Speaker 1: Oh, you've seen the dynamic. I'm sure that there is
this virtuous redistricting from time to time, this tactical use
of redistricting areas to make sure that voters are well represented,
that there's equality or maybe even equity, and it's a
peaceful exercise. It's taken through thoughtfully, with great sobriety, nonpartisan,
no political talked about this political random story. This was
their headline. Democrats try to separate their tactical use of
districting from that of Republicans tactical use. And right there
on the covers picture of JB. Pritzker. He's the dictator
of Illinois. He was the dictator of Illinois during one
of the most well tactical or maybe strategic or maybe
complete redistricting a registrict of any state in the country.
But the political also had a different view, and this
was when Republicans were doing this. Ready for this. This
is from March third or March fourteenth, twenty twenty three,
to the other one from just this year. Here we go.
Republicans are ready to plow ahead with ambitious jerry mannering
despite previous reprimands from state courts. Now that they've elected
judges who are less likely to thwart their plantlet what's
that like to work in an organization like that? That
mask rades is a news organization. What's it like to
know that you switch out the players and the terminology
based upon who's doing what. What's it like to publish
that and know that people like me are going to
grab that and point to that and have all sorts
of fun talking about that. What's it like to take
an organization like a Politico and rub its face so
far in its own filth that it can't look up
and see anything but its own filth? Do you know
what the Politico does? One of the things that business
model entails. They have these get togethers. Well, they have
in super important people like JB. Pritzker and Hillary Rodham
Clinton come in and speak, and they go up on
a stage and they get interviewed by one of the
really robust journalists with the Politico, and they ask tough questions.
And you can pay fifteen hundred to three thousand, maybe
five thousand bucks to attend. Why well, because you get
to see it at a table with other very important
people and maybe even get an opportunity to meet some
of these incredibly important people like JB. Pritzker. So the
political pockets that money. And guess what, they're not lobbyists.
They're not setting up a meeting between you and a politician.
They would never do that because they're journalists, as evidenced
by how they cover redistricting. In twenty twenty two, JB.
Pritzker pass one of the most partisan gerrymandered maps in history.
Speaker 2: The controversy has shined a spotlight on Illinois's congressional map.
As a candidate, Governor Pritzker vow to veto redistricting drawn
by legislators or their staffs, but he went on to
approve a map that gave his party a fourteen to
three advantage in the congressional delegation.
Speaker 3: The fact that Governor Prisker is inserting himself in what's
going on in Texas is the height of hypocrisy. He
broke his promise to Illinois voters not once but twice
in signing the most jerrymandered map in the nation.
Speaker 1: When he did this, of course, it was the virtuous
type and Republicans need to catch on to this. There's
virtuous racism. The Democrats are the authors of virtuous racism.
If you're using racism to keep disgusting, stinking whites out
of going to Harvard or dis stinking Asian men from
going to Harvard, Well that's virtuous racism. However, if you're
suggesting that black people should be held to the same
laws and requirements of other people, well then that's the
disgusting form of racism. In the separate countries like Seattle,
they've taken this approach of doing away with any and
all ap advanced placement classes. They've done this because not
enough Black kids were getting into the vast placement horses.
That is virtuous racism because you're saying black kids can't
be expected to go raise their own standards. We can't
have help with the families, we can't recognize that there's
a family structure problem. We can't look at this data
and say, my goodness, what can we do to help
black people. Nope, just make the problem go away. That's
virtuous racism. And virtuous redistricting is where you have this
very very tactical idea. Are you just going to balance
the seats out? Joe Biden issued an executive order. It
was Executive of one three nine eighty six on day
one of his presidency. And this was a very virtuous act.
It was to take illegal immigrants and to count them
in the census. So here's the way to look at this.
That might be helpful if you were to take all
the people who snuck into it's say, an event, and
count them as having paid to get into the event.
How would that work. Let's say it's the super Bowl.
Let's say you sell one hundred thousand seats to the
super Bowl, and you're reporting back to your folks that
this is how many seats were filled. And they're looking
at this and saying, okay, so the seat's average costs
for three hundred bucks, we should be looking at thirty
million in revenue. Here, what do we have about ten
thousand bucks?
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 1: Yeah, a bunch of people's not in what you counted them? Well,
sure you, I mean they're at the game. Well but
they didn't pay to get in, right, But they were there,
So it was a huge success. Take this to concert tours.
You think the Rolling Stones would be very, very happy
if their management came along and told them, hey, Mick
Keith and the rest of the guys who are down
in the bed, who's still in the band as original
it's Mick, it's Keith. Is ron Woods still in there?
I think ron Wood still in there. Then there's like
two of the guys. Charlie Wats died, God rest him,
and then Bill Wyman doesn't tour anymore. So if they
went back to the three original members and said, guys, congratulations,
we sold up Madison Square Garden. Here's your fifty thousand dollars,
Mick would sue that Mick has a He pursued a
degree in an NBA. Did you know that that was
just what he was studying to be as a master's
in business. Well, no, a bunch of people's not in
Joe Biden passed a redistricting order. And I'm not a
redistrict order, but who passed this order, this executive order
to count illegals in the census. What I love about
this is I'm about to play a clip and it's
not from someone in the conservative media space. It's not
from someone on the Blaze, just somebody you've heard of.
It's a count with a handheld mic making a commentary
that has now become common sense understanding in the United
States of America.
Speaker 4: At four am this morning, Donald Trump posted on truth
Social his posts said that they are currently working on
redoing the United States census and under new rules, illegal
immigrants will not be counted in that census. This means
that Democrats could potentially lose up to thirty seats. So
when the Democrats rushed all these illegal immigrants to their
sanctuary cities, they increase the number of people that live there,
increasing their number of seats. But if all the illegal
immigrants were removed, then the number of people that live
there would massively decrease, decreasing their number of seats. Donald
Trump were to eliminate all illegal immigrants from the census,
jerrymandering wouldn't be needed for Democrats to lose those seats.
But based on the data, the Democrats have actually gained
about thirty seats for packing illegal immigrants into their Democrat
districts and then doing a census right after.
Speaker 1: That wasn't tactical, that was strategic. It was a virtual
population bomb, and the job was, of course to destroy
the electroc college count. There was no article in the
political about that was that jerrymandering. Yes, it was germanding
the entire country. It was gerymanding the entire counts in Congress.
So the selected treatment of this, the virtuous visc acts
of Joe Biden. It was virtuous after all illegal immigrants
or the country. After all, they live here, after all,
they affect government services, they should be counted. When President
Trump comes along with a countervailing point of view, well,
they're not supposed to be here. They're not using resources,
they're illegally using resources they're not supposed to have. They
shouldn't be counted in the census because they're not even
supposed to be here. You can go back and make
the same comparisons to things like the Rolling Stones concerts
or the NFL football game, the super Bowl. It doesn't
work one way, Why does it work the other? Because
we're playing the game of virtue versus plowing ahead. There's
things you'll discover through time, and you'll discover that there's
a lot of things that are treated as virtuous which
are very very scandalous. For instance, they will treat as
virtuous in this country that they pretend to use the
same form of stem cells that I've had in my
body three times, once in my back, and praise God
for that. I can't believe how effective this has been.
I'm in month sixth and I can go out and
deadlift now on pretty high reps weights that were causing
my back to click and hurt. And I maxed out
for the first time in probably two years, and the
weight I lifted was something I've been struggling to lift.
I'm going to get back up to four hundred and
four hundred and fifty pounds in my sixties, and I'm
doing that as well as doing CrossFit. I couldn't have
done that without the stem cells from Renew. Me talk
about these, and you've heard me talk about how it's
different than what happens in America. They are higher quality
because they know the people they take them from. They
count and track the health of the women and the
babies during pregnancy and after, and they take these things
straight from the hospital that is the umbilical cords right
down into their lab. I'm putting on a free live
webinar with these guys September eleventh. It's eleventh Pacific and
you can join. It's join stem cell talks dot com.
Go there and sign up. You'll be entered to win
a free week stay at Hotel Meo in Porto Vararta.
It's actually probably the new Webenevarta right near Porto Varta
beautiful hotel I've stayed at twice. When you attend the webinar,
you also get to ask questions in advance so you
can talk about your case. Some of the doctors are
going to be there, some of the patients are going
to be there, and I'm going to be there. Go
to join stem cell talks dot com and go learn
what you don't know about what the medical system in
America is pretending to be the same thing is what
goes on in Mexico. It's join stem cell talks dot com.
Gavin Newsom, he wants to play this game and his
whole role in life right now is Gavin Newsom is
begging to be attacked by President Trump, and sometimes President
Trump plays along. Gavin Newsom came out with this statement.
It was very trumpy and written. He's going to his
big announcement, It's going to end Trump's political career, et cetera.
He's trying to play the true social game. He's begging
Donald Trump to pay attention to him because Gavin Newsom
intends to run for president this time for real. He
is having a very difficult time though in being anything
other than a clown show that everybody can observe as
a clown show Illinois.
Speaker 5: Then as we'll start voting in Illinois.
Speaker 6: Well, let me ask you this this final question, sir,
as a bigger picture item, which is what's unusual about
this is that you're attempting to do it in twenty
twenty five, as opposed to waiting un till the end
of the decade, as normally is when the redistricting takes place.
You've explained the Supreme Court decision that led you to
do this. But what's going on, obviously is not happening
in Texas, is not happening in a vacuum. We have
Democrats in California and New York and other states saying, well,
if Governor Abbott does this in Texas, we're going to
add five Democratic seats. Are you not worried at all
about a redistricting jerry mandering arms race going on? And theoretically,
is it not just better for voters to be picking
their politicians instead of politicians to be picking their voters
through jerrymandering.
Speaker 5: Well, to be clear, listen, all those big blue states
they've already jerry mandered. Look at the map of Illinois.
Look at the map of California, New York and Massachusetts
and so many other Blue states they jerrymandered a long
time ago. They got nothing left with regard to what
they can do. And know this, if California tries to
jerry mander five more districts, listen to. Texas has the
ability to eliminate ten Democrats in our state. We can
play that game more than they can because they have
fewer Republican districts in their states.
Speaker 6: Texas Governor Greg Abbott, don't be a stranger. Thanks for
popping by. Really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Ideally, the district you work like this. Ideally it would
work along geographic bearriers, natural geographic bearers. Here's a river,
here's a roads, here's an area, here's an income strata,
here's some natural bearers. Ideally, ideally we'd be balanced out
that way. You'd take the population and you divide it
by the number of seats, and then you would fill
it out so that you had this equal representation. Ideally
that would happen. We are a fallen people in a
fallen worlds, and the sin issues of covening and theft
and lording power over others exists, which takes us right
back to the politico. They have been given the opportunity
to use words. God invented free speech, he has also
invented accountability for it. I put the weight more on
the politico and the mockingbird media than the politicians, because
of course, politicians are going to seek to serve themselves unless,
of course, they repent and truly followed Jesus. Pete heg says,
horrific common sense. Pete Hegseth has committed one of the
biggest crimes you could do as a conservative, endo, Republican
or megatype, and that is that he has committed some
acts of absolutely cold, horrific common sense. He's been talking
about the cartels, and there was this controversy invented by
the media that President Trump intended to take our military
into areas in Mexico to go at the cartels. Now,
why would he think of such a thing? How insane
would that be? That we've invade another country. Well, let's pause,
and let's think about the fact that cartel members in
northern Mexico have crossed the American border. They've done this
and they've attacked American border patrol agents, custom and border patrol.
They cross over into our country from time to time
on a pretty regular basis before President Trump started enforcing
a border, and they would bring people into our country.
They've in fact been caught inland. They're setting up shop
in cities like Los Angeles, in San Francisco and California.
Not just setting it up, it exists. They have supply
chains running supplies of drugs and human beings into those cities.
Sell the drugs, traffic the humans. That's an act of
an invasion. And the president of Mexico said that she's
willing to work with the United States on this, but
she's not going to accept American troops in her country.
Very well, it's a separate country. She can make that decision,
and we can make the decision to declare a limited
war against the cartels. We could also go to her
and say, yeah, we're actually going to come in. We're
going to get the cartels that are coming at us.
So we'll give you some plays which you can actually
save face say that you've exacted from us. This promises
what we'll do and not do. But this is how
Pete Hegseth was treated on this. So is he asked
a question about the cartels.
Speaker 7: Why are you worried that now the cartels are just
moving everything around that they know that there's a target
on their back. They're just like hiding everything however they
do that, we're watching. We probably we know a little
bit more than they think we might know about them.
We've spent a lot of attention watching them.
Speaker 1: We're focused on this.
Speaker 7: It's a presidential priority, it's our priority. We're working with
federal partners to identify that all across the Western hemisphere.
This is something we're not taking lying down anymore. If
you're trafficking in drugs, you're trafficking in people, you're trafficking
in violence that affect the American people. That's unacceptable and
the Defense Department's going to be a part.
Speaker 1: Of So President Trump is the most consequential president in
our history. And Laura Ingram asked that question, and it's
a good one. Are the catels going to move around?
Sure they are. They're business people and they're militarized business people.
So we're going to do what we can to follow them.
And we should be doing this. Remember the alternative to
this was Barack Hussin Obama letting them bring drugs into
our country, literally stopping indictments of them to let them
continue to bring drugs into our country, drugs from Afghanistan.
That should be a movie. One day, Project Cassanders should
be a movie. There's a new series that exists that
is not on the topic of militarization, but it's on
the topic of spreading God's word in a militarized surveillance society.
It's called Testament. This takes the Book of Acts from
that biblical period and transposes it into our timeframe, a
world that's a surveillance state and a censorship state. You
can stream Testament right now at Angel dot com slash todd.
It's brave Christian storytelling and when you become a Premium
Angel Studio Guild member, you will enjoy two free tickets
to all of their theatrical releases. You get to vote
on the stories that they tell and distribute and in
that way change Hollywood. So go enjoy this program now.
It's brave Christian storytelling. It's called Testament. Angel dot com
slash tod become an Angel Studio Premium Guild member. His
common sense didn't stop there, heck Seth. He was asking
about something that has driven me baddy since I learned
about it. A friend of mine is a retired Special
Forces operative, and he hit me to the fact that
the Chinese Communist Party has been purchasing land around our
military basis for years. They've been doing that, and they've
been setting up sort of shell companies, and the companies
all seem to have this common denominator. They're in businesses
like transportation that brings them onto airports from time to time,
transportations in biology biolabs around our military basis. Haig sas
With asked about this about cracking down on the Chinese
Communist Party being able to purchase land around our bases.
Again a horrific example of mega style white supremacists. Common sense.
Speaker 8: I want to know who owns the land around our
bases and strategic bases and getting an understanding of why.
Speaker 1: Foreign entities, foreign companies, foreign.
Speaker 8: Individuals might be buying upland around those bases. That's something
I should be paying attention to on behalf of the
American people, on behalf of my department, and on behalf
of the President.
Speaker 1: It's common sense.
Speaker 8: And so food security, just like energy resilience, just like
where we get our water. That's all national security, especially
in a contingency. So we would be asleep at the
wheel if we were not fully a party to an
effort like this to ensure that our nation had the
food supply it needs, but specifically our troops have what
they need on our basis, so that in those moments
you can rely on us here in the United.
Speaker 1: States to provide that security.
Speaker 8: So no longer can foreign adversaries assume we're not watching
and we're not paying attention and we're not doing something
about it, because we are.
Speaker 1: That Pete Hagsath with the Department of Defense is talking
here about to sect def he's talking about food security.
Why well, he was speaking at a Department of Agriculture events.
Why because finally there's someone at the Department of Defense
who understands that food security is national security. It's not
just military bases where the Chinese Communist Party's been buying
up land. They've been buying up our farms. And when
they buy up our farms, they buy up the water
rights to the farms. And it is very ironic to
have Christy Noan back there nodding her head. Christi Noom,
who sold out her state of South Dakota to allow
Chinese back to entities, Chinese Commist Party back entities to
steal farmland or try to steal it in South Dakota.
Praise God for Pete Heegsas's common sense. How much did
George So's pay for the Elka Lutheran Church? I asked
that question from time to time as I'm looking at
the Lutheran Elco Church Elqua Lutheran Church, which is did
George Sos just buy this thing out? I've been studying
some documents a dear friend of mine gaming, and they
are excuses for or explanations for why the Elko Lutheran
Church has come to the conclusion that the only way
that you can be a Christian is to affirm same
sex attraction and same sex activity. And sadly, this is
so easy to look at from a perspective of Jesus,
and so easy to show that you simply cannot make
this argument. And I'm reading these documents and they have
some things in common. They're very often Christian philosophers or
theologians quoting Christian philosophers or theologians, so they're spending a
lot of time quoting one another, and they're asking questions
along these lines. When the Bible addresses in the New
Testament same sex activity, are they talking about the loving
form of same sex activity. Let's say two people very
much in love who treat each other very respectfully, and
let's say even come under and lift one another up.
Is that what they're talking about or are they talking
about power differentials? For instance, there was a tradition in
Rome where men would kind of adopt boys and then
use them sexually, and eventually those boys would grow up
and they would turn around and do that to other boys.
There was in fact, an entire army legion. It was
so I think three hundred soldiers, and they were men
who had sex with men. And there was also a
tradition in Rome that there was a view that male
on male sexual activity wasn't just as good as that
with women, it was superior to it. That male on
male quote love was superior to male on female love.
And this was a belief. So a lot of these
philosophers will ask those questions, are they talking about that
kind of power differential older man, younger boy? Are they
talking about violent sexual activity? Are you talking about sexual
activity done by force? And they spent a lot of
time ruminating on this, and their contention is that that
was what Apostle Paul meant. Is he meant that form
of sexuality. And so they'll go and then they'll talk
about some very very strange things, and they'll try to
relate them to the topic at hand, which is same
sex activity. They'll talk about Peter meeting a centurion, having
his mind change about the centurion. Peter having this dream,
you know, I've never eaten food that's been defiled, etc.
And he's given three choices in this dream, and then
one of his choices is to accept that this centurion,
while he is a pagan, while he's a Roman, is
also a man of decent moral character. And they're making
the contention here that Peter had his mind changed about somebody.
He had his mind change about morality. They'll do this
very very often with Jesus. When Jesus spoke to a
woman and he referenced scraps from the table, and this
woman said, well, even even the dogs get the scraps
from the master's table, and so Jesus agreed to share
with her. They say that that was Jesus having his
mind changed. It wasn't Jesus having his mind change. It
was Jesus allowing the people around him to see what
he meant by grace, and see what he meant by love,
and see what he meant by acts of sacrifice. He
was teaching by interacting and allowing that woman to ask
his questions, knowing they would be asked. So to take
things like this and say Jesus changed his mind, Therefore
God can change his mind about things like human sexuality.
These papers are philosophers and theologians referencing philosophers and theologians.
When it mentions Scripture, it is in passing and it
is very very often missing out on the easiest way
to address this. And I remember this is the Elka
Lutheran Church. Martin Luther King was a person. Martin Luther
King founded this church because he had a frustration with
Rome and the Catholic Church, and very famously he nailed
a list of grievances to the door of the Catholic
Church because he wanted those addressed. So, knowing that he
was a real person, you could do something like say,
go back in history and look at his personal relationships.
Then this is really hard work. I understand that they
can't do this, these theologians, because it's very difficult work
and they're very busy quoting one another. But I went
to this device called oh gosh, oh, it's Google, and
I looked up the phrase Martin Luther marriage and it
came up with this name Catherine and von Bora Luther.
Nine of the twelve nuns, and this is Martin Luther
King Martin. Martin Luther had these nuns delivered to him,
delivered as if they were trafficked. They love Google. Nine
of the twelve LUNs were delivered to Luther Martin Luther's
care in Wittenberg, and one was Catherine von Bora, who
two years later, in fifteen twenty five, would become his wife.
The Luther von Berra marriage, which did not begin as
love match, went on to become one of history's celebrated
and happy, loving marriages. True, it didn't start that way.
In fact, Martin Luther famously said he didn't find his
then wife attractive, but then changed as he grew to
know her as a person, and as God's work took
its path and changed his heart and how he felt
about his wife. I also asked the Google machine more
information about this. Who did Martin Luther marry and why?
The basis of Martin Luther's decision to marry Catherine von
Borah on thirteen June fifteen twenty five stem from his
public theological position that unless one were a particular exception,
all men should marry. Whatever is a man must have
a woman, and whatever is a woman must have a man.
Martin Luther spoke of these things. Now, he had nailed
to the door of the Catholic Church some grievances. He
had all the ability in the world to make one
of those grievances. Wait, wait, wait, why are you teaching
that same sex activity is wrong? After all, Paul was
talking about the violent form of same sex activity. Paul
was talking about the sort of same sex activity that
takes advantage of weakness. As you treat the least of these,
so you treat me. He had all the time in
the world to do that, to add just one bullet
item to his list of grievances. He didn't. The paper
is that these people are writing, and I've got about
twelve of them I'm reading. They don't mend s Luther.
They don't mention his marriage, they don't mention that it
was to a woman. They do not mention the easiest
way to follow Jesus Christ thinking on this, which is
the things Jesus said and didn't say. In Matthew five,
verses twenty seven through twenty nine, the Sermon on the Mount,
Jesus says this, You've heard that it was said, do
not commit adultery. Let's pause. You've heard that it was said,
do not have sexual relations with a woman not your wife,
if you're a married man, or the reverse, if you're
a woman. You've heard it said, do not commit adultery.
That's what it meant. And then Jesus said, but I
say to you that everyone who looks at a woman
to lust for her has already committed adultery with her
in his heart. And if your right eye causes you
to sin, tear it out and throw it from you,
for it is better for you that one of your
members be destroyed than your whole body be thrown into hell.
Now is Jesus truly saying, scoop out your eyes and
throw them away. No, he is making a dramatic statement
about what would happen to you if you didn't succeed
in conquering the eye that is giving that to the Lord,
that is letting the whole spirit changed you when people
were left with the Holy Spirit. After Jesus went back
to heaven. But let's go back to the Bible verse.
What was he doing here? Functionally, Jesus was raising the
bar at this point. You could be a good pharisee,
You could be a good statasty, You could be following
the law as you sat there looking at some young
woman and absolutely lusting, thinking of all the things you
want to do sexually, and you could have this this
imagination life, and there was no sin. You could go
in good conscience to the temple. I live by the law.
Speaker 3: I am the.
Speaker 1: Personification of living by the law. When you had committed
the sin in your mind. Jesus raised the bar for
what sexual sin meant. He made it harder to not sin.
He also explained in this that of course sin begins
as an idea, a notion, and then it becomes a temptation,
and then that temptation can manifest, and Satan knows how
we're tempted, and he'll put us in positions, or will
allow ourselves to be put in positions where you're obviously
going to be tempted. Satan just waits for those moments.
In Matthew nineteen, verses one through nine, we read this.
When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee
and winded to the region of Judea, to the other
side of the Georgian Jordan. Large crowds followed him, and
he healed them. There some pharisees came to test him.
They said, is it lawful for a man to divorce
his wife for any and every reason? Haven't you read?
He replied that at the beginning, the Creator made them
male and female, and said, for this reason, a man
will leave his father and mother and be united to
his wife, and the two will become one flesh. They
are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God
has joined together, let no one separate. Why, then, they asked,
did Moses command that a man give his wife a
certificate divorce and send her away? Jesus replied, Moses permitted
you to divorce your wife's because your hearts were hard.
But it was not this way from the beginning. I
tell you that anyone who dorises his wife, except for
sexual immorality, marries another woman and commits adultery. Let's pause here.
What did he do? He raised the bar for divorce.
You were divorcing your wives because your hearts were hard.
I tell you that in less it's for adultery or
sexual morality. And you go marry another woman, you have
committed adultery. And by the way, later in the Bible,
he says, you've caused a woman to commit adultery. He's
raising the bar again, and he's respecting marriage as designed
by God, the Father, the creator made them male and female.
For this reason, a person will leave his family and
be united to another person. This is the way Elka
is leaning. They want to remove gender specific statements like
this so that they can ten Jesus Christ wasn't good
with words. That Jesus was limited in his words. So
Jesus here reaffirms marriage. He reaffirms it as between a
man and a woman. Jesus had earlier in the scripture
we shared earlier, had raised the bar for what qualifies
this adultery. Now he's doubling down on marriage. But did
Jesus ever change anything? I mean, he came to fulfill
the law, not to destroy the law. So did he
ever change anything? This is from Matthew Chapter fifteen, verses
ten through twenty. Jesus called the crowd to him and said,
listen and understand. What goes into someone's mouth does not
defile them, but what comes out of their mouth that
is what defiles them. Then the disciples came to him
and asked, do you know that the Pharisees were offended
when they heard this. Jesus replied, every plant that my
heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by
the roots. Leave them. They are blind guides. If the
blind lead the blind, and both will fall into a pit.
Peter said, explain that parable to us. I love this
with Jesus. Are you still so dull? Jesus asked them,
don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into
the stomach and then out of the body. But the
things that come out of the mouth of a person,
or come out of a person's mouth, come from the heart,
and these defile them. For out of the heart comes
evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slender
these are what defile a person. But eating with unwashed
hands does not defile them. That's the God of the
universe speaking against a Pharisean tradition demands that you always
washed it. Everything needs to be clean, not just ritually clean.
Jesus is making a very important statement here, for out
of their heart comes evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft,
false testimony, and slander. Adultery comes from the month. And
what is adultery according to Jesus, it is having sexual
relations with someone to whom you're not married, if you're
a married person, and we can apply the same set
of guidelines and rules to fornication. I think it was
a very very masculine thing that my friend Tim Krukshank did,
the founder and CEO of Bone Frog Coffee, where he
decided to dedicate to the second part of his life
to keeping his wife Liz alive for as long as
they possibly could. She was dying of cancer and Tim,
being a physician's assistance and he was a medic when
he was with the Sales Seal Teams, did three deployments
on our behalf as a medica attached to the seal Teams.
He spent the last twenty years of his life keeping
Liz alive longer than the doctors ever thought could happen.
I think that's very masculine. I also think it's a
masculine thing to start a company against all odds. Tim
didn't understand coffee. He just knew it saved his life
when he was out there getting shot at and blowed up.
So he came back and he started bone Frog Coffee.
And I think it's very masculine that he chose the
name bone Frog and the insignia bone Frog because it
stands for fallen Navy Seals, because Tim lost brothers obviously
in war. And I think the coffee itself is masculine.
It's masculine in the bag and God Country team on it.
But the funny thing, my wife loves the coffee, my
daughter loves the coffee. I've yet to meet someone who
doesn't love the coffee. That's because Tim did something else
that I think is masculine. He brought on a mentor,
and Dave Stewart started Seattle's Best Coffee. He mentors team
Tim and in fact make some of the roast himself.
Go check it out. It's a Bonefrog Coffee. Dot com
slash todd He's promo code tod to get ten percent
off your first purchase fifteen percent off subscription coffee Bonefrog
Coffee dot Com slash Todd. So if you go back
to the Lutheran Church and what they're doing Elka Lutheran Church,
they have philosophers quoting philosophers and theologians quoting theologians, and
they're asking this question of well, what sort of same
sex activity, what sort of same sex activity the apostle
Paul guard against? And it wasn't just Paul, but they
focus on him because Paul was of course the apostle
to the Romans, to the Pagans, so he was out
talking to people who practice these things openly, so he
spoke more about it. They were loving relationships, then there
were men who loved men and had sex with men.
Paul could have made that exception. And you know what
Jesus could have done, just as he said here, it's
not that goes in, what goes in the mouth that
defiles a person that, but what comes out that's him
changing something the Pharisees were doing. He also could have said,
a person leaves their family and joins with another person
and they come, they come one flesh. He could have
taught that. Did he the things that Jesus taught Matthew
and the other disciples took pains to write down. And
of course Jesus has told us that the world will
pass away, but not one word of his will pass away.
And it can't because he is is the Word. The
word is with God, and the Word was God. He
is the Truth. Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth,
and the life. And no one gets to the Father
but through him. The pretense of Elka is this. As
I'm reading all of these papers, we in our conversations
with ourselves, are talking ourselves into finding something that can
only be supported when you ignore that chain of evidence.
So they go back and they say, well, the levitical
law said a whole bunch of things were horrible. The
lilibical law said things like do not clip your hair
at the side of the temple. We don't do these
things anymore. They go and say things like, Jesus changed
his mind. Even the dogs get to eat scraps from
the master's table, Jesus changed his mind. They'll say things
like that that are not supported by who Jesus was
or how he taught. They go and say things like
Jesus did not go and scream at the woman who
had committed adultery, he said that he himself did not
judge her to leave out that very important part. Go
and sin no more. Jesus Christ was intentional in everything
he did. He picked twelve disciples for the twelve tribes
of Israel. When he picked the twelve, he took three
aside and treated them especially closely because they were going
to the leaders of his church. And then he took
one Peter and made him the early leader of the church.
And he became the leader of the apostles in Christ's stead.
But not before they saw him stumble. Everyone saw Peter
deny Christ. Most importantly, Peter saw Peter deny Christ, and
Jesus forgave him and took him back. Jesus was intentional
about everything. Had Jesus Christ intended to come along and say,
you know what, same sex activity and same sex marriage
is aokay, he would have done it. So I continue
to ask, did George Charles buy out the Elka Lutheran
Church