Continued Response to Dr. David Gushee (Part 2)

And good afternoon welcome to the dividing line. It is a Thursday afternoon and we are continuing the series we began on the last program Responding to dr. David Gushy of Mercer University a Christian ethicist who has recently Become as he describes himself a staunch ally of the gay Christian movement.

We are specifically reviewing the entirety of his presentation at the Reformation project conference late in 2014 he has written a book changing our mind. We might get around to Responding to that as well Read that when it first came out as I read Actually, I I won't even say a majority because I wouldn't know how to even keep track anymore the number of books coming out promoting the redefinition of Christian ethics the redefinition of the Christian gospel the redefinition of Christian morality, etc, etc, I I wouldn't even know but I certainly am sent links to a large number of these things and hence You know just began yet another Book on that subject on my last ride.

So I I've I can honestly say that of In relationship to Christian ministers in conservative Bible-believing Reformed churches such as my own That I've I'm probably in the top 2 as far as the number of books and articles Written against my position that I have actually read and read seriously in the sense of Really seeking to understand what someone is saying as I said the beginning of the last program.

I think we need to hear What dr. Gushy is saying we need to understand why he has adopted the position he has only then can we? with sufficient gravity and Integrity say this is where dr. Gushy is wrong.

This is what he is miss This is what he is assumed and not proven. This is where he has been misled by Brownson or Boswell or whoever else as far as biblical information is and historical information is concerned and So I just left the program running.

I haven't touched anything. So we will be able to continue right on With where we were in dr. Gushy's Comments that again were made at the Reformation project conference back in 2014 so this is called Ending the teaching of contempt against the church's sexual minorities.

We have already criticized the assumptions Underlying the title but we press on we are for those of you who are interested 22 minutes and three seconds Into the YouTube posted version of.

The Church’s Teaching on Sexuality and the Rejection of Biblical Morality

This particular presentation. Christian leaders and reinforced by Christian tradition. It has been hard to find many dissenters to this tradition as it has been grounded in knowledge. Sources seem to be at the very center of Christianity scripture tradition and the loudest leaders of the church.

Everyone just knew. They just knew. The gay lesbian bisexual and transgender people were worthy of the church's rejection and disdain. Now notice.

First of all, we should recognize as as I mentioned last time and as I'll probably mention again That No one should claim that the majority of Bible believing Christians in 1970 let's go back 45 years.

Wow Didn't seem like it was that long ago when I first came up the date, but we went back you know 45 years I I Would not say that the majority of Bible believing Christians who would have answered the question that homosexuality was sin before God Could have even told you Outside of maybe Romans 1 and somewhere in the law of Moses where that was taught and Had probably not given any serious thought to Any kind of homosexual apologetic because there basically wasn't any homosexual apologetic.

That is a given. That does not mean That there had not been many serious Christian leaders who had very fully examined and understood the reasons why Homosexuality is sinful in God's sight and destructive to human existence to human happiness contentment joy and how it is a Fundamental violation of the revelation of what God's purpose and the creation of man as male and female is.

There had been many who had done that. There had been many who had recognized the biblical teaching concerning marriage. How marriage is the foundation of a culture? How marriage is is meant for the The the full contentment of both man and woman in their roles within that relationship and in the rearing of children.

There had been many who had done these things and recognized that Homosexuality is a fundamental rebellion against that created order of God that it is truly Narcissistic because it is falling in love with a a mirror image of oneself.

It cannot produce life will never be able to produce life no matter how science attempts to pervert God's created order and Even succeeds in perverting that order. It will never be natural. It will never be that which is in accord with with God's creative design and hence which brings true contentment to the human soul and so that is all very true, but you'll notice that the framing of the presentation by dr. Gushy is to in essence dismiss the rebellion of Homosexuality the rejection of God's creative decree and And present Not only the assumption that you can be a non rebellious homosexual now, I suppose I should I Again terminology is is is all the is all the problem when when we Use that phraseology.

I've mentioned and some people really Rejected this some people continue to reject this but there are different kinds obviously of homosexuals. There are Christians who experience same-sex attraction are honest about that and seek assistance in resisting those temptations and those desires and they do not say to the church you have to abandon your moral and ethical standards and Embrace my sexual desires as a good thing and a gift from God.

That's very different than the gay Christian movement. That's very different than a Matthew Vines. That's very different than than the Justin Lees and the people who are are forcing this agenda upon upon the church today.

Then you have those who claim to be Christians and yet demand that the gospel change to fit them and Then you have the vast majority of homosexuals who do not claim to be Christians at all and I would say the vast majority who would honestly recognize that they are doing what feels good to them and They are unconcerned about anything else.

They do not desire monogamous lifelong relationships of any sort whatsoever. All studies that I have ever seen have said that the vast majority of especially of male homosexuals Have an astonishingly large number of sexual partners in their lifetime and They're simply doing What they enjoy and what feels good to them and it's interesting that So often we will hear people talking about the LG B T Q R ST UV etc, etc Movement and yet they skip.

What would have to be? The ramifications of including the B and the T bisexual and transgender. The arguments for transsexualism be completely different than anything you'd possibly come up with in regards to homosexuality from a biblical perspective.

But what about bisexuality? What about bisexuality that here? It would seem that the arguments that are are used by the Matthew Vines and the Justin Lee's. That this is all they've ever known. They have no desire whatsoever toward the woman as a male.

Would completely overthrow any Argumentation you could use for bisexuality. Because now you have someone who has sexual desire for both genders and if it is discrimination bigotry and contempt To say that homosexuality is wrong then How could it be?

How could you address? Someone who desires to express their sexuality that in such a way that would demand multiple partners. Dr. Gush, he's gonna say Lifelong monogamous Covenantal relationship is all that that's as far as he can go.

Well, he just left off at least 95 the homosexual movement. Right there. Just cut them off. But what about by bisexuals? Do they get to express their their how can they express who they say God has made them to be?

Within the parameters that dr. Gush, he's going to give they can't. It leads to a throuple no matter what or a quadruple or whatever. For them to be able to express their love as they define it. And here's the problem rather than as God defines it.

And as God defines it in Scripture. But going back to his presentation. He presents the homosexuals as these Non-rebellious Made this way innocent victims of the mean horrible nasty church that dare is to take seriously the moral teaching of Scripture in regards to God's own right to define what is and what is not proper human expression of sexuality and Again, it's it's the one who frames the debate you see it.

You see it in the language right here. If I take this amount of time, we're never gonna get through this. So I apologize.

Not just in their sexual desires or practices but in their persons. For some Christians even today and this is really sad being anti-gay became woven into the heart of their understanding of Christian identity and.

Their practice of Christian piety being anti-gay. In other words. Affirming the entirety of the biblical revelation that allows us to even define Not only just what sexual sin is but what any sin is at all.

Notice the Not so subtle rather bold and obvious redefining of categories. So if you hold firm to what Christians have always believed about how we define sin. Just yesterday news broke was it Denmark.

One of the one of the northern European countries. I should have brought up the one the northern European country countries passed a law outlawing bestiality. You know why they outlawed bestiality? Animal abuse.

Animal abuse. Not because it is degrading to man to engage in such activities. But because it's degrading to the animals. And the animals cannot give consent. You put that together with the recent judges granting of habeas corpus to chimps and All sanity has abandoned Western culture.

It's gone and it's because the judges in Western culture have been thoroughly corrupted and Corrupt judges are the very essence of God's judgment upon a people and that's that's what we find ourselves in now but the point being Bestiality.

The very same portion of text of the Old Testament. That identifies that as an abomination in God's sight. Well, it doesn't actually use term toy Bob. But as as a sin in God's sight that that Section is the very same section that does the same thing in regards to homosexuality.

So What is the consistent basis that dr. Gush you would offer we're saying that bestiality is wrong if Leviticus and Those both 18 and 20 and there are subtle differences in the context between the two.

Clearly being the background of Paul's utilization of language in first Corinthians arson a quite a so-and-so forth. Together with Romans 1. In light of the Jewish interpretation understanding of these texts in Paul's day you put all this together and If that has become bigotry and contempt and is to be rejected.

What's his basis for saying there's something wrong with bestiality. Same thing as this country said animal abuse. That's not what's wrong about bestiality. That's not what's wrong about it. Sin is defined in regards to man's relationship to God.

Not the idea that you're engaging in animal abuse, Denmark, okay.

So I Just wonder where the consistency would be. The church's anti LGBT or anti sexual minority teaching was comprehensive. The church taught a disdain for LGBT people as a whole and all individuals in the group.

The church taught that LGBT people are morally inferior.

The church sometimes Morally inferior that is that they're engaged in sin take any Category of sin and put it in to dr. Gush's mouth and you will see the absurdity of this presentation. I mean, let's sense since these movements are on let you put in the polyamorists the people going for the throuples the the people going for incestuous relationships and the Decriminalization of incestuous relationships, especially now, how about homosexual incestuous relationships?

Why not? I Mean we don't want to be bigots, right? All bets are off so Put any of those groups in there or make it something else so you can put bestiality in there. You can put murder in there. You can put thievery in there.

You can put gossiping in there. I mean the church is just guilty of Marginalizing Gossips. Oh, I mean just how many times is that condemned in Scripture and we have hurt people. I'm there just people who were just made to to communicate News to other people they just find their joy and happiness in that.

That's how they were made. Dr. Gushy. So you can put any number of things and why would dr. Gushy say no because he is assuming and not proving that Homosexual orientation is a gift from God. Now I would like to think that someone who claims to be a Christian scholar might want to try to provide some kind of positive Scriptural foundation for this he has not he didn't in his book.

He can't because he knows there is none. It's the law of love but even that does not provide any positive foundation. Because dr. Gushy is well aware there is not a single positive word about homosexuality in the corpus of Scripture.

He knows that he knows that.

We all hopefully know that the LGBT people are evil. Certainly it taught and sometimes still teaches that LGBT people are by definition excluded from heaven. Ever had a certain passage quoted at you related to that.

Excluded from heaven. Dr. Gushy according to Christian theology. What excludes you from heaven? I Mean, why are you even using this language? You of all people should know that sin. Every sin quote-unquote excludes from heaven, but even using the term exclusion is a complete capitulation.

To the postmodern secular society heaven is not owed to anyone. Dr. Gushy the only ones who have access to heaven are those that Scripture says are absolutely pure and righteous and just and Hence the only way into the presence of God is by his means and by his grace.

So, can you imagine dr. Gushy why would you say. Would you criticize someone who would tell a murderer an unrepentant murderer who is awaiting execution. Well, we're sorry that we've excluded you from heaven.

What kind of language is that? It's not dr. Gushy Christian language. That's the language of the world you are using. Why? Why sir? What has happened. Well, I think you say what happened. I think you tell us what happened.

And just as Dr. Brownson and so many others. There is a non biblical non theological non historical and should be non morality changing and ethics changing. Personal experience. That changed your views and now you speak as those who oppose the Christian faith.

Why sir. Why the double standard. Why this language excluding from heaven any sin? Excludes from heaven because God is holy. And. If you don't believe that sir, then why was there a cross? Why was there a cross.

That's why eventually, dr. Gushy this. Embracing this has to eventually bring about a denial of the fundamental necessity of atonement. Because not only can you no longer define sin but you certainly can no longer provide a meaningful foundation for the wrath of God against sin and hence the necessity of that great act of.

The self-giving of the Son of God in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The church warned its adherence about associating with LGBT people. The church at various times described particular vices to LGBT people including sexual degeneracy.

The church at times was willing to welcome individual LGBT people into its fellowship, but this welcome was equivocal. LGBT people were often relegated to second-class status which surfaced especially in relation to questions of leadership in the church.

This is so Horribly forcing an attempted parallel that it almost becomes comic book like They were allowed in but but only on certain. Can you mean like repentance? Like like accepting the reality that they have sinned.

Is that what you're talking about again? Any. Quote unquote. Group of sinners you could name could be put into this into the the words of the speaker. What does that tell you?

Amazing and often this half welcome was withdrawn. Parenthesis here. One Jewish reader of this lecture commented to me that in this sense It was easier in most eras of Christianity for Jews To find full and unequivocal welcome in the church than it has ever been for gay and lesbian people to find full and unequivocal welcome.

He said conversion meant that a Jew became a Christian. But conversion doesn't mean that a gay person becomes a straight person. Not that people haven't tried.

Well, I Just I'm sorry, dr. Gershwi. I did not find your comments on 1st Corinthians chapter 6 To be sufficient to Keep me from reminding you of its message here such were some of you. Not such are some of you.

And If you ever And I think you're under moral obligation to do this, I'll be perfectly honest with you We'll expand upon this more toward the end. But if you were to ever Put yourself in the position of actually defending these comments in formal scholarly debate and if I were to have that opportunity one of the questions I would be asking you is Is why in light of your comments the Apostle Paul used the past tense the imperfect rather than the present tense When he said and such were some of you.

Because it seems that your entire position now would require the changing of the tense of that verb. Now my Might my guess would be that you would get around this by saying well, we're not sure what? Utam arson a quite ace.

All right, so quite I Uta Mala Mala Coy, I don't have the text front of me, but off the top of my head You would probably question the meaning of the underlying terms. Though their meaning is actually rather obvious and I would just simply say to you.

Dr. Gershwi Can you can are you really certain in light of Paul's? Deep familiarity with the language of the Greek Septuagint. You would have to be absolutely certain That he could not have had homosexuality in mind when he said arson acquitted You'd have to be able to say there is no way it could be that not.

Well, it might not be that. That's not enough. That's that's insufficient. And so you truly are saying that we are engaging in sin To continue to believe What the Apostle said to the Corinthians, that's how we're hearing you.

I'd be interested in how you would respond to them.

The Charge of Harm and the Politics of Inclusion

While the leaders of the church almost never explicitly taught that its members should perpetrate violence on LGBT people. They were and sometimes still are victimized by outbreaks of violence. Schoolyard bullying was common name-calling was constant social separation was enforced preaching regularly communicated disdain.

Few Christians wanted to be seen as too cozy with LGBT people.

Isn't it interesting that that's exactly what's happening in reverse today? Give $2 ,000 to a a political initiative in 2008 to maintain marriage as the only Rational definition that can possibly be had and you'll be fired dr. Gushy.

You know that in most secular universities even in the United States today. I could never get a job no matter what my qualifications were because I've said the things I've said right and there would be most people in academia would never want to associate with me and I'm called a bigot and a homophobe all the time.

I realize they're utterly irrational and infantile accusations, but that is the nature of The totalitarianism that You recognize in the article you wrote. I think it was just last week, wasn't it? You recognize the dangers of totalitarianism, but.

You've helped grease the skids sir. You've actually helped to speed this along. You're being used in that way. You don't recognize that.

For fear of sharing in their moral taint and losing the support of their own family and friends. The very words used to describe LGBT people functioned as slurs. When LGBT people were excluded or targeted by the state few Christians would stand up for the victims of this targeting.

From the perspective of our sexual minorities Christianity has been both ubiquitous and dangerous. The church's Bible cross Tradition clergy and scholars have brought harm.

Or have been have brought harm. This is the whole thing now. This is a a complete Capitulation to the spirit of our age which is if you identify the behavior indeed the entire worldview orientation of An individual as opposed to God's will if you offend them by so doing You are harming them.

Now they can harm you back all the all they want. I mean if we wanted to play the blame game if we wanted to play the victim game, I Mean, that's that's easy to do. It for some reason only goes one direction, but the spirit of our age is thou shalt not offend.

Thou shalt not say that is wrong. Well, unless it's something Christian and that's okay done them harm. So it's harmful to tell the murderer That he will abide under the wrath of God unless he repents and turns.

Is that harmful to murderers? Is it harmful to thieves? To tell them that they will abide under the wrath of God. How about those that are disobedient to parents, sir? Gossips slanderers backbiters liars.

You of all people, sir. Know all about the vice lists That are found in the New Testament primarily in Paul. You know all about them. I Would like to assume you have done extensive work in The meanings and uses of those terms within the context in which it was written are all vice lists harmful.

How do you? Again, you're assuming That homosexuality is a gift from God and it is not sinful it is not Something that God's Word proscribes. That's your assumption. But you and I both know you have never been able to provide a meaningful argument for that outside of we need to Experience these individuals.

We need to get to know them. We need to listen to their stories and we do so. Well again. Whole bunch of names whole bunch of groups we could plug into that particular formula Which will eviscerate that biblical command and that biblical command and this one and that one till there is no Biblical command left that's where this seems to be leading.

Do you know sir, you know, dr. Gushy word, where do you draw the line to bring harm?

LGBT people millions raised in the church and deeply committed to Jesus have certainly known of the beautiful teachings of Christianity. They've heard the great sayings love your neighbor as yourself do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

As you did it to the least of these you did it to me. But LGBT people very much the least of these in Christendom rarely experienced such love toward themselves. No golden rule. No love. No mercy from the Christians who hurt.

Please notice what please understand what is being said? To preach the gospel and to called repentance and faith is to not show love. Now he may be talking solely about people who Wrap their self-righteous robes around themselves do not recognize their own sin, but He's not making that distinction.

He's saying the church he's drawing. He's he's painting with the broadest brush Possible. It's a fire hose not even a brush. He's not saying there have been Christians Who have been grossly insensitive and self-righteous.

No one would argue that but it also wouldn't advance your your position. There's something else dr. Koshy you talked about Jesus. You said they had heard about the love of Jesus and you're gonna talk a lot about how on Christ like someone like myself is for daring to say that homosexuality for daring to question the validity of the claims of Christian experience of a person who refuses to Repent and believe the entirety of the gospel.

You will say I am un-christian for this and so I want to ask a question if this ever I've already told you one of the questions I would ask you and this is one that I've repeated over and over again.

I have not hidden this in the darkness. I have pointed out that this is what I would ask. This is what I would ask of Anybody Matthew Vines Whoever if I ever had the opportunity because it just doesn't seem like it just doesn't seem like they want to engage These issues and to engage these topics, but in public debate anyways.

But here's the question. Dr. Gush. This is a question I have for you. Do you still continue to believe in the Orthodox doctrine? Of who Jesus Christ was that he was the God man that he was the incarnate Son of God.

Assuming that you do Assuming that you do let us take your own claim that homosexuals represent Five percent of the human population. I think that's inflated, but let's go with it one out of every 20 individuals Born designed by God to express their sexual desire not in the creation of life the forming of a family that will Provide the basis of the next generation or anything's like that instead created by God to desire Their same gender.

Is this a new thing? Is this a is this a situation where? Possibly. There's been some kind of Evolutionary mutation over time. To where there weren't these people back then. But there are now I Would have a hard time thinking that you would make that kind of presentation.

If that's the case, then if one out of every twenty Five percent of the people to whom Jesus ministered were actually Homosexuals. Created by him in that way. Then when he preached to the 5 ,000 just the men.

Just the men. Would that be 250? Yeah 250 male homosexuals not including the women and children. Which would have let's say it. Let's say it doubles it 500 500 Hundred Individuals That Jesus knew because he knew it was in the heart of man.

You can't deny that 500 individuals who from your perspective longed for homosexual marriage Longed for the acceptance of the synagogue Right had been harmed From the days of Moses. In fact, some had been stoned.

Some had been executed driven from their people some had left under cover of darkness because they didn't want to die, but they knew what the penalty law was and so they They left for other lands. They were driven out of the covenant people of God evidently.

This was all harmful from your perspective and in the days of Jesus. They would not have been welcomed in the synagogue. That's a given. I think you you know enough about Jewish history. You've. You're certainly one who's familiar with the Mishnah and Gamara you've you've you've.

You you you've done you've done the study, right? Certainly in the writings of your books. You've done this. So dr. Got you. Here's my question for you. If Jesus knew it was in the hearts of men and he knew that even in that that one instance in John chapter 6 that there were 500 people in front of him Harmed Hurt why was he silent?

Why do you never say a word? In fact, what's more? Why when he did he was given the perfect? Opportunity in Matthew chapter 19, he simply reiterated in fact strengthened repeated the constant contiguous Traditional belief of the Jewish people regarding the unqualified sinfulness of homosexuality and the normative nature of monogamous Heterosexual Marriage covenantal relationship.

Matthew chapter 19 Going all the way back to a creation ordinance foundation. You see dr. Kashi. I hear all I hear people in your movement and you now have joined it. So it's your movement. I hear people in your movement saying all the time that that well people back then just didn't know now this fundamentally denies the concept of the inspiration of Scripture because If we believe that men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit they didn't have to have a modern PhD in in whatever Psychological field you want to apply to.

Didn't the Holy Spirit know about homosexuality. Didn't God know the truth these things. And if Jesus was God in human flesh, didn't he know. I hear it always being said well Paul. You know, he wouldn't have known.

Well, I would dispute that I think dr. Gagnon has done a very good job in demonstrating that he would have known and not just he but others. But leaving Paul aside, let's talk Jesus here. Because if you're still an Orthodox Baptist You believe in the Trinity?

You believe Jesus was the incarnate Son of God. The Bible says he knows what fills the hearts of man hence he would have known he's the creator. He would have known exactly how he made these individuals and he left them alone.

Is that we're telling me see dr. Gush, that's why I have said there. There is no stopping point in the trajectory you are on. It leads eventually to a complete abandonment of the Christian faith. It has to.

Because yours is not a slippery slope Situation you jumped off a cliff and there are no Stopping points from the top of the cliff to the bottom, but I would really like to know how do you deal with this?

How do you deal with Jesus's? Complete from your perspective. Abandonment of that 120th of the human population that he encountered over and over again and never said a word in defense of. I'd like to know.

I think you owe us all. I Think you're under moral obligation having done this having published the book. I would say to you as an ethicist that you have an ethical obligation to respond and To engage the subject not in a monologue, sir.

I'd like to know how you think that works out.

Historical Analogies, Civil Rights, and the Claim of Harm

Proclaim these beautiful words and then withdrew them quickly in the presence of LGBT people. So now I have made a historical analogy. But immediately I again know that analogies have their limits. So let me make a couple of comments about that.

I am NOT claiming that LGBT people have faced genocide. But it is true as you know That it remains physically dangerous to be a sexual minority or gender identity minority in many places. Not just around the world but here.

I Have students from other parts of the world who come to my seminary who tell me of routine violence inflicted against sexual minorities in their home countries and Such I understand such violence has been discussed here as well.

Yes, there has been no genocide, but still we speak of a group of people that even today even in our country sometimes hear people Speaking about them with quotes from scripture suggesting that they should all be executed.

That raises the issue of.

What happened to a preacher in London, dr. Gushy. I'd be interested again In your own understanding of this do you feel that the preacher in London who quoted Leviticus chapter 20 verse 13 I should have been fined.

I think it was around $2 ,000 if I recall correctly By a Muslim judge interestingly enough for having quoted that text now. What basis would you have for addressing that now, of course this raises that other subject That has been so much Front and center over the past number of months amongst conservative reformed folks in regards to theonomy and regards to especially the application not of God's law but of the punishments of God's law and The reality that When we seek to apply God's moral law outside of God's covenant people that this raises all sorts of issues regarding how punishment is to be dealt with that not every sin is a crime or vice versa and The issue of Proper justice and who can Exercise proper justice, especially once you have an unregenerate Government and Representatives thereof.

That's another issue. But the question that I would have for dr. Gushy in light of this statement is Would you likewise say therefore that it is completely inappropriate? To say that the wages of sin is death.

I mean if the specific application is inappropriate is the universal application just as inappropriate and Therefore what should be The Christian proclamation do you still believe that sinners will die under the wrath of God.

I Cannot imagine That most who hold this position Actually believe in some place called hell it would seem to me that minimally inclusivism is pretty much a foregone conclusion here and Maybe a form of universalism Even would fit much better and it does seem to me the gay Christian movement has no possible mechanism for remaining Orthodox in any of its expressions.

And I think time will just simply prove that one out very very clearly. I.

Once was to be the next guest on a Christian radio show and I was waiting, you know. You wait on the phone and I heard a Christian a Christian preacher say well, I just think they should all be executed.

And this was just a you know a few years ago. Unbelievable unthinkable, I. Different way if a Jewish child. When a Jewish child discovered the contempt of the Christian world in which he or she lived He could at least go home and find support with his family, but a gay or lesbian child Transgender child discovering the contempt of the wider Christian world has often faced an even more devastating lack of support at home.

There was no refuge. Not even at home. And here's and this is where you really start. Hopefully.

Understanding. Why this argument Why this presentation? Let me change. Let me change. I withdraw the term argument. It's not an argument arguments require logic. Arguments require the presentation of evidence and Following a chain of reasoning to the appropriate conclusion based upon the laws of logic.

This is a presentation designed purposefully and acknowledged by dr. Gushy To speak primarily To the emotion and to the heart and This is why it is a presentation that is winning the day. People said well the redefinition of marriage is a foregone conclusion.

I would happen to agree. I Think it'll if it's not this Supreme Court decision if they find some weasley way out. We all know it's gonna happen, I mean, I think it's gonna happen this summer. But if they find a way out it's gonna happen within the next few years.

Foregone conclusion doesn't make it moral doesn't make it right. Abortion has been around forever now and we continue to fight that battle as well but the reality is That when he speaks in this fashion about This issue and I'm gonna I'm gonna I mean, I mean when you talk about The emotions in this way and you you you you begin with the assumption These are innocent individuals Who were simply born this way?

There's there's no there's no discussion here of Young people who are rebelling against parental authority young people who are utilizing their awakening hormonal activity as a mechanism for rebelling against parental authorities and that doesn't even come in here and Are there all sorts of parents?

Who are The children of other parents who did not teach them Solid foundations and solid understanding of the relationship of man and woman to fall in world. No parent is ever perfect and many parents many parents.

Bring mockery on the words father and mother as they're defined in Scripture. In fact from a Perfection standpoint we all do. But This presentation is Way overboard in that it doesn't even acknowledge any of those things.

It's simply the innocent morally good God created me this way victims of the nasty Terrible horrible hate-filled bigoted should have known better church. I Mean, there's there's not even an attempt at balance here.

It really isn't. But this is the art. This is the presentation that is winning our day because we now live amongst the people who are not convinced by logical argumentation because they've not been taught how to think they've been taught what to think and It is not it is not a Christian virtue To be controlled by your emotions.

There is a Greek term Sophronismos. Sophronismos look it up. It's discipline soundness of mind sobriety. The biblical exhortation is that we're not to think with our emotions. We are to think in a way that reflects the mind of Christ within us.

We do not suppress our emotions. But we control them in light of the guiding factors given to us by God himself. But you need to understand why do we see The younger generation the Millennials showing themselves willing to be literally led by the nose by emotional Argumentation that should be rejected by any rationally person because they're not rational thinking persons anymore.