Is Jesus polyamorous? | Rapp Report Weekly 0037 | Striving for Eternity

All right. We are giving a warning before today's episode. We are dealing with some more adult -like topics.

We will not be getting into details that are inappropriate. We'll keep it clean, but we do not think this is the best episode for young ones at home because mom and dad, if you're listening with the children, you're going to have to define some terminology that you just may not be ready to do.

So my suggestion, if you have young ones at home, listen to this first on your own before you include them, because this one is going to be dealing with some difficult issues, as we will see.

Welcome to the Rap Report with Andrew Rapaport. 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. Well, welcome, welcome, welcome. This is the Rap Report.

I am Andrew Rapaport, the host, and I have with me again this week, my buddy, Pastor Jim Osmond from Kootenai Community Church out in Idaho.

And so we're going to deal with some difficult issues. There have been some troubling, and when

I say troubling, I mean, disturbingly so, things in the media.

And it's in the realm of Christianity that I have seen this week. We have a video we're going to deal with.

Several people emailed me, messaged me, asked for a response because there is a video going out and it is all over the place, unfortunately.

And the title of the video is that Jesus is polyamorous. And so we are going to deal with that.

We're going to play it. We're going to chop it up and show the logical fallacies in that video and the hermeneutical problems with it.

You know, I have reached out to them. I'll say up front, I've reached out to them and maybe they'll come on.

I doubt it, but maybe they'll come on and take the challenge to actually defend what they say.

But I want to deal with three things that I have seen this week alone in the media.

The first thing, I've seen two different podcasts. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name that they were coming up with for this, but there is a movement to accept pornography within Christianity.

I forget the title that they're giving for it, but I jokingly, let me give you some backdrop, jokingly, back when the movie

Noah came out, there was some young, restless and reformed folks who wrote blog articles saying how wonderfully, cinematically wonderful Noah was.

I went to the library because yeah, I'm Jewish. I'm not paying for that garbage. Yeah. That's not happening.

So I went to the library. I got it from there for free and watched it. My wife and I were being generous.

I mean, we were trying to find how many things in that movie we could get that were accurate to scripture. And I mean, when

I say generous, we were talking like it was a massive ship. They got the names right of the people.

I mean, things like that. We could only, when you're looking at things like a global flood, right?

Those are three of the six things that they got right. And we were looking for things they got right.

And Christians were saying how wonderful this movie was. It was so somatically done. Like it was so, so great.

And I was blown away that Christians would be promoting this, especially within the reformed community. And I stated back then that there will be a time that these same people that want to take dominion over the movies and dominion over this and dominion over that, at some point, you're going to see them argue that they will take dominion over pornography.

And I assumed that at some point, someone would say pornography would be okay, as long as it is a husband and wife watching another husband and wife.

As long as a husband and wife, it wasn't going to be sinful. Well, that's actually what we see going on right now. What we see, unfortunately, within Christianity is a move.

I forget the name for it, but there is a move to justify pornography with married couples.

It is already started. There is an argument being made that couples can video themselves so that they can watch themselves and then share it with other married couples.

If that wasn't bad enough, we have the video that we'll deal with later on Jesus being polyamorous.

But I'm going to do this a little different than we typically do because I want to interact with Jim on these three different topics.

So first, I want to talk about this first one. Jim, as a pastor, you well know the issue that pornography has within the church.

The thought of people that are trying to justify something like pornography, as a pastor, as a counselor, your concerns.

I'm concerned. You got me unmuted there, Andrew? Yeah. My concern, obviously, is with the long -term effects of pornography, not just that it's a form of sexual immorality.

It's a form of sexual impurity. It ends up corrupting the imagery of Christ and his church.

It ends up setting up false expectations. Oftentimes, I have counseled young couples and people.

One of the things that I find is that it's very difficult to find young men, particularly, who have not had some exposure to pornography already.

Then they come into a marriage relationship and their expectations, I think, are perverse. They're sensationalized.

They're warped. That movement, that expectation, ends up, I think, setting couples up for disappointment in their marriage and in their intimacy as a married couple.

That's one of the disastrous consequences of pornography. Then it has, of course, an addicting quality.

It has a soul of the person who is involved in that pornography, who gives in to that temptation and cannot get victory over it.

I've counseled quite a few young men who just have needed to be encouraged and reminded of the gospel and reminded of the power that they have in Christ to not have to be in bondage to that sin.

Yeah. I mean, one of the things that I thought was very interesting was we were doing at a conference and dealing with some of those topics.

One guy brought out the fact that there's a big tie between video games and pornography. I thought that interesting and odd.

I didn't actually expect to hear that. What was the draw between both is the idea of control.

I counseled a couple where the husband actually preferred his pornography over his wife, which seemed odd to me.

I mean, but it hit me when this brother said the issue is it's a control issue.

The pornography gave a control. He could fantasize whatever he wanted. There's an aspect to that where it is the control factor that people feel over the images they see or what they are thinking about.

That ends up playing into the relationship. I mean, one of the problems I think it creates in the relationship is the fact that you have so many people who are looking to try to control their spouse.

It brings a whole bunch of struggle into the marriage relationship because you have someone trying to control rather than be submissive to one another.

They're trying to control one another and not deal with wisdom in a man. He's supposed to deal with his wife and wisdom.

He's supposed to love his wife, but if he's trying to control her, he's not trying to love her. He's trying to control her. The other thing that I know,

I was working on a sermon about pornography. I watched this, it was supposed to be this interview of a woman who, 21 years old, she killed herself.

She got into that industry to pay for college. It was amazing how what they ended up doing this interview where they were talking about her life and I was going to use some of that for the sermon.

This video I saw actually played the videos of her doing her acts that she was doing.

The amazing thing is how quick that immediately brought me back to when I was in college and high school and saw that stuff.

All of a sudden, it doesn't take much to reawaken old images that you saw.

It is something that I think becomes very difficult to remove and to have a victory over because it's so prevalent.

Now seeing Christians that are justifying it and saying, this is okay as long as it's within a marriage, as long as we're watching people that are married,

I think it's very dangerous. I think that this is going to be something that will devastate many

Christians, both men and women. I've got a friend here that you met him while he was here, but it's an older saint.

He's been in the Lord for probably 40 years now. He got saved later in life. He got saved out of a horrible background and a horrible past.

He says even now, it's 40 years of being in the Lord that he still has images that will pop into his brain, things that will pop into his head that are seared into there from years ago, decades ago, and they never go away.

He just longs for that day of being in eternity and having all of that gone, all of that removed, the temptation there, the images that pop in.

You can't control that, but the male brain is visual. And so when you put those images in front of the male brain, it etches them in there and they're remembered and you can't get rid of them.

And you'll grow to a point of maturity in the Lord where you wish you could. Yeah. I always think back, and this is what kind of scares me when

I think about John MacArthur has said that he was, I think it was in a hospital room of one of the people that attended his church.

I'm thinking 70s, 80s, 90s, I forget, but older man. I almost want to say he was in his 90s and talked about like a 70 year struggle with pornography.

That, it blows me away that it could be that gripping on individuals.

And we're also seeing this for women as well. I do think it's very dangerous for Christians to try to justify something like this and then say, hey, as long as it's within marriage, because I'm sorry.

But what many people are going to do is take those things that they're fantasizing about and try to force their spouses into doing those things against their wishes.

And that I think is very, well, unbiblical, right? So if you look at Ephesians 5, and we know this passage because it talks about the roles of husbands and wives.

Okay. So the wife is to submit to the husband. Okay. Husbands are to love your wife. And this is what it says.

And there's an interesting thing with this that I think plays into this. Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water of the word so that he might present the church to himself in splendor without spot or wrinkle or any such thing that she might be holy and without blemish.

In the same way, husbands should love their wives as their own bodies.

He who loves his wife loves himself. Now, one of the things that I think here that you see is that Ephesians 5 is saying that husbands are to keep their wives pure.

You can't do that if you're engaging in this sort of activity. If you're trying to force your spouse to live out your fantasies, especially if it's against their wishes or their will, against their conscience.

And that's what I think is going to happen. I mean, I've counseled enough people that I know this happens in marriage, especially for guys who are watching this stuff, are trying to force their wives to do things against their wishes.

And that ends up being not only devastating to the marriage, but it is against scripture.

It is against what God has established marriage for. Yeah. The role of the man in the marriage relationship is to serve his wife in that way.

And you cannot serve your wife if you're forcing her to do things that are inappropriate. And if you are polluting her mind and polluting her purity just to get a thrill for yourself or a pleasure for yourself or to in some way get her to do something for you, that is the opposite of what a loving servant leader would do.

All right. So, I want to deal with another topic after this commercial.

There is a recent article, and I'm actually thinking of doing a segment called

Christian News Segment, just grabbing different articles from the Christian News Network.

Friends of mine who run that news agency, but a lot of good articles over there.

If you want to check out some Christian News Network, The Real CNN is what I call it. But anyway, there is an article we're going to deal with, with two women, two lesbians who are filing a complaint against a baker in Bakersfield, California.

And it is very interesting what we end up seeing in this article. So, that will be right after this break.

The good news is striving for eternity, you 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. Striving for eternity is a

Christ -centered ministry focused on equipping people for eternity. And they provide speakers and seminars that come to your church with expertise in theology, hermeneutics, world religions, creation science, evangelism, priest deposition of apologetics, church history, and expertise in sexual abuse in the church.

For details on their seminars and to request a speaker for your church, go to strivingforeternity .org.

Striving to make today an eternal day for the glory of God. All right. So, the title of this article is lesbians file complaint against Baker for not making wedding cake, wore hidden microphones.

That's right. So, here's basically what happened. You have these two women who were going around shopping, they were wearing hidden microphones recording as they went to several different bakeries.

Now, as they stated in the court records, it says, quote, although they wanted only a simple wedding cake, the couple's quest did not proceed as smoothly as their search for a venue.

They visited several local bakeries and tasted cakes, but had been unsuccessful in their search.

When Eileen super -difficultly drove past a bakery called Tasty's, unquote.

And so, what ends up going on is they state that they went in there and here's the woman who owns this

Tasty's bakery, basically had even, you know, she explained that her

Christian convictions would not allow her to make a same sex wedding cake for this couple.

She offered, not only did she give them some samples of her cakes, but she offered to call other bakeries that could help.

Now, here's some details of this that I find very interesting. First off, they were wearing hidden microphones.

This clearly shows that this was planned. This was not something that they just happened to come upon.

No, this was a purposeful thing. They're looking to try to get Christian bakers so that they could sue.

Now, why do I say that? Well, a couple of reasons. One, they say that they were so emotionally distraught over this, and yet within 30 minutes of leaving that place, they got to social media.

And within 30 minutes, the Millers who own it started getting death threats, emails containing images of people engaging in depraved sexual acts.

Okay. The nukes crews were there shortly afterwards, almost as if it was planned, as if it was timed, as soon as they had the place where everyone's supposed to go after.

Now, what makes me suspicious of these two women? Well, they were looking for a place to have a wedding cake in August of 2017, when the two women had already been married in December of 2016.

That's right. The wedding already occurred. So, I look at this and see, you can look at Masterpiece Cakes, the guy in Arizona who went up to the

Supreme Court. And in that Supreme Court ruling, you end up seeing that he ended up defending his right.

Now, defense that he did, and we have a previous podcast, I'll try to link that in the show notes, where we had a lawyer on here discussing that specific case.

Why was that important? Because what we saw in that specific case was that case was one that they argued very narrowly for issuing the fact that the

Arizona court system had mishandled this because they were attacking the individual.

They didn't bring it up as an issue of religious belief. And so, because of that, what they're trying to do, I think here, and they're going after that same baker, by the way, he is now being charged again.

He had, I think it was like a dozen or two dozen different phone calls requesting cakes until they could finally get someone that could get a lawsuit.

He was being careful in how he answered. What ended up happening in this case and the other case, you have people that are looking for a lawsuit.

They basically want to say that Christians don't have the right to believe what they want to believe. This is not intolerance, folks.

This is anything but intolerance. This is a group of people that demand intolerance, bullying Christians to believe what they want them to believe.

This is where these people who used to say they were in a closet, and now they have coming out parties and a day to celebrate they're coming out.

And now what they want to do is tell Christians, you're not allowed to have your opinion. You have to be in the closet, or what they would call the church.

You're only allowed to have your views within your church. Now, brothers and sisters, those of you who are

Christians, in the eighties, when the argument was, hey, these people should be allowed to do what they want in their own homes.

It's their home. They should be allowed to do what they want in their own home. And as it was argued back then, they should be allowed to do what they want in their own bedrooms.

And the argument that was made back then is it won't stay in their bedrooms. If it stayed in the bedrooms, fine.

But the issue is that it won't stay in the bedrooms. This is the issue. And as we see today, it hasn't stayed in the bedrooms.

It has come out of the bedrooms and now being forced upon all of us to where now what we see is the bullying tactic that if you have the nerve to be a

Christian and stand on Christian convictions, you have to be put out of business. You have to receive death threats.

You have to be bullied into promoting an agenda. This is something that we see time and time again, where Christians are being victimized because of the fact that they believe something that has been historically believed for generations, for thousands of years.

And suddenly, somehow, they're wrong. Suddenly, somehow, this is a bad behavior for Christians to have their own beliefs.

You're going to say you're tolerant, then you should be willing to be actually tolerant, accepting other people's views.

When you look at this case with Miller, their name was Kathy Miller. I get it correctly. I'm trying to look through the article.

But what she ended up doing was to argue that, I'll find you someone that could do this for you.

She actually, and for WABC, she said, we're Christians. We love everyone.

God made everyone. It doesn't matter the color or whatever. Everyone is God's creation, and I love everyone.

That's sounding pretty tolerant, by the way, but that wasn't enough. It's not enough to tolerate.

These two women didn't want tolerance. They wanted this Christian woman to celebrate their lifestyle.

Let me just ask the question to anyone who practices homosexuality listening. Would you like it if people used the court system or the government to force you to go to church?

Think about that because that is what you are arguing for when you support women like these women who are doing this.

If you're supporting people that are going after Christians because you have a differing view and forcing your beliefs on them, then you should not be critical if they were to try to use the government to force you to attend church.

I wouldn't suggest that we should force people to attend church. I don't support that because church is for believers.

But the thing is, is that there is not a case of discrimination that was seen in here, and yet they're trying to make it one because they're saying, no, you have to use your arts for everybody.

Use your talents. Use your business against your own beliefs. Flip that around.

If I was, as a Christian, to go into a bakery of people that practice homosexuality and demand that they promote or they put a cake out that says, sanctity of marriage, homosexuality is a sin,

Romans chapter one. And they say, I'm not going to bake that. Would they then say, hey, we should be threatened with it?

Should our lives be threatened? Should we have to be courts? Because that's just flipping the thing.

If the argument doesn't work both ways, then it's not really a valid argument in the sense that they try to argue from atheistic worldviews where they want to remove

God. We're going to deal with in a bit those that want to try to argue this from a position of saying they're

Christian. But Jim, the thing that I see so problematic here with this sort of stuff is the fact that you see people who are trying to force their beliefs onto Christians.

Now, I know that there is a reporter who went into 13 different Muslim bakeries and he was actually one of them chased out.

He was chased out with a broom. Nothing. No one, no one argued. No one thought there was anything wrong there.

But if they're not going to go after the Muslim. No, no, they don't. They know they can get away with going after Christians. And to go back to your, to give you some other illustrations, how would, how would you feel?

Should we be in our culture, our society, making a black person bake a cake for a white supremacist organization that says,

God hates black people on it? Would we make the black person bake the cake for that? Or is the black person free in a free society to refuse to do business with whomever he wants to for whatever reason he wants to?

I'm perfectly fine with any businessman being willing to refuse to do business or refuse to sell a product to any white

American male, whose last name rhymes with floss. And that would be me. If he wants to discriminate against me on that basis,

I'm happy. He has a freedom to do that for any reason. I think, I think everybody who owns a business, as long as you're not government funded, you're not government run, you should be free to discriminate or refuse to do business with anybody you want.

That's the freedom of association and everybody should have the freedom to do that. But what they want with the homosexual activist one is that freedom to go one way.

They don't want to, as you said, they don't want to just be recognized. They want you to celebrate it and they're going to make you care.

And they're going to, I think they're going to come after, they've already admitted that they're coming after churches and pastors and they're going to try and make, they're going to try and go after some big targets, probably the

John MacArthur's and the Steve Lawson's and the guys like that out there with big churches that are big targets.

They're going to start coming after them to try and force them to do a gay marriage ceremony in the church building.

And if they don't get what they want, they're going to do the same thing that they've done with Christian bakers and Christian force.

They're going to say that's bigotry. It's hatred. It's intolerance. And really what they, they're not wanting just toleration.

They're wanting celebration. They're not content. If you can just say, look, we disagree with each other. And so we will tolerate one another.

We'll live alongside each other and we can each believe what we want to believe and try to do the best to convince the other that our point of view is right.

But we show tolerance and deference to one another, but I don't have to agree with you, but they've redefined tolerance to be agreement.

If you don't agree with me, you're intolerant. And of course they would never buy that the other direction. When they think that we're wrong, they're just, they're right.

And when we think that they're wrong, we're intolerant. It's completely hypocritical and lopsided. Correct. And that shows that this really isn't about tolerance.

I mean, that's the ultimate proof right there. It never has been. It never has been from the very beginning when they wanted to overturn.

First they came out and they said, look, we just want the same rights as everybody else to get life insurance, to visit our loved ones in the hospital, to have the power of attorney.

That's all we want. And everybody said, okay, well, then you can have that. And then it was like, well, we want our lifestyle decriminalized.

Okay, that's fine. Decriminalize it. Now we want gay marriage. It's not enough to have gay marriage. Now we want to force you to celebrate our lifestyle and approve of our lifestyle.

And here's what I think has happened. What they want to do is use the force of government to get that approval and that celebration that their conscience tells them that they cannot have because they're violating the law of God.

And because they cannot have God's approval. And they know that they're without excuse, their conscience bears witness that what they're doing is wrong.

And they understand that they know that intuitively. And because they cannot have God's approval, and they know that they want to get the approval of the next biggest, most powerful entity that they can, and that's the government.

And so they want to get the government to approve of their lifestyle and then make everybody else affirm them and approve them because what they want is that acceptance that they can, they know they cannot get from an almighty, holy, righteous, and just God.

Well, I think it's their hatred for God that brings all this on. And some of them, we're going to look at some that try to argue that they are

Christian, that they are believing in God. But the thing that I end up seeing in this and the thing that's so disturbing to me with this is the fact that this is planned.

This is not something that is just, they play the victim as they victimize.

They say they're against bullying as they bully. This is concerning.

And what really bothers me a lot is that there's so many Christians that are falling for it. They're being duped by this and thinking that this is something that is okay.

We should try to work with it. Look, I'm not going to try to work with them any more than I'm going to work with the murderer or the rapist or any other thing that God calls a sin.

If I have a murderer who is on death row, am I going to try to reach out with them and try to lovingly share the gospel?

Absolutely. As I would the liar, the adulterer, and the person who practices homosexuality.

We all sin, every one of us. And the gospel is the solution to this.

And we share the gospel with them because we love them. Yeah. We genuinely love them. But they think that if you do not have acceptance, that you're not being loving, that you're being bigoted, you hate them.

And yet they're not accepting of our view. That's the thing. They're not accepting of Christianity. I do not see this same type of thing going on with Islam or other false religions, but it is very clear that they're going after Christianity.

Darkness doesn't attack darkness. Darkness attacks the light. That's what that's the gist of it. That's right. That's right. So this is, again, you guys,

I'll put a link to the article, but you can check it out and read the details. But this isn't going to stop, folks.

We got to realize that this attack is coming and it's going to come stronger and harder and worse.

And for Christians who think they can get along with this agenda, it's an anti -Christian agenda.

How do you get along with that and then still be able to promote Christianity? It's not going to happen. So you have to face the reality that this is something that has to be dealt with in a biblical way with the gospel and what

Scripture says. So, all right, before we get back from this break, I want to deal with this video that we mentioned, because this is one that is going to be important for us.

Can you answer the following questions for your children or for the person to whom you are witnessing?

Number one, is the New Testament reliable? Two, can you explain the Trinity to me?

Three, how is Jesus both God and man? And a slew of other questions you will be able to answer if you get

Andrew Rappaport's new book, What Do We Believe? It will help you a ton.

Get your copy at whatdowebelievebook .com. Whatdowebelievebook .com.

Ding dong! Job has witnesses. Ding dong! Mormons, Christian, are you ready to defend the faith when false religions ring your doorbell?

Do you know what your Muslim and Jewish friends believe? You will if you get Andrew Rappaport's book,

What Do They Believe? When we witness to people, we need to present the truth, but it is very wise to know what they believe, and you will get

Andrew Rappaport's book at whatdotheybelieve .com. All right. So, let us deal with this.

It's disturbing to even bring this up and discuss this, but we have to because this is being shared in, unfortunately, a lot of places.

And so, because of that, this video that I'll give a link to—actually,

I probably won't. We'll play it, and it'll be disturbing enough. It really will be.

And the reality is what you end up seeing here is this is a video where you're going to see someone who wants to—they want to attack

God. Now, this is from a group called Queer Theology.

This individual's name is Brian Murphy. He is trying to promote a website of—well, what he's claiming is queer theology.

Now, he's going to talk about polyamory. Now, this is basically the philosophy or a state of being romantically involved with more than one person at the same time.

We think of polygamy. That's typically one man with several wives. This is going to be where you can have multiple partners, any type of partner.

I'm going to warn you before we play this, and both Jim and I will stop this at different times and, unfortunately, deal with what is being said.

We're going to stop it and deal with it. Jim will just raise his hand. I'll see that when he wants me to stop.

So, just to be clear, it's like a three -minute video, right? Correct. Yeah. So, why don't you play the whole thing so we can hear the whole argument, the whole context, and then we can dissect it.

That way, we can't be accused of cutting and pasting and people can just hear. Well, I don't want to listen to any of it, actually, but I don't want to listen to it once.

But I think it would be helpful if people could hear the entire presentation, the entire context. It is just a three -minute argument.

Yeah. All right. So, let me share this, and we'll do as you said.

I'm just going to say up front, this is disturbing for Christians.

And I want you to realize that for any Christian, with what we've already said, you realize what this gentleman,

Brian Murphy, is going to say is so disrespectful to Christians.

We're going to deal... I actually wanted to play this all the through and have a dinging noise with a number popping up with every logical fallacy that I saw in here because it's filled with them, but we'll deal with some of them.

The reality, though, what Brian Murphy ends up doing is so blasphemous. And look,

Brian, if you want to come on here and defend your arguments, I'd be happy to deal with it. I don't think the scripture or any theology will support these arguments that are being made.

You have to twist scripture and twist the language and use illogic to make the argument.

But if he wants to come on, I would gladly welcome it. I think that I would be more respectful to him than I think he is in this video to Christians, to genuine

Christians who believe in Christ. You're going to see that he has a low view of Christ and a high view of himself and his love.

So, we'll play this whole thing in one shot, then we'll rewind it and clip it.

Unfortunately, here it goes. Jesus is polyamorous. Yeah, you heard me right. Jesus is polyamorous.

We know this already, though, even if we don't think about it or put it in those terms. If you're one of those Christians who believe in the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus, well,

Jesus is having personal relationships with billions of other people, too. He's kind of a relationship slut, an empowered, reclaimed sort of slut.

Hey there, I'm Brian G. Murphy. I'm one of the co -founders of Paritheology .com. I'm a Christian, and I'm polyamorous.

I'm also kind of a slut, the reclaimed, empowering kind of slut, like Jesus. Jesus' polyamory goes beyond this personal relationship idea, though.

It's deeper, biblical even. In Ephesians 5, Paul specifically uses the word marriage to describe

Christ's relationship with us. Repeatedly, Paul reminds us that Jesus gave himself for us, us, the church, which

Paul describes as the whole body of believers. In this marriage, Jesus isn't married to one person.

He's married to the entire body of believers. Jesus is in a pansexual, polyamorous relationship with us.

And so, of course Christians can be polyamorous. That's a biblical model of relationship. We already recognize that God's love for us is the same as God's love for others, and that each of us can have a unique, transcendent relationship with the divine.

Our relationship with God can be a model for our romantic and sexual relationships as well. You know how you feel when something good happens to someone you care about, when your friend, child, neighbor, or co -worker connects with the divine?

That's how I feel when my partners date or meet someone new or are just head over heels for someone else.

How beautiful, how majestic that they get to have more love in their life, and how exciting that someone else gets to experience the amazingness of my partner.

The word polyamory comes from poly and amorous, many loves. We all already have many loves.

The question then becomes, how do you express that love? With whom? How do you do life?

We want to help you sort through those questions. Is polyamory for me? How do I share with my church community that I'm in a polyamorous relationship?

How do I talk with my partner about wanting an open relationship? How do I integrate polyamory with my faith?

If you want to explore the intersections of polyamory and Christianity, or you want some hands -on support in your own life and relationships, head on over to queertheology .com

slash polyamory. We've got some resources up now and we'll be continuing to add them. You can also sign up for updates to be in the loop as we add more.

We see in Ephesians an understanding that marriage can be polyamorous, that Jesus is polyamorous with us, and so we know that it's possible.

Of course, we also see other types of relationships in scripture, some healthier than others, and no one has to be polyamorous, but it's one way of structuring relationships, and it can be a deeply faithful one, and so it is.

Okay, so let's go through this. We're going to, chop this up and play this, but let me start by giving some points just because there's some things that we're going to see as we go through this a second time.

Can we start with some of the good things about the video? What was that? He seemed to have a nice apartment. Oh, I thought you're going to talk about his hair.

Oh, no, no. It looked like he had some cute dogs. Yeah, okay. He had dogs. Okay. This was...

I'm out of ideas. Yeah, yeah. Look, so let's deal with some things up front, and we'll deal with this as we go through, and you'll see it, but one, a fallacy.

Actually, hold on. Let's play the game. We have that. Now it's time for name that fallacy.

All right, so we're going to name that fallacy. The fallacy that he was doing throughout this is called a fallacy of equivocation.

What is the fallacy of equivocation? Fallacy of equivocation is when you take a word, in this case, something like relationship or love or marriage, and you use it two completely different ways, but because you're using the same word, you make it sound like it has the same meaning, when they actually have two different meanings in two different contexts.

That is throughout this video. The whole argument, the whole video is based on a fallacy of equivocation.

He is trying to argue that the relationship, Jesus has multiple relationships with people, therefore multiple relationships that we can have sexually is the same thing.

Jesus has zero sexual relationships, zero romantic relationships, and therefore to argue that because Jesus has a relationship with multiple people means that people can have these kind of sexual relationships with multiple people is illogical.

It's invalid logically, therefore it's wrong. Everybody has multiple relationships.

He even refers to that, and so the thing is is that that is an illogical argument.

He does the same thing with marriage. We'll go through that. We'll deal with this passage in Ephesians 5. He tries to argue that marriage is used as a reference to the body of Christ.

Brothers and sisters, when you read the passage, and we'll get to it, it's very clear there is one groom,

Christ, and one bride, the church. There's not multiple.

He's not marrying individuals and having a polyandrous relationship. He's one to one.

It is an illustration. By the way, this is the reason I am against same -sex marriage. As Pastor Jim said earlier, the arguments that were made for trying to promote same -sex marriage and delegalizing homosexuality so people can go to hospitals and all these other benefits that married couples get, the reality is the government could have just changed the law to allow the tax system to have civil unions and recognize them.

The hospitals could have allowed civil union partners to come in and visit in ICUs. The businesses could allow for your benefits to allow civil unions.

They didn't have to change the definition of marriage. Why did they want to? Because marriage is defined by God.

These same people that say there should be a separation of church and state want the state to tell the church how to behave.

They don't really believe a separation of church and state. They want to force the church to accept their view.

I may seem a little bit more energetic or heated in this podcast than in others.

It is because I see a great danger for Christians here. I am not shy about bringing this point up, but I see a second holocaust coming.

I, being a generation raised Jewish after the holocaust, had to go through and be trained how to recognize what the signs are for the holocaust.

We would watch videos after videos after videos in Hebrew school, read books. We would be trained how to recognize the signs.

Why? So that we would never, as Jewish people, allow this to happen again.

It is happening again in America and it is the Christians this time. And if you think that America is too civilized for something like that, that's the exact argument that was made in Germany.

The reason so many people turned a blind eye is they thought that this could never happen in Germany because they were too civilized for it.

And we're not civilized. We butcher our babies. Child sacrifice. We're not a civilized nation. No, and we're definitely not a tolerant nation.

For as much as we talk about tolerance, we have people who want to bully people and force people into believing what they think everyone should believe.

So you're going to see us throughout. You're going to see hermeneutical principles clearly violated. He takes illustrations and makes them literals, something you don't do.

He's going to take Ephesians five. That is an illustration where marriage is being illustrated by the relationship of Christ in the church.

That's an illustration. And he takes it into a physical relationship and he makes that clear in here.

I'm sorry, but there's one part of this that absolutely gets under my skin. And Brian, if you're listening, what you see in this video is this is all about him.

It's about human beings being lifted up on high and exalted. He has a very low view of God.

You see that because scripture lifts God up on high and says that God is the one to be glorified and exalted.

He makes it all about us, what makes us happy. And he tries to say that him and I find it very hard to believe.

I'm sorry. I find it very hard to believe that he could be accepting of a partner, having relations with another person and there'd be no jealousy.

In fact, he claims he'd be happy that they're happy. That's against all human nature. Okay. So I find it really hard to believe.

And the fact that this is something that's being accepted by so many.

I will say this. I'm not alone in this, that several people tried to comment on the

Facebook. Several people tried to respond to this. He is, or they are on their

Facebook page. They are cleaning comments. They removed comments.

He posted a comment from Romans eight, where no one could be separated from the love of God.

And I specifically said, this is speaking only to Christians, not to all people.

This is to Christians that have a actual relationship with God. They cannot lose that.

This is not for all people. That comment, scrub. Some of the other comments I had about... That's intolerance.

That's tolerance. They're not tolerant. Gotta love that tolerance. And that's the whole point. They're not tolerant.

They want only their view to be heard. Now, that's fine. If you're going to put stuff like this out, and you know that there's going to be an opposite view.

Okay. But then you scrub those comments. You only want your view to be heard.

And so look, Brian, if you want to come on, I will give you the airtime.

I'll let you talk. I'll engage with you. And you clearly can tell, I'm not going to let you pass off fallacious arguments and misinterpret scripture.

But the part that really gets under my skin and shows how little he respects

Christ is when he refers to Christ as a slut. And he's using it in a sexual sense that is so blasphemous.

You have such a low view of Jesus Christ. When you say that. You do not have a view of Jesus Christ, almighty

God, who created the universe, puts breath in your lungs that you do not deserve, who has every right to kill and eliminate every single human being the moment they sin.

That would be what justice is that he wipes us out for our sin. And instead, he came and died for his very creation at the hands of his very creation.

And you want to call him a slut. That's blasphemous. That's the part that's extremely, extremely hard for me to deal with.

But we will play this again. And unfortunately, I won't, I don't think hold on,

Jim. Let me see if I could do this so I could see your hand. Okay. I'll be able to see your hand when you raise it. We'll, we'll play it.

I'll mute you. And we'll, um, we will just go through this. You raise your hand when you just can't take any more and have to stop and, and talk, and I will do the same.

Here we go again. Sorry, folks. Jesus is polyamorous. Yeah. You heard me right. Jesus.

Okay. Stop right there. Okay. We didn't get very far, did we? No. He knows, look at the way he's saying it.

He's trying to be provocative. He knows the reaction he's going to get from this.

He knows it. He wants that reaction. He's polyamorous. We know this already, though, even if we don't think about it or put it in those terms.

If you're one of those Christians who believes in the importance of a personal relationship with Jesus, well, Jesus is having personal relationships with billions of other people too.

Okay. There's the equivocation right there. There's the first equivocation. Yeah. There's the first, there's the first logical fallacy of equivocation.

He's, he's taking personal relationship, um, of, of me and my relationship to Christ, him as savior, me as sinner, me as the subject, him as the sovereign, me bowing my knee to him and acknowledgement of my sin and being redeemed from that sin.

That is my personal relationship with him. He's taking that and then saying that that is the same thing, therefore, as Jesus having a sexual relationship with billions of people at the same time.

It's simply, he's simply taking the idea of relationship and making it so broad as to include everything from my relationship with Christ as a sinner to a savior, to include his relationship with Christ relationship with us individually in some sexual way, uh, as if Jesus is an adulterer because there's more than one believer or more than one person has a relationship with him.

And now let me take a different aspect because I wasn't sure which one of these two you were going to grab. So I'll grab the other.

People love to speak about us having a personal relationship with Jesus and they make that the main issue.

I'm sorry, that's not biblical. You don't see that in scripture. There's nowhere in scripture that says that Jesus died, that we would have a personal relationship with him.

That's not what the apostles preached. That's no, I'd argue everyone has a personal relationship with Jesus and some are going to go to hell anyway.

That's their personal relationship. People argue, well, Jesus isn't in hell. That's what hell is. No, Jesus is omnipresent.

He's God. He'll be in hell. Hell's not going to be a place where, where his presence isn't going to be, or that you won't have a, uh, you won't have a knowledge of him or a relationship with him.

No, you will. He's going to be a just judge and he will be punishing the wicked every day.

Cause that's what he says in Psalm 7, 11, that God is a just judge and angry with the wicked every day.

And so this is, he isn't a result of American or modern

Christianity that tried to water down a gospel message to make it feel good to people.

And therefore they just talk about the relationship aspect and all that, what God could do for us. And you see that throughout this, it's all about us, not

God. That's his focus. And that's the problem. Let's keep going. He's kind of a relationship slot and empowered, reclaimed sort of slot.

Okay. I'm sorry, but that is, I don't even know what that means. Empowered, empowered and reclaimed.

Yeah. So first off, Jesus need to be reclaimed from, and how is he empowered? Say the low view of the low view of Christ there that Christ needs something outside of himself.

So he had to be empowered, empowered by what, empowered unto what, for what purpose, and that he is somehow a reclaimed slot.

Was he redeemed? Is that the argument? Okay. Well, you have the fallacy of, okay.

The first law of logic is the law of identity. What is a slot? Definitions matter.

Jesus had zero sexual relations with anyone. He didn't have sexual relations. And so what you end up seeing is this guy is arguing, is trying to argue for his sexual behavior.

And he calls himself a slot in the same way, but he's using it two different ways because Jesus never had any sexual relations.

Therefore he could not be a slot in the way this gentleman refers to it. So not only is it the fallacy of equivocation, but it's a failed identity and it is blasphemous.

But what is he doing? Well, we're going to find out in the very next phrase, he wants to justify his own sin.

Hey there. I am Brian G. Murphy. I'm one of the co -founders of Grithiology .com. I'm a Christian and I'm polyamorous.

No, you're not a Christian. I'm sorry. That's right. I'm sorry. I know this is going to be upsetting to some and maybe to Brian, but listen,

Brian, if you, if you're listening or anyone else that's, that's struggling with this, and I understand the struggle can be real, but I'm sorry.

A Christian is not one that identifies by his or her sin.

I'm not a murdering Christian. I'm not a raping Christian. I'm not a lying Christian. I'm not an adulterer in Christian, and I'm not a gay

Christian. They want to be able to identify as a sin. Their identity is in the sin.

Now you're going to see he denies that it's a sin, especially if you start reading some of the articles they put up. Wow. Bad hermeneutics.

But they want to justify it. And so the reality is, is that this is an attempt to attack Christianity. No, just because someone's raised in a

Christian home does not make you a Christian. This is what scripture says. Scripture says that you have to receive him.

You have to be regenerated, that you have to be converted. When you are living for your sin and identifying yourself by your sin, you're not identifying yourself by Christ.

A Christian's identified as Christ, not their sin. Christ died for their sins.

There's no way you can identify in your sin and then claim you're a

Christian and want to promote and celebrate in your sin. That's not what a

Christian is. Christians don't celebrate sin. They mourn over it. They weep over it.

You want to celebrate it. And then they mortify it. They put it to death. Yeah. Well, that's what a Christian would do. Yes. But that's not what

Ryan's doing. No. And that's why my heart breaks for this individual. I hope that people aren't hearing me and thinking that I'm trying to be mean to him.

I would love to sit down if, hey, Brian, if you want, I'll take you to dinner so we can sit and talk about these things.

I don't mind buying you a meal because I care enough about your soul and where you spend eternity. Because whatever

Christianity you were raised to believe is not the biblical Christianity. I'm also kind of a slut.

The reclaimed, empowering kind of slut. Like Jesus. Jesus' polyamory goes beyond this personal relationship idea, though.

It's deeper. Biblical, even. In Ephesians 5, Paul specifically uses the word marriage to describe

Christ's relationship with us. Repeatedly, Paul reminds us that Jesus gave himself for us. Us. Okay.

Us. Us. Now, I already mentioned, here is another equivocation fallacy where he's talking about this illustration of marriage and he uses this in a literal sense.

But he breaks the illustration, too. Christ is not married to multiple people. That's not...

If you're going to say you're doing theology, Brian, get the theology right. It's not that every single individual is the bride of Christ.

The church, the one church, is the bride of Christ. He's not in a polyamorous relationship.

He is in a magnanimous... I can't say the word. Monogamous. Magnanimous relationship.

Monogamous. Not anonymous. Not anonymous. A monogamous relationship.

It's a one -to -one. The one bride. And it's a bride. Not a husband. Not anybody else.

He is married... The church is... He is not married to the church in the same sense that we are married to our spouse.

He is... Marriage is a picture of the relationship that Christ has to the church. Obviously, Christ does not have a sexual relationship with the church, but the sexual union symbolizes...

It's not equivalent to. It symbolizes something that is true of the marriage relationship between Christ and His bride, the church.

There's purity that is symbolized there. There's loving servanthood that is symbolized there.

Affection that is symbolized. A oneness. A unity that we have with the Godhead. That mystical union is what the analogy of the marriage to the bride of Christ is intended to portray.

Not a sexual union. And so he takes that analogy and turns it into something that is sexual.

And my response to that would be, to the pure, all things are pure. But those who are unbelieving and defiled, nothing is pure.

But both their mind and their conscience are defiled. He looks at the marriage relationship that Christ has with the church. And it's not a one -to -one correspondence.

It is analogous. It is an analogy. And all he can see is the sexual dynamics. All he can see is the sexual teaching there.

And it is a perverted idea of the sexual teaching that's there. Yeah. And you just quoted out of Titus chapter 1.

Yeah. And that is a crucial verse for this. Because this is saying exactly what's happening to his conscience.

He is so seared in. It's not pure anymore. And to the believer, they're going to have a sensitive conscience and not be giving over to their sin and encouraging it.

But here's the thing. Just look at what he's, you can see the screen. Us. That's what it's all about.

See, this is about humans being God. That God is in his worldview, in what he's showing in this video, that God is here to satisfy our desires.

It's about us. Essentially what you see in every one of these cases with all people that believe in a false religion, and because he's not believing in a biblical

Christianity, not what the Bible says. And so what you end up seeing is that this is a view that is right out of Genesis chapter 3.

Why? Because he wants to be God. He wants to make God submit to him that God has to satisfy his sexual desires.

And then he wants to say God is like him. Andrew, this is the product of the secret sensitive man -centered preaching that goes on in most churches.

This poor young man at some point has bought into the lie that God has a U -shaped hole in his heart that he longs for you to fill.

And he just did everything for you and not for his own glory or for his own sake. And God just is in love with you and can't stand the thought of living without you.

And so it's all about you rather than God's eternal glory and God's eternal purposes. No, that's exactly right.

And that's the thing. Look, the reality is that there are many churches who have for a good part of two generations now been teaching and arguing that we should be about the business of trying to just get people in the door.

And the reality is that this is the product of people who have watered down the gospel.

And when you water down the gospel, it's not because you care about people's souls.

You water down the gospel because you want them to like you. If you cared about their soul, you'd tell them the truth of where they're going to spend eternity.

If you just want them to like you, you water down the gospel to get them into church to feel good about themselves.

And that's what he's teaching and what many of the churches are teaching. And he's a product of a false gospel.

A man -centered gospel. Has a wonderful plan for your life. And the reality is, as you're seeing in this gentleman, if God loves me, why do

I need to change? He has a wonderful plan and it's whatever I think it is. It's all about us.

The church, which Paul describes as the whole body of believers. Now, this is the interesting. He defines the church as the whole body of believers, but that's not how he uses it.

That tells you that he is knowingly misrepresenting the text. In this marriage,

Jesus isn't married to one person. He's married to the entire body. No, he's married to the one body, the church that he just referenced.

You see how easily he slips in and out of it so that he could probably say, hey, I properly defined things and yet purposely misleading.

Jesus is in a pansexual polyamorous relationship. No, Jesus is in no sexual relationship with anyone.

And so of course, Christians can be polyamorous. No, no scripture says they can be polyamorous. In fact, what

Jesus said is from the beginning, God made them male and female.

And that was in the argument of divorce. In other words, you can't even get divorced and remarried was what

Jesus was saying. That wasn't the plan. That you shouldn't be doing that. You should have one spouse for life.

So no, Brian, scripture doesn't support this. You can make the claims, but here's the thing you don't see throughout this.

He throws a couple of scripture verses, misapplies them, but puts out a lot of claims with no scripture.

What you're hearing from Jim and I is scripture. Scripture doesn't support what he says. That's why he can't do that. That passage that you were quoting there, the very next part of that says the two shall become one flesh.

The two. So what is Jesus designing for marriage? Two. Two people in one flesh relationship for one lifetime.

That is God's design for marriage. Two people, one covenant, one flesh relationship for one lifetime.

That's the design. The two shall become one flesh. Not the 500 or the billion shall all become one flesh.

That's not God's design for marriage. And what you don't hear, you don't see an understanding of Genesis chapter two, that here, what did

God do? God had all these animals, these beasts come before Adam for the sole purpose of showing

Adam, well, maybe not the only purpose. He named them and things like that, but to show Adam that none of these animals were a good helper.

That God made many of these animals so that they would have, and I think many people think that it was just two of each kind, but there's no,

God could have created dozens of cat kinds and dozens of dog kinds, but there was only one man until Adam realized he needed a helper, a helpmate, and that none of the animals were up to the task or equivalent to man.

Man was different than the animal and therefore he needed a helper. That was what that was for.

Amorous relationship with us. And so of course, Christians can be polyamorous. That's a biblical model of relationship.

We already recognize that God's love for us isn't diminished by God's love for others. Oh, there we go.

See, there's equivocation on love. What he just said, here's what he meant. He said, God's love for us is not diminished by God's love for others.

What he's saying there is therefore my love for my spouse, for you, is not diminished.

My partner, right, is not diminished by my love for every other person under the sun. I can go out and have all these kinds of affairs, all the kinds of sexual relationships, and that doesn't diminish my love for my partner.

Put that into the marriage relationship. That means that I can go out and have a relationship with every woman in the community and that doesn't diminish my love for my wife.

Is there a sane person on the face of the planet that would believe that or affirm that? There is not. But he's using the term love there,

God's love for all people. Therefore, if God can love more than one person, we can be sexually involved with more than one person and have a sexual relationship and have covenant relationships with more than one person.

All at the same time, that's God -like. I don't believe he believes it himself, but I think what he wants to do is justify his sin.

Yeah, I believe that. Us can have a unique transcendent relationship with the divine. Our relationship with God can be a model for our romantic and sexual relationships as well.

No, it can't. Notice how he went from a – and he even mentions, right, this is not a physical relationship we have with God, and then he takes that right into a sexual relationship.

I mean, this is trying to push so far.

Now, notice he's not giving any scripture to support these claims. He says it's a biblical model. This is a biblical model, but you don't see any scripture, okay?

He's got one scripture verse that he misapplied, Ephesians 5. That's it, because he's got no scripture that's supporting these arguments because scripture is really clear against this.

I give a shout out as well. If you're listening to this, go and listen to the

Freed Thinker podcast with Tyler Villa. He's also going to be addressing this.

I haven't listened to it. I'm sure he's going to address it differently than the way we're addressing it, but I encourage you to listen to the different arguments so that you have a ready response because, brothers and sisters, these kind of arguments are not going away.

They have over about 5 ,000 articles on their website to try to push their agenda.

They have thousands of quote -unquote Christians that are promoting this. This is an attack on Christianity.

Don't be fooled. Let's hear what the rest of you guys say. How do you feel when something good happens to someone you care about? When your friend, child, neighbor, or coworker connects with the divine, that's how

I feel when my partners date or meet someone new or I just head over heels for someone else. I find that hard to believe that when you are excited that someone is converted, they go from being an enemy of God under God's judgment one moment and then turn from being an enemy of God to being adopted into his family and having eternal life.

There's a joy there, and that joy has nothing to do with a physical or sexual nature. He then takes that and, again, equivocates on it to try to argue for a physical, sexual, romantic nature of it.

I don't believe. I find it extremely hard to believe that someone, including him, is thrilled when a partner is going off and fooling around with someone else because that breaks trust.

Therefore, relationships are built on trust. If people are breaking trust, you don't have now.

He's going to say, oh, but it's open. It's an open relationship, so it should be okay. No, it's not biblical, as we already said.

How beautiful, how majestic that they get to have more love in their life. Okay, that they have more love in their life.

Sexual relations is not the only way people have love in their life, Brian. It's maybe the only way that people who focus on their practicing of homosexuality and practicing of sexual perversion, it may be the only way they focus on happiness, but it's not real happiness because all it is is trying to cover up the guilt that they suffer.

The guilt that they know is there as they suppress that knowledge of God in trying to sear their conscience.

That's all that is. And how exciting that someone else gets to experience the amazingness of my partner. The word polyamory.

Many loves. We all already have many loves. Okay, many loves.

That's actually not really the definition of the term because many romantic or sexual loves.

Now, he's doing that because, again, equivocation. He wants to focus on that Christ can love many people, therefore, he can have sexual relations with many people.

Those two are not the same. Andrew, it would be like me saying I love pizza. I love my dog. I love my kids, and therefore, I can have sex with everybody because,

I mean, I'm already polyamorous. I already love all kinds of. I love my four -wheeler. I love the snow. I love the sunshine.

I love North Idaho. I love carrying my guns around. I love going out and hunting. Therefore, I'm already polyamorous. That is the most absurd.

When you just break it down, it's the most absurd line of argumentation. Express that love. With whom?

How do you do life? We want to help you sort through those questions. Is polyamory for me?

How do I share with my church community that I'm in a polyamory? Okay, so here is the goal. How do

I know this is their goal? Well, because on their website, on their podcast that they have, they talk about things for the church, how to reach the church on their transgender day of remembrance.

On their transgender day of remembrance, they had in there ways to talk to your church.

They're reaching out to pastors. What are you going to say? Okay, this is a father so -and -so.

So, he's a Catholic priest. But they basically had three points that they wanted to get across in their transgender day of remembrance podcast that they wanted people to listen to.

They wanted people to engage with this stuff. Why? Because they wanted people to ask the church for the day of remembrance, where they're trying to get people to remember this.

What your church can do to remember transgenderism. What you can do as an individual to remember transgenderism.

And then, if you're a pastor, what can be their sermon that you could preach on Sunday to remember a sin?

They want the church to promote their sinful lifestyle. That's what this is about.

That's where this is going. Do not be fooled by it. That's what this is about. The rest of this really was him promoting his website and articles and nonsense like that.

This video has had 75 ,000 views in just,

I think this came out four days ago, if I'm not mistaken. So, that's a huge number.

And this is, I think a lot of it is because of the fact that people, Christians are looking at this and going to be responding to this.

And yes, that's why he did it. He did it to get the attention. This is a form of clickbait to get

Christians and get them to follow him. Because who's his target audience? His target audience is us, believers,

Christians who disagree with him. That's the thing. And what you end up seeing is he wants to target

Christian churches to promote this sinful lifestyle. That's why we needed to address it.

And so, Jim, do you have any last comments about this video that you want to make?

You know, I would say two comments. First of all, it is telling the scripture references that he left out or he doesn't mention.

Any discerning Christian would be able to listen to that video and say, but he didn't talk about what marriage fidelity would look like.

Obviously, there is no such thing as faithfulness in a marriage relationship if what he says is true. That can't exist.

Sexual purity cannot exist. And you read some of the articles on their website and they promote some of,

I mean, they promote pornography, self -pleasuring and adultery and fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, all kinds of stuff that they promote on there.

I wish we had time to kind of go through one of the articles there because we could just rip apart the bad arguments and some of the logical fallacies that they commit, even in the articles.

If what they're saying is true, there can be no such thing as sexual purity. There can be no such thing as faithfulness.

It's not possible for the marriage bed to be undefiled or to be defiled if everything in the world is not defiled.

You know, if he can have a relationship with everybody in the world and his partner can, and he can rejoice in his partner having those relationships because, oh, now everybody gets to enjoy my partner the way that I get to enjoy my partner.

There's no way for the marriage bed to be defiled in a scenario like that. Whereas obviously...

There's no way for it not to be defiled, you mean? Well, there's no way for it. No, because when the author says, let the marriage bed remain undefiled, he has something in mind.

That is no fornication adultery. But if fornication adultery and these relationships like he's promoting are correct and true, then it doesn't matter how many people you invite into that marriage bed.

It cannot be defiled by his definition. So, you know, he just ignores all of these other scripture references about sexual purity and fidelity, faithfulness.

Yeah, that's the first thing I would say. The second thing I would say is that a video like this with argument as bad as this is, with all of the equivocation, logical fallacy, could only get 75 ,000 views, could only get the number of shares and promotion that it has got in a culture and in a society and in a church that has lost its ability to think critically and to be discerning.

It has lost its ability to evaluate anything in the light of the truth and the biblical teaching.

Because we are so ignorant of the truth, because we cannot think logically and critically, something like this seems reasonable.

There are thousands of people who watch this video and say, man, he makes a good argument. I can't argue against that. And yet what he has done is such horrible reasoning, such horrible logic.

And let me say this, and we'll close out with this, is the fact that, look, just because he speaks with a soft tone and does a great video doesn't mean he's right.

The fact that his arguments are all based on logical fallacies means that his arguments are flawed and invalid, period.

And so they shouldn't be given any credence. But we have a generation of people who don't think critically.

They're not taught to think critically. Let me end this way, okay? If you're someone who practices this, maybe you're, maybe

Brian's listening, maybe some other folks from that website are listening. Whatever gospel message you were raised listening to, let me tell you what the

Bible says. What Scripture says is the gospel message is that all liars will have their place in a lake of fire which burns with brimstone, which is called the second death.

The fact that we are called to live perfectly in God's law and none of us can keep it, all, all of us, sin, we fall short.

Every one of breaks God's law and would be rightly judged as guilty in God's sight.

There is no account where we can make excuse for sin ever.

We can't make light of it. We can't excuse it. We can't find ways to identify ourselves by it.

As Christians, that sin was nailed to the cross. It is, as Paul says, it is no longer

I who live, but Christ who lives in me. He talks about the fact that if we, that, that our sin was put to that cross and for us to go back to sin.

And what I think what Brian ends up doing, and you see this, is he's gotten himself to a point where he denies it's even a sin.

He denies it's a sin because as Jim said earlier, his conscience is so seared.

I plead with people like this, please, the second after you died is too late to repent.

You want to try to cover the guilt of sin by trying to force others to accept your views or to promote views and get it to be, to make such ridiculous arguments.

The reality is this, my heart's desire, because I, I do love you as a fellow human being, as someone made in the image of God, I plead with you.

I don't want to see anyone in it, in fire for all of eternity. Why? Because I don't deserve heaven any more than you do.

I deserve that eternal lake of fire. But God came to earth and died on a cross that if we confess with our mouth and believe in our heart, we would be saved while we were yet his enemies.

He died for us. He came and died in our place. What makes his death so significant is that he is eternal

God. He's a man who never broke the law as a man. He never violated any of God's law living perfectly, meaning that he won't suffer a judgment of his own.

And as God, he can pay an eternal fine. He suffered the eternal, the eternal weight of sin upon himself for everyone who he paid for.

I think about that. That's a heavy price and people want to go about parading, promoting and celebrating the things that put

Christ on the cross. If you want to celebrate, I'm not saying that Christians don't sin. They will sin.

You don't celebrate it. We don't celebrate it because that sin is what Christ died for. That sin was so severe that God himself had to die on a cross as a payment.

That's not something to take lightly. And if you take it so lightly that you think we should be celebrating your sin, you need to repent.

Please repent, be converted and have eternal life. It only comes through what Christ did, the shed blood of Jesus Christ, what he took on that cross as he was whipped and beaten and hung on a cross for sin.

Sin should never be celebrated. Even more so, we should never be identifying ourselves by our sin.

Please repent before it's too late. 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.