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