Open Q&A

And I'm just going to tell you, you're so smug that you cannot listen to somebody try to talk to you about something without ridicule. It's incorrect. I know it's incorrect, but according to the way you want to absolutely interpret it...

No, no, no. He's saying that he's smug is incorrect.

No, I am smug. You know, I own it.

Praise the Lord. I'm so glad you finally agreed to something.

I'm fine with it. You know, it doesn't bother me.

Opening Banter and Show Introduction

Welcome to Apologetics Live. We're here to answer your questions and challenges about God and the Bible. Meet your hosts from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rappaport, Dr. Anthony Silvestro, and Pastor Justin Pierce.

We are live, Apologetics. Live, here to answer your challenging questions. Anything you have about God and the Bible, bring your challenges here. We can answer them. So that is what we're here for. Let me bring in my co-host for tonight, Pastor Justin Pierce.

How are you, sir?

I'm just not smug. That's what I care about.

Just not smug. So we got some comments here going. Leslie wants to know, what is the topic tonight? Well, Leslie, your questions. That's the topic. An open Q &A, so we want to encourage everybody to come on in.

Go to ApologeticsLive .com. From there, you can scroll down and get the, you'll see the little duck icon. It's the StreamYard icon. Click on that. Make sure you allow the browser to use your microphone and video camera, if you have a video camera.

Come on in, ask any questions you have about God and the Bible, and we are here to answer them tonight. That is what tonight's topic is going to be. Adam here is saying, hey, Andrew, I pray you're doing well.

I am doing a lot better. Basically, we went out evangelizing. Before we get to our open Q &A, we'll just deal with some things first. I do have a couple topics, short topics we'll cover. I was out at the Repentant Witness Evangelism Boot Camp.

Great time. We're at Ocean City, Maryland. I know some people were saying they listened to my recent Rap Report podcast. KT says, I listened to part of the recent Rap Report. Wish Andrew and his family were in our area.

I do too, KT. It'd be nice.

You know what our area is, right? Yeah, by you. You could move right down near us, and we'd have a good time.

Yeah, we would. Yes, we would. And we'll figure out where we're going to go. But I have a feeling that we probably won't stay where we are. We'll probably move close to the grandchildren when they're here.

But I was at the Repentant Witness, and just a great time of evangelism. I will say this, some of the more fun things. I mean, let's start off with the best part. Andre Goff was sharing the gospel with a couple of young guys.

Young, they were probably high school college age, probably more college age. And the girl just was, I mean, when I saw they were talking for a while and just crying, and found out later those are tears of repentance.

She actually said that she was in sin. She had premarital sex, and she wanted to know if she could be a virgin again. So, yeah, it was good. It was kind of funny because I was talking to one of the ladies, Rebecca, and Andre just goes, Rebecca, come here.

She comes over and goes, this girl needs a hug. The girl wanted to hug Andre because she was so happy about the repentance. And Andre is just like, I'll bring a lady over. So that was the best part. One of the more funny things was I got a guy, I asked the question, is abortion a woman's right?

And so sure enough, some guy shouted, yes. And I said, okay, sir, I got a question for you. Can a man be pregnant? And he said, yes. And I said, well, then how can it be a woman's issue? Like a woman's right.

And he realized that he just, what he just agreed to, and he just turned and walked off, unfortunately. So I didn't get to continue that conversation. But I was having a conversation with Alex. And Alex was someone who, he basically was saying that, you know, it's this, you know, law of attraction type of thing.

He believes that he basically had been a drug addict and almost took his life a few months ago. And just in a really dark place, he's just 29 years old. And he had just said the reason law of attraction is true is because it turned his life around.

And I said, well, you know, I would do jiu-jitsu, and I'd have guys come in and say, jiu-jitsu saved my life. And what it is is they got into the gym, and they started training and training and training, and jiu-jitsu takes a lot of time.

You know, he would be there with me five, six days a week. So you're there all the time. It gives you structure. And that's what he needed as a drug addict to get out of that. Well, the same thing for this guy.

But he was saying that he decided he'd live in his home, in his car. He walked out on his wife, which I don't think was good. But, you know, he, you know, ended up saying that he's best spot ever because he had, you know, he was living in his car, and his car got, you know, towed away.

And now he says, you know, he can say that it's true because, you know, he is feeling that he's feeling okay having nowhere to live and all this. And it's like, okay, well, I mean, that's not proof. So we're going through giving the scriptures.

And I will say, and I did post about this, a lady walked up while Alex and I are talking, and just she heard my voice, came around in front of me, and just stopped and stared at us. And I figure I'm not local.

She must be staring at him like she knows him. And she's just staring. She goes, I can't believe it's you. And she follows us online. She saw me on YouTube. And she said, she's like, I just can't believe, like she referred to me as a man of God.

She just goes, a man of God who you're actually doing what you say you do online. Like as if I'm different in person. Like she just was surprised to see me out evangelizing and doing what, you know, I love to do.

So, you know, it was a great time of evangelism. We had a lot of, you know, a lot of good conversations. So that was really good. I see, and maybe you could just flag some of the questions that are coming in here since we got a bunch.

For those who are using Facebook, I encourage you to go to projectslive .com. There is instructions on how to allow Facebook to allow you, StreamYard, to access your Facebook so that we can see your names.

Yeah. Yeah, that becomes helpful. So let's deal with some housekeeping here. We got a review. We got a review here. I've read this review. We got a review. We got a review. A one star review. Thank you.

Thank you. That was excellent.

Yes. At least it wasn't zero. I mean, it could have been, I guess you can't do it.

You can't do that. But, and I always love how people don't use their real name. It is from A-S-C-I-G-U-Y. So I don't know what that'd be. A-C-I-G-U-Y? But whatever. Here comes Anthony coming in.

So welcome, Anthony. He won't be with us long because he's got a date tonight. But I already read for you this review, Anthony. What review? The dates with his wife, by the way, folks.

Well, no, no. Well, I mean, yeah, we always do that. But we had a couple of guests coming over we haven't seen in a while. Actually, it's been a previous guest on the show, Alan Beach. Okay.

Is your wife shaving your son's head back in the background? Because it sounds like there's a buzzing going on. He's got the wrong microphone.

He's using his earbuds or something.

Oh, is that what it is? Because it sounds like there's a bee flying around or something. It sounds like so.

He knows which microphone to use. He's just not using it.

Well, did you guys hear that in the background? Yeah. We hear something. We hear something.

The music. No, it's the music. It sounds like a bunch of bees. Yeah.

We're just going to mute him until he gets a better mic.

And when he gets a better mic, we can come on.

Let me read this review while Anthony swings his microphone that I'm sure he has. He's just got to get set up right. And then he'll unmute himself. Okay. So the title is Religion is. Okay. The rest of it is.

So I guess we should read this as one full thing. Religion is neither reasonable. Who wrote it? Oh, A-S-C-I-G-U-I. So Assy guy. Okay. Yeah. So he says a religion is neither reasonable nor rational.

You can twist your doctrine around any way you want, but it won't convince a truly rational and reasonable person. Magic is not real, no matter how much faith you put in it. Science gets some. Okay. So let's engage with this really quick.

So Assy guy, not that you actually watch the show. I'm sure you just saw the word apologetics and probably commented. But where do you get your ability to reason? You say you're reasonable and rational, but reason and rationality are immaterial things.

They cannot be products of chemical reactions. Therefore, you need an immaterial source for them. And oh, by the way, if you're expecting, as it seems you are, for them to be absolute and universal, you need an absolute, universal, and immaterial source.

That source is God. So if you want to deny God, you're using your God-given ability to reason to reason that God does not exist. Thus God says, the fool says in his heart, there is no God.

Now, you know, Andrew, if I recall, there is a training course that you and I just did. Very recently, where we taught this in detail so that everybody who was there actually learned this really well.

Where were we just at? Well, we were talking about that, Repentant Witness, where you and I did the training and we talked through these things. And people saw the pictures because here Marcy is saying, oh yeah, I got a question for Anthony.

Can you please tell us about the purple bear?

I would love to. This is, it's hilarious. Now, I was considered mean because I was preaching against Roman Catholicism, against Islam, against every false religion. But we seem to get most of the irate people every time I said something against Roman Catholicism or Islam.

Similar to you got a lot of irate people, Andrew, every time you spoke against abortion or asking people what is a woman and nobody wanted to answer it for you. So we had a really interesting time on the boardwalk.

And so there was a guy who just thought I was being really, really mean. And so he thought to cheer me up, he would give me one of his two stuffed animals. He just walks over and he goes like this. And he puts it down in front of the stool and then he just walks off and that was it.

Yeah, it was great.

And then I gave it away. You were talking to a couple, four young ladies, and then a couple guys came over. But you were talking to them and two of the girls left. But the one girl that was asking the questions, and she got the IQ test, everything right.

And you said, I wish I had something to give to you. And I just reached down and grabbed this purple bear and gave it to her, which was great.

You know what, it was a good person to give it to, so that's fine. Yeah, it was.

You know, it's interesting because this review, they also say magic is not real. That's really strange because they believe in a magical bang. There was nothing. And then magically it went boom and created everything.

That's magic. Something coming from nothing is magic. I've got a question on that.

Define reality. What is reality? I mean, in a presuppositional worldview where we have God as the standard. And we can say that reality is what conforms with what God says is reality. It's the nature of God.

It's the nature of God, exactly. But within the context of an atheistic and evolutionary worldview, how do you define reality? You're talking about absolutes. You've heard the old saying, a duck sleeps faster than Wednesday.

And you go, okay, well, what does that mean? I've never heard that before. Oh, come on. You guys have heard that. I mean, everybody knows that saying. I mean, it's universal. It's truth, right? You know, a duck sleeps faster than Wednesday.

I mean, everybody knows that, right? I mean, but what I'm getting at, by the way, is the fact that I don't have to be logical in my language and speech if there is no reason for logic and reason. Yep.

So I can say a duck sleeps faster than Wednesday, or I can say anything I want to say along those lines, and it means what I say it means. Yeah. And you can't question it.

Well, that's the world that we're in. I mean, like he's saying here, science gets some. Anthony, if I'm not mistaken, you have a bachelor's in science, correct?

Actually, I have a bachelor's in both chemistry and mathematics. Yeah. Well, I was good.

You have a bachelor's, right? I do. Okay. Do you? I mean, I could be mistaken, but do you have, like, even a doctorate in science?

Well, I mean, depends who you talk to.

But you all got to think about science. All of that stuff, he doesn't do science with any of that. He's never even opened a science book up. I mean, look at him.

You can tell. So I do have a doctorate degree, and in that degree is heavy chemistry, biology, biochemistry, medical science. I mean, the list goes on.

Yeah. I mean, I have a bachelor's in science as well, but I guess we don't know science. No, let me see the science. Wait. Matt Slick says, Blue sleeps faster than Wednesday. Okay.

So there you go. See, look, we're all in the same language here. We can say whatever we want to say, right? It doesn't matter.

All right. So let's use some science. The creation of the universe. How did the universe come about? Well, if we were to look at this, we could say that the universe always existed, except that goes against a law of science, the law of thermodynamics, which says that mass and energy had a beginning, so it couldn't have always existed.

So I'm using science for that.

Another thing that Ken Ham says on that. Go ahead.

Let me finish it, and then we'll... So let's go to the second possibility, that maybe, just maybe, the universe created itself. Well, that would go against a different area of science of philosophy, because it would be a logical fallacy, because something can't exist that doesn't exist yet.

That's a logical fallacy. So the only thing you're left with is someone or something created the universe. Well, to AC Guy, or however you pronounce that, I just use science to prove God exists. Right?

I mean, we are looking at science, so not that God exists, but that there's no other explanation for the universe other than God.

One thing that Ken... I believe it's Ken Ham, but it could be Jason Lyle, and I think I've heard both of them, so it could be both. I'm just trying to attribute it to the right spot. If the universe is eternal, then we could never have gotten to this point.

Okay? And what I mean by that is, if you have a universe that never had a beginning and never started, then you can never have a universe that gets to a point where you're at. Okay? Because it's timeless.

There is no amount of time for you to be able to reach that pinnacle, that level, to where we're at today. Okay? Because there is no possibility of reaching that point where we're at today. Yeah.

And another way that you can state that, kind of combining what you just said, Justin, and Andrew, about Second Law Theory Dynamics, is that it's well established in the laws that energy, mass nor energy, can neither be produced nor destroyed.

Right? Exactly. So, for a universe to come into existence out of nothing goes against our laws. But then the other issue is that you have energy, as time goes on, energy is running down. Usable energy is running down into non-usable energy.

So, if we extrapolate and go backwards, there has to be a finite starting point when we go backwards. As backwards in time, it's going to be more usable energy and less non-usable energy. So, you can't have a universe that has existed forever.

There has to have been a starting point and, therefore, that starting point has to be the one who started it to begin with. So, there are so many ways to be able to approach this issue. But, of course, I do have to say that when people question the science and they're having issues with what they would say basic, right?

I mean, I think, Andrew, you just posted earlier that somebody wrote out I think Drew Vanitas said somehow non-life was able to produce life. This is called the law of non-ibogenesis. You cannot get life from non-life.

This is well-known in biology circles. And then they have a little asterisk behind it. Even though this is a fundamental law, there's an asterisk behind it that says except in the beginning when life came from non-life.

It is the most wicked of things.

It's even more than that, Anthony, because not only do you have to have life from non-life, but you also have to get at some point the evolution of male and female at the same time in the same place.

And they have to know what to do with those body parts. And they have to be the full body parts. Otherwise, they don't reproduce, right? So once you go from an organism that is non-gender to a male-female by the way, in all of nature, we only see male and female.

We don't see

And genetic mutations, right? And genetic disorders.

And another thing is you have to have an intellectual evolutionary big bang. There has to be at some point in time when the rocks and the matter gains sentient intellectual ability. In other words, you have to have a point in time where this animal life that banged and came into existence.

It can't just be a blob. It has to have intellect. And that is another point where you have to go, where can that come from?

Yeah. So you have to have knowledge and information, which are immaterial. You have to have the ability to reason, which is immaterial. I mean, all this stuff is immaterial that cannot come from a materialistic worldview.

I would say you guys are hitting all the major points here.

Let's bring in we've got someone here and looking at his how do I get his name to show up?

Well, while you guys are doing that, I want to answer one other question here on the side, and then I do have to get There we go. I do have to get running here. I got his name up there. Hold on.

Put that away for a sec. Put the comment away there for a second. We've got the cleverest guy in the room just showed up.

I did not originally write that. I did not originally write that.

He said his original name was nothing clever to say, so I quickly edited it and put him in. I didn't know you could do that.

Well, there you go. I'm glad you used long English to do it.

John always comes in with really cool names. I just figured, all right, I'll put John backstage. All right. What was the question you wanted to deal with?

I think there's two I want to deal with here. The first one is if you could only share three verses with a nonbeliever, what would you share? I want four verses. Let me use four. 1 Corinthians 15, verses 3 and 4, that for Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures.

He was buried. He was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures. That's half of verse 3 and verse 4. The other one I'd like to give, which separates Christianity from every other religion, is Ephesians 2, verses 8 and 9.

Those would be my four verses. Andrew, you heard me like a broken record as people were walking by on the boardwalk. Those are the ones that I kept getting back to every minute or so as people were walking by.

Romans 1, Romans 1, Romans 1.

I didn't read Romans 1 a single time that entire weekend. I purposely did that so I didn't have to hear it from you. That's why I did Psalm 51. I thought you were going to say Genesis. I did Genesis for part of it.

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Psalm 139. I pulled everything but Romans 1 out on this weekend. Yeah, there you go. So I'll throw one out there and then I do have to go. I just ask evolutionists, where are the middle monkeys?

Because if what they say is true, then evolution is still continuing and evolving. Yet we see no humans evolving past humanity. Now, of course, they may come back to you, Drew, and say that, well, you know what?

There's not been enough time that has passed for us to recognize evolution. Which is why they don't have any evidence for macroevolution or doing evolution. The only thing they can ever throw at us would be what we would call microevolution or what's better termed as adaptation.

That's a big problem. Let me give you something that's a little bit better. And this is in my book. I think you read it, Drew. And I'll give this to you, too. Or give this to everybody here. I teach this in all the courses I teach on creation.

There is somewhere around 450 million genetic base pair differences between a chimpanzee and a human. Chimpanzee is supposed to be our closest relative. That would mean that we share about 85 of genetic material with them.

It's not the 99 that's quoted in textbooks. It's really about 85%. 450 million base pairs of difference. Which, let's just look at straight-up math. Yes, like post-mortem. There's not enough time.

That's good. There will never be enough time for that. Yeah. Yeah. And honestly, omils make up time just like evolutionists do. So we just end up back to our real difficult position. Having said all that, I'm going to just get as many pot shots in as I can before I go.

You're going to let us deal with the consequences, huh? That's right.

So, okay. Mathematically speaking, 450 million base pair differences. If evolution is a point-to-point-to-point-to-point change. And let's assume that every in this evolutionary trail from a chimpanzee to human, that it's perfect evolution, right?

It's perfectly you get a mutation, then a mutation, then a mutation, all leading up to the human being. That means you have to have a minimum of 450 million transitions between a chimpanzee and a human.

So if I find one human and one chimpanzee in a fossil record, guess how many, on average, transitional fossils should I find? 450 million. And that's only if you had one generation, next generation, next generation, next generation, right on up to go from the human chimpanzee to human.

The reality is, is once you go to 10 humans, 100 humans, 1 ,000 humans in a fossil record and 1 ,000 chimpanzees, you now get into numbers that are in the trillions of the amount of fossils we should find of just the precursors of human beings from chimpanzees to humans.

Which means that we should be tripping over everywhere we walk on this earth, we should be tripping over these transitions, let alone all the transitions for every other kind that we see out there today.

And guess what? We're not doing that. They're missing.

Yeah, we should be seeing millions of them in between every single transition, not just the beginning and the end.

And not just the fact that we're talking about this. You think about within the context of, you know, man today, what we see the evolved man today from their logic. We should see, you know, trillions of times more of humanity here on earth.

I mean, we wouldn't have enough room on earth for the population that we have. There was no way.

Yeah, that's right. So, again, gentlemen, I would love to stand a little bit longer, but you guys have a good night. I might pop in towards the end if I can. We got a lot of questions. Oh, yeah. I've seen all kinds popping up here, so it's going to be good.

Let me deal with some things. Anthony had done a show some time ago. Anthony, I already gave you these answers, but so if you need to go. Yeah, I'll stand for a minute. You know, as you guys know, when I was out, Anthony and Justin were filling in and not all those got into podcasts.

I've been dropping them on the podcast feed. So folks have been seeing that. So a couple of things, questions that came up when Anthony was leading one, so I wanted to deal with. There was a question about the Lord's Supper being dipped into wine.

And I forget the name of this, but someone asked about that. And they, I guess, had seen that. And the issue here for the Lord's Supper is, remember, the Lord's Supper was a Passover Seder. So there is no point in the Passover Seder where we are dipping the bread, which really is a unleavened bread, a matzah would be today, into wine.

In fact, the taking of the bread, which would have been, there's several different, there's three different times that you break bread. It probably was the second or third breaking of the bread that was, and I would lean toward the third, that was used for that.

And then you have four cups of wine when you have the sipping of the cups. And it would have been the third or fourth one there. And there's a lot of things that go on in between them. So it wasn't done back to back the way we do it in church.

And I definitely don't think that there's any argument that you can make for the dipping. I don't know where that tradition came from, but it didn't come from the Seder. Therefore, it didn't come from what Christ did that night.

You know what I think it came from? It came from the Baptist lunches. Because if you're trying to get out right at noon to beat the Presbyterians to Bob Evans, you just dip it in real quick and you save yourself a minute and then boom, you're gone.

And you beat everybody. I am full of answers tonight, by the way. I'm sorry I can't be here longer.

We do have a couple of questions. Well, before you get to them, let me wrap this up. So the other one was a question of can someone get divorced for abuse? And where you guys were answering on the issue of divorce, the issue is there's a couple of things that we have in the issue of divorce.

First century women did not have a way of making money typically outside of marriage. So their husbands would be the ones to provide financially for them. So you end up having right off the bat that there's a cultural difference.

Can you get divorced for abuse? Well, in our culture, there are means of providing for the wife if in a divorce situation. So if she's being abused, I would say, yes, she could separate. She might even be able to get divorced.

But here's the thing. She cannot get remarried. Unless it's a biblical divorce. So if it's just that he's beating her, yes, for your safety, get out of there.

So and this is where you and I might disagree on this. I mean, I would fully agree on a separation, you know, and yes, get out of the house from the abuse. And hopefully the church helps with all that.

What I don't believe scripture pushes, though, is I don't believe scripture gives the ability to actually get divorced. You know, and I have I come to this position based on my study on First Corinthians seven that I had to preach versus one through about 16.

And like even in even in this passage, 10 through 16, it talks about the unbelieving husband, the believing wife, not divorcing her unbelieving husband, nor the unbelieving husband divorce. I believe the husband divorce the unbelieving wife.

Why? Because they're made holy because of you and the children are made holy because of you. And it's in the only so in this in this passage, the only consent for divorce, biblical grounds for divorce would be if you have an unbelieving spouse, your believer have an unbelieving spouse and the unbelieving spouse wants to leave.

You are to allow them to go in peace and divorce you. So I see that clearly in scripture. I see in scripture clearly with adultery, although I think we would even say that it's not just this. Hey, oh, they committed adultery against me.

Boom, I'm out. It's more of I am. I'm doing my best to reconcile and give forgiveness. I want them to repent. And and if they don't, if they continue to repent and sin, then I have grounds for divorce.

So I see what you're saying, Andrew, in regards to the remarriage aspect of it, because you can't stop somebody necessarily from getting a divorce if it's unbiblical. I'm just I just I would for me, I would hesitate in saying that it's you're OK to divorce on these other grounds.

I think I think scripture is really clear on only two. It's either it's either unrepentant adultery or it's in the case of an unbelieving spouse with a believing spouse.

Now, or or death. But the culture back then had means of providing for a woman that we that we don't have today. And the means that we have today would be in a court where there's alimony. And so that becomes the issue.

But, you know, I would say that, yeah, you may need to separate and you may need to get divorced to be able to have provision.

But you can't remarry. Yeah. And of course, we would hope the church would do that. Right. I mean, I know of issues where where when a spouse has to separate that the the church treats her as a functional widow.

Yep. Right. And so so so they would use that as an application to help this spouse out until she can get on her feet. If she does have to get divorced, whatever, you know, so. All right.

Yeah. One thing, too, that you have to look at in that discussion is and we've talked about this. So go ahead and bring that up. When the spouse leaves you and abandons you, you know, you read Corinthians and tells us that, you know, First Corinthians seven tells us, you know, that as that spouse has left you and abandoned you because of your testimony for Christ.

We're talking about new or semi new believers say, oh, the wife, she's come into the home and says, you know, I put my faith in Christ and the the pagan, the atheist, agnostic or whatever else says, you know, how dare you beats the snot out of her?

And he says, I'm out and leaves. That person has divorced the spouse. They've left the spouse. Another thing you look at, too, is in a lot of these cases when you're talking about the abuse issue, they are they they have abandoned their their role.

They've abandoned their responsibilities before God. But they're also showing that they're not Christian. I mean, nobody's going to argue and say that, oh, no, Christian Christians can beat their wives bloody.

They're not going to argue that we're going to say, no, if you're abusing your wife, they don't don't even call yourself a believer. You know, so we're not going to go there. So so here's the thing is, when you have that abuse going on, they are they are abandoning their role as the believing spouse.

And they're putting you in a position where you have to leave that situation. They are divorcing you. They are leaving you in that situation.

So so so we challenge you a little bit on this, Justin, because the the verses in First Corinthians 7, 10 through 16 specifically say an unbelieving spouse with a believing spouse. Right. An unbelieving spouse leaving.

Now, in your situation, you're making a claim that if somebody bloodies their their spouse, that they would be an unbeliever. Now, one, I would say maybe you're right, but it could be just a really, really bad day to which they need to repent and have a long time separated.

You know, it could be an unrepentant. It could be a sin at that moment of time that they have to repent from and time has to go on. So I don't know that I would immediately call them an unbeliever. But let me tell you where my hesitation would be overall with with what you said is this.

I have heard the argument that I think is downright wrong when somebody said we obviously would agree here. Adultery, unrepentant adultery is grounds for divorce. And I get that. What I don't believe the spirit of the law says is that if somebody is in is lusting after somebody.

Right. So let's say one of the spouses is in lustful situations. I don't believe that that's grounds for divorce whatsoever, even though that's called an adultery.

What's that? Yeah, but that's not many times. And if you're like, oh, my husband's looking at pornography, I can get divorced and remarry someone.

That's someone looking for an excuse. Yeah. And I've heard the separation argument being used in that exact same manner where people like, well, I'm abandoned so I can I can get divorced.

And I mean, you're talking about two different issues. You're talking about a lustful heart and sexual lust versus physical violence that has brought that person to a point of, you know, of severe pain.

I'm going to push back. I'm going to say I don't see that there is any way possible to claim, oh, I'm a Christian while beating your wife. I've never seen I mean, I've been in these situations a lot. And as a police officer, I've dealt with these situations a lot.