museum of the Bible so that I can, like, stare at ancient manuscripts.

Okay. I know. I'm nerdy. But I get into that. I love it. I'm excited about that.

So, but instead of playing the game of the spiritual transition game, because, well,

I just, I would transition from the 10 commandments to the gospel. If I wanted to do that from your

Reagan picture, I want to play a different game with you.

And I want to see how you'll do with this one. Oh, it's time for me.

Okay. This is a time when we're going to see if we can name that fallacy.

You know, when I was dialoguing with someone on this issue of the six -year -old boy,

James, one of the arguments I got was, why can't you just accept that this is what culture believes.

And therefore, we shouldn't be pushing against it. Okay. That's the argument.

Pastor Jim, can you name that fallacy? This is what culture is accepting, and therefore we shouldn't argue against it.

Yes. The logical fallacy. I mean, I'm not, I'm not sure if I can name the fallacy, but I can break that down.

All right. If morality, let me work through it a bit in my mind first. If that's the case, that morality is determined by what culture says, then in reality, culture cannot, nothing can end up being immoral or wrong.

That would be the same argument that could be used for exterminating six million Jews during the Holocaust is that nothing that Hitler ever did, ever did in Germany was illegal.

They made it legal. They made it moral. They made it acceptable. They made it culturally appropriate before they did it.

And so it is, well, I would suggest is begging the question in a sense, because you're trying to, you're trying to make the case that whatever, that whatever is culturally promoted is moral.

And therefore, since this is culturally promoted, it is therefore moral. Well, here's, here's the fallacy.

I think it would be, it would be called argumentum ad populum or argument of the people.

And this is a fallacious argument that concludes that a position must be true because many or most people believe it.

Often they encapsulate it as quote, if many believe it, it is so unquote.

And that's exactly what this argument is. It's also goes under the name of appeal to masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to popularity, but really it's an epistemological issue in terms of what is the foundation of morality.

Yeah. And, and so determine what is moral. Yeah. When we look at, when we look at something like this case and we look at the argument, we'll make that somehow we as Christians shouldn't speak out against it because it's, this is what the culture says.

Now, if you hear this argument, this is a common argument. Let me give you guys the way to turn that very easily.

You see the majority of culture for years, always believed that abortion was wrong.

Homosexuality is wrong. Transgenderism is wrong. A very small part of the population has been pushing to change that.

And now, because of that small population, everyone should change to say that now it has to be accepted by the, by the whole.

Well, the reality is if you believe in the argument that this is what the majority believes, therefore you shouldn't try to change it.

Then we should never have allowed abortion. We should never have legalized or removed the band on homosexuality.

We should never legalize same sex marriage. These things should have remained illegal. Why? Because that was the popular.

And not only that, Andrew, but we should have never gotten rid of slavery since that was culturally acceptable for years. And we should have never allowed women to vote since most of culture was fine with women, not voting for a number of years.

And we should never allow black people to vote because most of culture was fine with that for a number of years. Well, well, that one,

I could argue against that because there were clear divisions, especially between North and South on the slavery.

We ended up forcing our will on the South. Well, ultimately, yes, but, but that, that's,

I think in the South, if you say in the South, it was the majority, then yes.

Um, then it shouldn't have changed. Well, all over the United States that women weren't allowed to vote.

Yeah. I mean, see, that's the whole thing. If you're going to argue that way, then you can't make any change.

You can't push any difference. Nothing can ever be immoral. Yeah. So what really it comes down to is it shows that it's illogical.

It's not valid. And therefore it's wrong. You shouldn't argue that way, but here's the thing. If people make that argument to you, all you have to do is say, then why do you want to change things?

Why don't you accept the majority that was this? The nation was mostly initially formed under Christian values.

Why do you want to change it? Well, the answer is they really don't want you to go with what the majority says. They want to change the mind of the majority to accept what they want as a minority.

That's what it is. Rule. Majority believes, agrees with them. Say that again.

They want the majority to rule when the majority agrees with them. Once they have authority on their side, that's when majority, that's when we argue from the populace.

But when we're in the minority, of course, then we're arguing you're on the wrong side of history. And eventually we need to change.

History needs to go the direction where all of the people agree with us. And then we're on the right side of history.

Then we can't change anything. Which. Okay. And that's another logical fallacy, right? Because when you say, you got to be on the right side of history.

Well, history, you just brought up slavery. There was a time that in this country, slavery was legal.

So what's the right side of history? Is that not a point of view that people have?

And they're saying, well, this is what's right. Because when you look at it, they're saying there's a change that has to occur.

But there was a time where that change occurred to legalize this slavery. And they, they tried to justify it.

And so they would say they were on the right side of history and what they did. In other words, right side of history is just,

I want you to accept my position. That's really what it is. So, well, folks, listen,

I hope that you will do us a favor, share this with others. If you find this valuable in any way, there's two, several things you could do.

One thing you could do, it really will help us subscribe to this podcast, the rap report, share it with others.

So they would subscribe. The more people that subscribe, well, the more people that hear it.

If you find this valuable, you can do that. If you find this helpful to you in any way, would you consider donating?

Go to our Patreon page. The link is in the show notes and donate to us. Any amount helps.

It will help us to continue doing things like this. The reality is, hate to disappoint you, atheists,

Muslims, homosexuals, they all got money. and we have, we have,

Christians don't seem to have the money to put up to, to combat this stuff. We're trying to do with what we can, but folks, we need help.

We, we need you to share this, let others know that this is, these podcasts are available.

So they would also be able to get this teaching. Let us know, share it, write us a review on iTunes.

Why does that help? Well, the reality is people say, Oh, it's going to help us get in the rankings in iTunes. No, it doesn't actually, it does nothing for your, for rankings in iTunes, just so you know, but it does encourage us when we, when we see the reviews, it helps us tremendously.

When we, we get a review and we can read it. And so I, I like to look at the reviews because it tells me what you're thinking, what you're seeing when you're out there.

And so that is very helpful to me, at least.

And that's the third way you can help us. So I thank you next, next week.

I don't know what we're going to talk about, but I want to encourage you to just strive to make today an eternal day for the glory of God.

This podcast is part of the Striving for Eternity ministry. For more content or to request a speaker or seminar to your church, go to strivingforeternity .org.