The NXR Podcast - NXR Livestream - Homosexuality, Polygamy, & Interracial Marriage ｜ DEBATE REVIEW

00:00:00.000 Radical Christian Nationalist Pastor, Joel Webin.

00:00:05.380 Joel Webin?

00:00:06.200 Joel Webin.

00:00:07.040 I'm going to talk about Joel Webin.

00:00:08.500 Joel Webin is an accident.

00:00:30.000 Well, we learned a lot. Interracial marriage, at the end of the day, comes down to personal 0.77

00:00:34.680 preference. J.K., J.K., we do not concede. It is God's normative plan. The prompt, the thesis for

00:00:42.960 the debate, we still hold that that is true, which is interracial marriage, while biblically

00:00:49.920 permissible, generally, not in the micro each and every individual case, but generally in the macro

00:00:56.720 at scale goes against God's normative slash ordinary design or plan for peoples, cultures,

00:01:07.400 and nations. This is undeniably true. Now, what this really came down to, and this is what we're

00:01:12.920 going to get into when we do kind of our analysis, post-analysis of the debate, and this is going to

00:01:18.120 be our final word on the subject. We'll move on, because there are other things to do. Here's the

00:01:21.120 deal. I don't want to get pigeonholed, and this guy, he's against interracial marriage.

00:01:26.720 there are so many other good qualities that NXR has to offer, right?

00:01:30.860 Like our sexism, right?

00:01:32.640 Or our views on Israel and the Jews.

00:01:36.200 You know what I mean?

00:01:36.520 There's so many things to cherish, to appreciate about NXR Studios.

00:01:41.280 So we don't want to get pigeonholed on this one issue.

00:01:43.280 So this is going to be kind of our final word on this subject of interracial marriage.

00:01:47.280 But it merits a word.

00:01:48.960 We think that it merits a word.

00:01:50.800 Ruslan and Avery, they gave their responses.

00:01:53.360 I haven't watched it, but I saw some of the clips.

00:01:55.880 and we feel like that's that's pretty normal guys they do a debate and they give their

00:01:59.940 uh post analysis so today is going to be that and then we're going to move on because we've got a

00:02:04.040 lot of other topics to get to uh we probably would have done like friday the day after but we had

00:02:09.860 casey from ohio running for a governor race incredibly important and that's what nxr studios

00:02:15.320 wants to do as much as these topics push the ball forward and we're talking about things that

00:02:20.400 are still kind of outside of the overton window that the general public may not yet be ready to

00:02:25.640 to talk about. That's a big part of what we do, but that's not the only thing we do. We're trying

00:02:30.240 to get candidates across the threshold to change the political landscape of our country. Christ is

00:02:36.900 King, Christian nationalism actually happening on the ground politically with governor races.

00:02:42.520 So we had James Fishback this last Monday, and then we had Casey scheduled on Friday,

00:02:48.440 the day after the debate. And then we already had Timothy Gordon, which was phenomenal. If you guys

00:02:53.560 I haven't got to see that. Tune in. Our Monday episode was Timothy Gordon. He was live in the

00:02:59.380 studio. He happened to be in town, so we did not want to miss that opportunity. We got to talk

00:03:03.920 about his documentary, which is not What is a Woman? That's Matt Walsh, right? What is a woman?

00:03:09.380 I think that question, you know, it was answered pretty clearly. A woman is an adult female human

00:03:15.160 being. But Timothy Gordon, his documentary is What a Woman Is. Instead of What is a Woman,

00:03:20.940 It's why is a woman? What is her telos? What is her purpose? What is the end of women? So that's 1.00

00:03:27.320 what we did on Monday. So we just, we haven't had the chance. Then we had our Nick schedule,

00:03:31.660 you know, that's a strict schedule that we're keeping on Wednesday with the NXR special.

00:03:35.900 So this is our first chance to be able to actually give, you know, our analysis

00:03:39.940 about the debate. And so we're going to do that now. This will kind of be our final word on the

00:03:45.500 subject. And then we have a bunch of other topics to get to, but also we've got guys that we'll be

00:03:50.540 interviewing guys who are coming into the studio. We've got a lot of things to cover,

00:03:55.160 so this is our chance. We're going to do our very best. I've written a couple things that I do want

00:04:00.140 to read, but the first thing that I want to get to is this, and we'll talk about it, but

00:04:04.560 part of the problem, and this really, we just, I don't know, we just weren't quite able to

00:04:11.660 nail down on this for whatever reason. Part of it, you know, our team, me, Antonio, Wes,

00:04:17.500 I'm sure we could have done a better job.

00:04:20.100 You know, re-watching it afterwards.

00:04:22.360 Like I'm not sitting there saying,

00:04:24.100 oh yeah, that was perfect.

00:04:25.220 You know, there was absolutely nothing

00:04:27.000 that we could have done better.

00:04:28.260 Of course, there were things

00:04:29.280 that we could have done better.

00:04:30.400 But part of it also is just the nature

00:04:31.980 of a live discussion.

00:04:33.740 And sometimes you just,

00:04:34.920 there's something that you want to get to,

00:04:36.420 but you just, you don't.

00:04:37.880 It never really lands the way

00:04:39.860 that you want it to land.

00:04:41.140 And one of the big issues

00:04:42.300 that we were hoping to be able to focus on more,

00:04:46.160 and we tried to get there when we were talking about ages, you know, like, and Antonio, you did

00:04:50.260 a great job of saying, you know, the hypothetical of a 60-year-old man marrying, you know, not just,

00:04:57.460 you know, a five-year-old woman that's more extreme, you know, but you said, but what if

00:05:01.600 she's 14? What if she's 16? What if she's 17? And Avery, you know, he was being honest. I appreciate 0.94

00:05:07.460 his honesty, and he was saying, well, no, and he tried, you know, God bless him. He was able to put

00:05:13.980 it together, put two and two together, he understood what was going on. So he tried to

00:05:17.660 root it in a clear biblical command, because that's what his side had to do. And so my point

00:05:24.040 is, one of the things we wanted to get to that we didn't is the dangers of biblicism, okay? We are 1.00

00:05:29.780 Bible guys, we're Christians, we love the Bible, but biblicism is a specific term. It's the

00:05:36.900 the incessant insistence upon chapter and verse chapter and verse right like right after this when

00:05:43.980 you finish listening to the show we're all gonna go and uh and we're gonna drink you know a full

00:05:48.860 glass of water out of the toilet right there's nothing in the bible that says we shouldn't

00:05:52.680 nothing in the bible that explicitly prohibits or condemns um no we're none of us are going to do

00:05:58.100 that because none of us are stupid right and and we don't need a chapter and verse um to tell us

00:06:04.120 not explicitly to condemn or prohibit the drinking of a full glass of water from the toilet. 0.58

00:06:10.220 We don't need that, because, you know, the Bible doesn't explicitly tell us how to do

00:06:15.460 engineering. There's plenty of things that the Bible does not explicitly chapter and verse

00:06:20.140 verbatim speak to, and as we see in the Westminster Confession of Faith, as we see the LBC,

00:06:26.080 London Baptist Confession of Faith copying the Westminster, of course, same kind of language.

00:06:31.420 I believe it's chapter 1, article 6, there were certain things derived by good and necessary

00:06:36.260 consequence, by good and necessary consequence. So when Antonio threw up this hypothetical to

00:06:41.780 Avery, well, what about a six-year-old man and, you know, a 16-year-old girl? Avery tried his

00:06:48.140 instinct, we get it, we're sympathetic, he tried to kind of root that in some kind of explicit

00:06:54.420 biblical command. No, that marriage is bad because of chapter and verse, but the problem was that

00:07:00.380 there wasn't a chapter and verse. And he tried, I remember the three things that he said, I believe

00:07:04.960 it was, he tried to root it in some kind of biblical prohibition regarding maturity, and he

00:07:11.680 broke it into three subcategories. I believe it was physical, mental, and spiritual maturity.

00:07:17.120 Yep, that's what I remember.

00:07:17.640 And so he was like, well, she just wouldn't bear the spiritual, mental, and physical maturity.

00:07:23.920 And we went up to the age 16, I believe, if my memory serves me, 16. And he was still saying,

00:07:29.680 well, no, a 60-year-old man, 16-year-old girl, that would still not be good. I would not be for

00:07:37.980 that. I would be generally against that. Oh, really? Generally against. What crazy language

00:07:43.720 to use. Very interesting. And there was a certain point where we're like, well, wisdom. We're like,

00:07:47.960 oh, wisdom. Ah, wisdom issue. And so he's trying to root it in some kind of biblical man, but it

00:07:53.460 doesn't work. And I pointed out Mary. Most biblical scholars say that Mary was between the

00:07:59.420 ages of 14 and 16. Very few people say that she was any older than 16 years of age, and yet

00:08:06.740 the Godhead saw fit that she was, that she did have the maturity. She certainly had the physical

00:08:14.800 maturity, right? She was able to ovulate. She was a mature adult woman able to conceive 0.59

00:08:20.520 and give birth and breastfeed and all those kinds of things on the physical side of the equation. 1.00

00:08:26.380 But in addition to that, she was most favored among women. Protestants, we don't venerate Mary,

00:08:34.980 as our Catholic friends do, which we disagree with, but we do honor Mary. We should. We shouldn't

00:08:40.440 throw out the baby with the bathwater. Mary is a wonderful woman of God, worthy of honor,

00:08:47.480 the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ. And she was so, not just when she was 36 years old,

00:08:55.320 but when she was 14 to 16 years old, when the Lord selected her and chose her to be the mother

00:09:02.480 of Jesus Christ. But then the issue comes down to, okay, well, what if you have a particularly

00:09:09.660 mature young girl? By the grace of God, my daughters, right? My oldest right now is eight

00:09:16.160 years old. But by the grace of God, they already have memorized my eight-year-old, my six-year-old,

00:09:21.680 and even my five-year-old daughters, I have five kids, those three, eight and six and five,

00:09:29.260 already have about, it's about 100 scripture verses memorized, about 120 catechisms memorized.

00:09:36.520 By the time they're 14 to 16 years old, they will, by the grace of God, have the spiritual maturity,

00:09:44.940 the mental maturity, and biologically, we know by age 15, 16, they'll certainly have

00:09:51.000 uh the physical maturity they will be um adult women they will uh they will have their period

00:09:57.600 they will have you know those kinds of things they and so so then uh by that if you're trying

00:10:03.980 to root in the biblical command and you're you're making up this command of the mental

00:10:07.980 spiritual and physical maturity threshold then they're ready for marriage and i want to say

00:10:13.180 publicly right now at um 14 15 years old no one is marrying my daughters no one even recognizing

00:10:20.780 And scripturally, it happened in the past.

00:10:23.080 It was legitimate.

00:10:23.920 I mean, God chose to do it, of all people. 0.51

00:10:26.140 God did it with Mary.

00:10:27.220 In a time and place.

00:10:27.920 Wonderful.

00:10:28.780 I'm not going to sit here and say, God, that was rash.

00:10:32.500 God, I don't think that that was wise.

00:10:34.860 No, God did it.

00:10:35.600 You should have waited a couple of years there, sir.

00:10:37.240 God did it.

00:10:38.180 And that was perfectly wonderful in God's sovereign plan of redemption,

00:10:43.040 what he did in the case of Mary, the mother of the Lord Jesus Christ.

00:10:46.760 And yet, I'm going to say, without a Bible verse.

00:10:49.440 see, this is the difference between the two sides. I'm going to actually give the same answer that

00:10:54.240 Avery did. I'm going to say, no, when my daughters are 15, they're not going to get married. Same

00:10:58.280 answer Avery did. But I'm going to do it with more honesty. I'm going to say, there is no explicit

00:11:03.540 condemnation or prohibition in Scripture. And yet, it would be permissible. It was permissible in the

00:11:11.140 case of Mary, but not just Mary. There are certain pockets, seasons, cultures, places throughout

00:11:17.720 christendom where that was somewhat normative where it was somewhat normative uh young women

00:11:24.360 getting married at 15 16 years old you know that historically and yet i'm still going to say

00:11:29.960 in our time and place and our culture today part of this is providential there are timeless truths

00:11:35.420 there are timely truths and i'm going to say given the lay of the land given our cultural setting

00:11:39.840 given this that and the other our context god's providence here and now as her father i'm going

00:11:46.640 to say that none of my 15-year-old daughters, no matter how spiritually mature they are,

00:11:50.560 I am not going to give them in marriage. And yet I'm going to have the intellectual

00:11:54.740 integrity and honesty to also say the Bible doesn't prohibit it. I still don't think it's

00:12:01.220 wise though. The Bible does not explicitly prohibit it, but I generally think that it

00:12:05.900 goes against prudence, contextual prudence for this time. And that's what this really comes down

00:12:10.060 to was permissibility does not negate prudence. I'll say that again. Permissibility does not

00:12:20.180 negate prudence. So simply being able to argue from the scripture for permissibility does not

00:12:27.360 eradicate prudential wisdom. Prudential wisdom in the macro overall, looking at humanity overall

00:12:35.500 throughout human history, and especially prudential wisdom, even though there's permissibility

00:12:42.980 in not just timeless ways, but timely ways in our context. Today, what's going on? And, you know,

00:12:50.600 I read some of that from my opening statement, and sadly, I just felt like that was completely,

00:12:58.100 absolutely and completely overlooked. And so, you know, one of the things that we talked about was

00:13:03.300 in my opening statement, I'll read it now, and then I want to read one more thing, and then I'll

00:13:08.700 hand it to Wes and Antonio to help us, you know, really kick off this discussion. But I talked

00:13:14.560 about white genocide. It, you know, slow, nefarious, very subtle in ways, deceitful, I would 0.91

00:13:24.560 argue. But nonetheless, I really do believe that white replacement is real. And so this is something 1.00

00:13:31.800 that i tweeted out a couple days ago but it's it's verbatim word for word from my opening statement

00:13:36.120 that was immediately passed over and unfortunately there were a couple points where um in one case

00:13:41.700 avery um you know when we said we think that uh we don't believe in mono-racial america um but we'd

00:13:49.240 like it to be mono-ethnic and we and we were very clear with our terms um speaking of ethnicity in

00:13:54.340 a more classic and overarching definition it's a very technical definition speaking to much more

00:14:00.560 than race, like religion, language, liturgy, loves, traditions, those kinds of things. We

00:14:06.660 brought up Vodibachum, you know, and said like Vodibachum and I would be virtually, right? Not

00:14:12.460 exact, but virtually, you know, the very similar ethnicity, if we're using ethnicity to be an 0.99

00:14:19.060 all-encompassing, you know, like they speak English, they have the same traditions, they have

00:14:24.840 the same patriotic instinct, the same national allegiance, the same liturgy, the same doctrine,

00:14:35.020 theology, religion, these kinds of things. And so we said, yeah, mono-ethnic in that regard, 0.91

00:14:39.740 but not mono-racial. But then, you know, I just added one disclaimer and said, but we do think

00:14:46.500 that it's both historically appropriate and right. And even currently, right now, we still have a

00:14:52.640 white majority. It's certainly less than it was, but 59% of the country is white. And so we think

00:14:57.540 in keeping with the heritage and history of America, as well as keeping with the current

00:15:01.360 demographics and not wanting total erasure, we would want a mono-ethnic, Christian, English,

00:15:09.760 Western, American ethnicity, mono-ethnic, but not mono-racial, and yet in the racial category,

00:15:17.060 still not monoracial, but still predominantly white, majority white, to which Avery immediately

00:15:24.560 responded and said, that sounds boring, which does reveal, I just, I want to say Avery was so

00:15:30.720 respectful, enjoyed that young man, and he's doing great work for the Lord. He was kind. We talked

00:15:36.520 briefly before they had to head to the airport, you know, after the debate, and he was willing

00:15:42.360 to, you know, to say, you know, I didn't know exactly what he's coming into. I didn't know if

00:15:45.920 you guys were even Christians. I do recognize that you guys are Christians, although I think

00:15:49.760 you're wrong. I strongly believe that. So Avery was a respectful young man who's, from what I hear, 1.00

00:15:55.680 I haven't seen a lot of his content, but he's doing good work for the Lord. But I would say

00:15:59.180 that that moment did reveal, this doesn't mean he's not a Christian, doesn't mean he's not doing 0.51

00:16:02.960 good work, but that moment did reveal, I would say, some measure of white antipathy, some measure of

00:16:09.940 an anti-white discrimination and a white hatred. That sounds boring. And I said, and this was 0.59

00:16:19.180 missed, you know, people missed this in the debate, but I immediately said, you know, the camera I

00:16:22.580 don't even think was on me at this moment. I don't know if my mic really picked it up, but I was like,

00:16:26.400 is Japan boring? Right? Is Uganda boring? Is Kenya boring? Is Tanzania boring? These are all places 1.00

00:16:34.480 that have a very majority majority race um but these aren't boring places and west did a great

00:16:41.420 job he immediately you know shot back respectfully but but passionately and said wait you're talking

00:16:46.380 about our people these are the people these are our fathers these are our christian fathers in

00:16:51.380 the case of america's history these are the people who built the country and bled and sweat and died

00:16:56.800 to produce what you are now avery enjoying and you're saying that that if america remained not

00:17:03.700 monoracial. We already established that, but just simply predominant majority white. Just being

00:17:09.320 majority white would be boring, and that was disheartening to hear. And then Ruslan,

00:17:16.320 there was another point later. I was going to say, and Avery, too, you're talking about a Christian

00:17:19.560 man. You're talking about someone very versed in American, so he speaks English as a first language.

00:17:24.120 He's versed. He's a Christian apologist against Islam, so he's very versed with the ins and outs 0.88

00:17:28.480 of Christianity, born here in America from everything I understand, lives here in America. 0.53

00:17:32.620 everything about him is americanized and still underneath even in a public forum when it got 0.65

00:17:38.500 down to it there was a little bit of like these white people their food's boring their culture's

00:17:43.180 boring their music's boring i don't appreciate it and he's the best of them i would say as a credit

00:17:47.340 to him a christian someone who speaks english someone who has in many ways assimilated to

00:17:51.740 america but still underneath yeah that's not my cup of tea right it's not really my thing and we

00:17:57.980 we can point to this statistically we can look at the fbi it's like so less less rape is is boring

00:18:04.800 i guess i mean technically yeah less murder is is boring technically less violent crime is

00:18:10.140 boring you know more high trust society is like technically i guess you're right but um in that

00:18:16.540 case you know i tweeted out like the day make america boring again by the grace of god make

00:18:21.400 america boring again if that's if that's what boring means right because as we've invited you

00:18:26.500 know our greatest strength diversity we have seen that the effects of that it may be that it's less

00:18:33.200 boring it's also less safe there's also less trust there's less cohesion there's less unity there's

00:18:40.320 and so that that was really disheartening there was another point where Ruslan we were talking

00:18:47.160 about you know white erasure and and talking about that happening in European countries with

00:18:52.720 mass invasion and immigration especially from muslim countries and talking about uh how um in

00:18:59.840 some smaller towns in england and this is proven there there are some smaller towns in england 0.94

00:19:05.480 where it's upwards of one and four native citizens native english women young women have been raped 0.88

00:19:12.920 have been raped and sexually assaulted by an immigrant and you look at that and you know west

00:19:20.300 There was a point where he was saying that and saying, look, part of our argument is not just timeless normative design for all peoples in all places in all time, but especially providential prudence, prudential wisdom timely within providence and looking at the larger landscape of the global white population going from about 33 to 36 percent around 100 to 120 years ago to now sitting at anywhere, depending who you ask and what metrics you look at, 0.80

00:19:48.660 anywhere from 8 to 12 percent right 100 to 120 years later so a loss of 62 thirds of the white

00:19:56.820 population going down and looking at that looking what's happening in america looking at even starker

00:20:02.000 examples happening in europe and west mentioned you know rape being one of those things um and 0.64

00:20:07.420 ruslan was well rape as the the sharp edge to the sword interracial marriage and the mixing with the 1.00

00:20:13.000 peoples and intermarrying to immigrants that come from these third world countries that's the slow 1.00

00:20:17.300 pot boiling and when it boils over 1.00

00:20:19.380 the violent energy of that is just

00:20:21.300 straight up on its face. The rape of

00:20:23.500 white women and white girls in these countries 1.00

00:20:25.480 but that all rests upon a foundation of 1.00

00:20:27.560 it's okay to congregate these people

00:20:29.280 marry with them, have daily life

00:20:31.420 with them. It all goes together. Which we're saying

00:20:32.980 they're not assimilable. They're not

00:20:34.920 able to come into these cultures coming from

00:20:37.180 third world countries. I mean think about

00:20:39.200 India. Cousin marriage and arranged marriage 1.00

00:20:41.220 is very common. Why do you have them 1.00

00:20:43.220 coming in and perpetrating themselves on white people? 0.73

00:20:45.640 Because courtship 0.95

00:20:46.880 Winning, wooing someone's heart

00:20:49.280 That's actually not a thing in those cultures 0.98

00:20:50.900 You're given the daughter of another man 0.97

00:20:52.760 Who you sold a cow to and she's yours 0.99

00:20:54.840 It's barbaric

00:20:56.680 It's primitive, it's simple

00:20:58.540 That's how they do things 1.00

00:20:59.760 So then they come to our countries like ours

00:21:02.020 They have very little concept of consent

00:21:04.080 Very little concept of winning someone's heart

00:21:05.880 It's I want and I take

00:21:07.440 And we've seen those cases, we've seen the court cases

00:21:09.680 Where a judge, a wicked judge

00:21:12.020 Liberal progressive judge

00:21:13.280 In a western country will pardon

00:21:15.480 some man for after committing sexual assault um and his plea will be oh i didn't know that was

00:21:21.660 wrong and the judge will say oh he didn't know yeah and here's here's the sad thing i think what

00:21:26.540 you're arguing is we're not even saying that that young man who is a monster we're not even calling

00:21:31.700 him a liar no we're saying no he's not a liar he's just a monster he i i i believe him i believe 0.94

00:21:37.760 that he is so debased so incompatible with christian culture with western culture that he 0.98

00:21:43.580 actually did not know which is precisely why paul speaks of precisely why he shouldn't be here

00:21:49.500 he shouldn't be here you know and so so these kinds of things so my point is the argument comes

00:21:55.040 down ultimately to biblicism do we believe as christians um in line with um a longer catholic

00:22:03.140 tradition um eastern orthodox tradition and also traditional historic reformed tradition the

00:22:10.080 authors of the Westminster Confession, the authors of the Second London Baptist Confession,

00:22:14.080 that we derive things from Scripture and also good and necessary consequence, and if so,

00:22:20.200 then are we able as Christians with wisdom and a full-orbed biblical theology to say that

00:22:26.500 permissibility does not negate the use of providential wisdom, that permissibility does

00:22:33.980 not negate prudence, prudence, not providential, but prudential wisdom. And if it doesn't,

00:22:41.600 and it doesn't, then all the more prudential wisdom, prudence, even in the context of

00:22:48.340 permissibility, in the timely category, it can be held and should be when appropriate in the

00:22:54.860 timeless category, all peoples, all places, but also especially in the providential timely

00:23:00.120 category. So this was part of my opening statement. It seemed to be just to fall in

00:23:04.960 deaf ears, but I'm going to read it again now. The tragedy of white genocide. A further distinction

00:23:10.020 must be made between permissibility and engineering. Something may be morally permissible

00:23:15.380 in isolation while still being promoted systematically for destructive ends. In the

00:23:20.540 modern West, interracial marriage, particularly for white Europeans, has been relentlessly promoted

00:23:26.620 through media, advertising, and institutional messaging. The pattern is not organic representation

00:23:33.360 of demographic reality. Rather, it is asymmetrical and strategically targeted. White heterosexual

00:23:41.100 couples, the only biological arrangement which produces white children, are conspicuously

00:23:47.200 minimized. Against that backdrop and the backdrop of abortion access on demand,

00:23:54.200 mass immigration and the normalization of gay marriage the promotion of interracial marriage 0.94

00:23:59.860 functions not merely as representation but as demographic strategy one need not believe in

00:24:06.680 conspiracies to observe incentives patterns and outcomes in this context it is reasonable to say

00:24:13.560 that interracial marriage while morally permissible in individual cases is being used

00:24:19.620 instrumentally at the macro level to accelerate the dissolution of a particular people, namely

00:24:27.240 white people. To deny this is not charity. It is willful blindness. And so that was part of the 0.87

00:24:35.440 argument was saying, number one, permissibility does not negate prudence. Number two, we are not

00:24:42.340 biblicists. We love the Bible, but we are not biblicists. And there is a distinction between

00:24:48.160 the two. We believe that we can arrive at good conclusions by good and necessary consequence,

00:24:55.060 by reason, rationale, and the light of nature, aside from only the Scripture. Number three,

00:25:01.960 we do believe that the whole biblical narrative points towards this being, not that it's

00:25:07.680 impermissible in a racial marriage, but being God's norm, that it is God's norm for peoples,

00:25:13.520 cultures, and places. We believe that, and nations, as the thesis stated, that it generally,

00:25:20.500 not micro level, each and every individual case, but on the macro, in the whole, the interracial

00:25:27.520 marriage generally goes against God's normative plan, ordinary plan, for peoples, cultures,

00:25:35.520 and nations, while acknowledging fully that interracial marriage is permissible. And I think 0.95

00:25:41.360 one of the things that Avery and, and Ruslan struggled with is they struggled with you,

00:25:46.240 Antonio, being there, being on our side as someone who is, um, the, the son of an interracial

00:25:52.500 marriage. They don't know this and we're not going to sit there and like brag about it. You know,

00:25:56.360 it, it, it becomes insufferable when guys are like, I'm allowed to have this view because I

00:26:01.300 have seven black friends, you know, or I'm allowed to have this view because, um, I, you know,

00:26:05.360 about women because I have this many daughters or I'm allowed to have, but the reality is that we

00:26:09.560 have multiple interracial couples in our church. They all watched the debate. They all agreed with

00:26:14.120 our side. They all thought that Avery and Ruslan at times were good Christian men, but unfair in

00:26:21.060 their tactics and the way that they argued. It was funny, like the Sunday before we had this debate,

00:26:26.060 we had it on last Thursday, the Sunday before we had one of our deacons, a Mexican man preaching

00:26:32.000 on the Lord's Day, J.D. Hall, you know, he was laughing, you know, because he was in town that

00:26:35.580 weekend with his wife. And so he was there, and that deacon in our church preached a wonderful

00:26:41.600 message. He's married to a white woman. He's a Mexican man, married to a white woman with 0.56

00:26:47.140 children, deacon in our church. So J.D. Hall's like, what's going on? What is going on? You've

00:26:52.500 got a Mexican married to a white woman preaching on Sunday. You've got Antonio sitting there in

00:26:56.720 the debate on your side. I was just there last week in your church and saw multiple other

00:27:01.580 interracial marriages joel have you ever officiated an interracial uh guilty as charged i have um so

00:27:07.240 what's so so people can disagree and say i i think you're wrong but that's not the reaction from this

00:27:13.040 debate and you guys need to know that that's the last thing i'll say the reaction from this debate

00:27:17.580 from many people many people is not we disagree or we don't think that that's biblically accurate

00:27:23.380 or we see you know because we disagree we you know ideas have consequences and so because we think

00:27:28.200 you have the wrong view naturally there are implications of having a wrong view there are

00:27:31.780 negative effects and we do think that's concerning it's worth raising that's not the response the

00:27:36.180 response was guys like chris uh rosenborough or roseborough yeah roseborough um like full-fledged

00:27:42.840 attack i'm gonna drag up you know uh 13 year old sin from joel's past like i've i've got to make

00:27:49.760 everyone in the world believe he's a heretic this is we don't just disagree this is heresy it's a

00:27:56.720 denial of the gospel, and some of the scriptures that in his flesh, he broke down the walls of

00:28:05.460 hostility and made one new man. It's like, brother, what are you talking about? Nobody

00:28:10.380 here disagrees with that. You think that we disagree that the church is made up?

00:28:15.260 I've never read that verse in the Bible.

00:28:16.820 That's not the debate. You think our argument is against the church, Jesus saving and reconciling

00:28:24.960 by his blood every tribe tongue and nation? You think that we're arguing for a white only eternal 0.75

00:28:31.040 salvation? You know that's not the argument and yet so many people their reactions to the debate

00:28:36.520 they couldn't help themselves. They don't have any category to say hey this is a secondary or

00:28:41.240 tertiary issue. I disagree. I do think that it matters. I think you're wrong and I think there's

00:28:45.720 negative implications. No it's heretic denial of the gospel outside the Christian faith outside 0.51

00:28:52.360 the bounds of orthodoxy and that is what we're talking that gets down beyond just interracial

00:28:59.680 marriage in that particular topic that gets down to something far deeper it gets down to the issue

00:29:05.540 of the right to dissent as we've talked about it gets down to the issue of what really is the faith

00:29:11.860 the historic christian faith once and for all passed down to the saints tell me sir how many

00:29:17.220 million must i profess that died in the holocaust to be saved at that point you are talking actually

00:29:23.800 the iron is that's another gospel that is adding to the faith that is to preach something that is

00:29:31.400 christ plus gospel plus scripture plus we did not come into this and say hey you know what if you

00:29:40.440 disagree with us then you're outside the faith but many watching many watching avery and russon

00:29:46.300 never explicitly said that. There were a couple moments where the scriptures they used, they know

00:29:50.080 we agree with, and I thought it was slimy. I'm going to say it. I thought it was slimy, and it

00:29:54.240 implied that. They did not explicitly say it, but insinuated that we had some other gospel,

00:30:00.020 something heretical. But they did not explicitly say it themselves, but many of the onlookers in

00:30:05.240 their responses post-debate, they said it. Avery and Ruslan, they never explicitly, but others,

00:30:11.600 they said it chris uh uh rose rosenberg i don't know to me i don't i don't know all i know he's

00:30:21.120 the lutheran guy who had to record like a 20 minute intro um to somehow preempt people before

00:30:30.300 his debate with cory moller because he got destroyed so so unbelievably bad that um so

00:30:38.760 for me, that's all I know about him. He's the guy who tried the platitudes, tried the cliches,

00:30:46.820 tried the sliminess, and got wrecked. But that guy, the point is, he's now doing that with me.

00:30:53.400 He's now doing that with you and many others. He's one of the more notable, but many others

00:30:58.680 are doing that too. And part of what we wanted to accomplish in the debate, and I'm not convinced

00:31:03.840 we did unfortunately i'm not convinced we did but what we tried to and we could have done better 0.59

00:31:09.140 we're fallible men is is but simply to say look guys um biblicism is a hell of a drug be careful

00:31:16.940 be careful with this insistence of must be chapter and verse must be chapter and verse

00:31:23.200 no haven't heard a new testament verse yet no room for natural law no room for reason no room

00:31:27.940 for prudence no room for good and necessary consequence so number one be careful of

00:31:32.260 biblicism. Beware biblicism. Hell of a drug. Number two, beware of adding extra requirements 1.00

00:31:40.580 to salvation, to expand the faith once and for all handed down to the saints and say that it

00:31:49.900 requires this plus a profession in the life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of

00:31:57.220 the Lord Jesus Christ, and certain Holocaust views, and X, Y, and Z. That's part of what

00:32:06.440 we were trying to do. We felt like we knew in the general public optic that the majority,

00:32:13.760 we knew going in, that the majority of people would say they lost the debate for a number of

00:32:19.020 reasons. One, because it is simply outside the Overton window. We're just not there yet. White

00:32:23.540 people are incredibly incredibly self-conscious about even coming close to being racist so that's 0.98

00:32:32.660 one we just knew the general public the general christian normie god bless them they they are

00:32:36.920 christians we're not doubting their salvation but the general christian normie uh this is beyond the

00:32:41.400 pale so we knew that the odds were already against us in that regard second the odds were against us

00:32:46.760 in the sense that um avery and ruslan have probably about i i think i looked a couple days

00:32:53.020 ago about 10 times the followers so you're going into something debating two guys that just their

00:32:58.900 youtube followers and other channels they're about 10 times the size so you they already have you

00:33:04.440 know it's a 10 to 1 ratio of how many people are rooting for them versus people who are rooting

00:33:08.820 for us and then and then number three we knew that um our argument is resting on a whole biblical

00:33:16.040 narrative coupled with a providential historic narrative coupled with good and necessary

00:33:20.980 consequence and and prudence and natural law which let's just be honest um and you kind of saw that

00:33:29.780 i don't want to be rude but it's true i'm going to say it um you kind of saw that uh in the reaction

00:33:35.620 of people's takeaway and who they thought won the debate um i would say uh out of 10 people

00:33:41.680 nine people who thought we lost the debate um if you follow their accounts and you know who those

00:33:48.580 people are um probably probably about a 90 to 110 iq and then one out of 10 that's very generous

00:33:56.020 who thought that we won the debate also coincidentally happened to be guys with 130 iq

00:34:01.000 plus that's not a coincidence actually um because there's a certain individual who understands the

00:34:10.200 argument who actually caught the opening statements ah i see yes okay whereas for your average person

00:34:18.420 one, this being outside the Overton window, two, Ruslan and Avery having 10 times the fans that

00:34:24.480 we do currently. We'll see. Give us time to cook. We'll see. And then three, simply just,

00:34:34.340 well, I've got Bible. She can marry anyone she wishes, only in the Lord. Great, great point.

00:34:45.280 okay so then that's when antonio brought up six-year-old man 16 year old girl no well but

00:34:54.860 but you're the guy who just quoted the scripture anyone she wishes and you're now saying no so

00:35:00.920 you're actually admitting that that verse doesn't mean what you're trying to use it to me some

00:35:06.900 common sense limitations there are common sense interesting interesting but let's just be honest

00:35:12.800 about one out of 10 people are able to pick that up because the average person, one, the topic is

00:35:19.440 outside the Overton window. Two, their following is 10 times the size of ours. And three, most

00:35:25.960 people are lower IQ. So those are my thoughts. Let's go real quick to our only commercial break

00:35:32.680 for today. And then we're going to come back and we're going to deal with a lot more. And then

00:35:36.780 we'll also take some super chats. Okay, here we go. Here in the United States of America,

00:35:40.900 we believe that we're blessed in this nation with an abundance of resources

00:35:44.620 and that it's our God-given duty to exercise wise stewardship over them

00:35:48.980 for the flourishing of our people, but also the security of our homeland.

00:35:53.620 See, some of our viewers, you might remember when we first featured a sponsor called Saga Medals.

00:35:59.600 And since that spotlight, shares for Saga have surged by over 130%.

00:36:04.720 Now, the results are in, and they're the strongest to date.

00:36:08.580 On January 2nd, Saga released drill results from their flagship Radar Titanium project.

00:36:15.540 The market reacted immediately, sending the stock flying up over 17% in a single day.

00:36:21.740 Saga Metals is publicly traded here in the U.S. under the ticker SAGMF.

00:36:27.500 And if you're in Canada, it trades under the ticker Saga, S-A-G-A.

00:36:32.620 Strategic government focus, multiple high-potential projects, and a team pushing forward relentlessly through the winter,

00:36:40.660 Saga Metals is now moving full steam ahead.

00:36:43.840 If you want to learn more about this critical mineral story, then you can check out the link in our description below.

00:36:50.320 A special thanks to Saga Metals for making today's video possible.

00:36:55.020 See, when a nation rejects God, Scripture is plain in telling us what we should expect to follow.

00:37:00.880 Confusion, disorder, judgment.

00:37:03.160 And one of the first things in a society to be corrupted is our money.

00:37:07.920 The markets actually exposed this back in 2025.

00:37:11.340 The S&P 500 was up about 16%.

00:37:14.320 Meanwhile, gold rose more than 65%.

00:37:17.600 And silver, believe it or not, actually surged well over 144%.

00:37:22.720 And so this is why I trust my friends at Golden Crest Metals.

00:37:26.740 They're a five-star rated company trusted by thousands of Americans nationwide.

00:37:32.340 And right now, Golden Crest is offering a free information kit that explains how to own physical gold and silver directly,

00:37:39.600 as well as how to add physical gold or silver to an IRA or your 401k tax and penalty free.

00:37:46.660 And for a limited time, qualified purchases may also include up to $25,000 in free silver plus free shipping or secure storage.

00:37:57.280 So, if you would like to understand better your options and act with prudence and wisdom while you still have the chance, then go to GoldenCrestMetals.com.

00:38:07.560 Again, that's goldencrestmetals.com, or you can call 888-891-3916 to get a free information kit and speak with someone directly today.

00:38:22.960 All right, we're back. Yeah, so I thought that was a good summary, Joel, of the debate.

00:38:27.660 I think one thing that just top of mind, even as we think about, okay, there was the distinction between their sort of methodology, if you will,

00:38:34.480 which is this sort of chapter and verse approach in our methodology, which was an argument from

00:38:38.660 Scripture via sort of Scripture's authoritative interpretation of natural revelation or natural

00:38:44.000 law to sort of get to our point. And I want to remind the listeners, too, in the thesis of the

00:38:50.180 debate or the premise of the debate, nowhere did we specifically specify that we would demonstrate

00:38:55.020 from Scripture a specific verse from Scripture to say that this is sin, no, to say that this is not

00:39:02.940 even god's normative design and so and i i think as i sort of reflect on the debate that is something

00:39:08.540 that um as the only thing in the original prompt the thesis that included scripture at all was to

00:39:13.100 say although biblically permissible so that's the only thing that actually cites so it was um

00:39:18.960 scripture says that interracial marriage generally goes against nope that's not the thesis interracial

00:39:23.600 marriage although biblically permissible the only only scriptural use that was is that it was to

00:39:30.120 insist and acknowledge that Scripture does explicitly say it's permissible.

00:39:34.100 Right.

00:39:34.320 So in that sense, we were actually kind of, they were demonstrating from Scripture to

00:39:37.680 say it's permissible, and we were like in total agreement.

00:39:40.100 We agree.

00:39:40.700 Yeah, we're not going to demonstrate that it's a sin from Scripture.

00:39:43.860 And so, yeah, this was sort of one of the things, I think, in terms of the framing of

00:39:47.840 the debate that we ought to have pushed back, just reflecting on it, that we ought to push

00:39:51.360 back and sort of honed in on a little bit sooner, which is, I think we eventually got

00:39:55.880 to with the conversation around sort of age for marriage or age of consent or those sorts of

00:40:01.060 things. But I just want to point out, I mean, there were so many different ways that we could

00:40:04.800 have taken that. We could have said, what is the voting age, for example? What is the preferred

00:40:09.340 voting age? What is the... With Roussan being there, I should have brought up 19th Amendment.

00:40:14.680 What about women voting? Right. Yep. Because he would have strongly argued for women voting. 1.00

00:40:20.180 That's a great point. Yeah. Well, the Bible says that in Second Opinions 516. Oh, wait. 0.99

00:40:23.940 Well, that's the irony. The biggest thing he disagreed with me on when he had me out almost three years ago, two and a half years ago or so, which was very gracious and I appreciate it. But when he had me out on his channel in his studio, it was to talk about general equity theonomy and post-millennial eschatology.

00:40:40.600 and um and then towards the end he did like a rapid fire asked me you know some questions

00:40:45.120 knowing that i had you know uh the questions that he knew i would have more of controversial views

00:40:50.460 with and so then he you know gave his disclaimer saying i don't agree with that oh that's wild or

00:40:55.040 man that's extreme or that's you know sounds kind of sexist and i think that's literally what he

00:40:58.780 said sounds kind of sexist and he said that right after asking me should women be able to vote and

00:41:03.200 i said of course not um he's like sounds kind of sexist so he was basically saying um hey i see

00:41:09.200 some merit some general merit to your eschatology and to this general equity theonomy um but then

00:41:14.700 you know the very end of the show um you know he was like uh stood strongly against me on that

00:41:20.640 topic but but that would have been a great one that i i didn't think of but knowing russon knowing

00:41:25.320 his position to say like okay um women voting give me bible for why a woman must because they feel

00:41:34.540 very strongly that women should um so chapter and verse yeah yeah and and there's a host of other

00:41:42.680 you know and you know as you think about it there's a host of other categories like for example

00:41:46.480 when do i want to educate my child uh some some father out there might say i don't want to start

00:41:51.120 educating my children until they're 14 years old and i just prefer that and you would say no no no

00:41:55.620 that's that's not right you should educate your children younger than that uh okay one years old

00:42:00.680 Okay, maybe not one year as well. And so you get into this conversation of, okay, there's a clear

00:42:05.080 prescription in Scripture to educate your children, to raise them up into fear and admonition of the

00:42:09.620 Lord. But this conversation about when it's appropriate, it's a question of prudential

00:42:14.520 matters. And so it sort of brings me to one of my next takeaways, which I found slightly

00:42:20.580 frustrating, was this idea of preferences, as if all preferences are subjective. And I kind of

00:42:25.900 pointed this out to Avery at some point. But we all have to recognize that there's a subjective

00:42:31.160 preferential category. That is truly like, do you like apples or oranges? Do you like your tea hot

00:42:35.760 or cold or lukewarm? But then there's- Lukewarm is a moral category. If you like lukewarm tea,

00:42:41.440 no, no, no. Be neither lukewarm or hot or cold. Come on. Yeah. Do you prefer that though?

00:42:47.480 But yeah, but there's this whole other category of preferences that we all have to admit rely

00:42:51.860 on a higher norm. For example, if I were to say I prefer candy and not steak for dinner,

00:42:57.680 there is an underlying justification that you can appeal to to say, hey, no, that's not right.

00:43:02.840 That is something you ought not prefer versus something you ought to prefer. And I prefer to

00:43:07.420 be healthy versus preferring not to be healthy. I mean, there are preferences at the individual level

00:43:12.680 that rely on a higher norm, a norm of sort of good or bad or right or wrong or better or worse.

00:43:19.720 And I think specifically when it comes to the concept of marriage and compatibility within

00:43:24.380 marriage, all things ought not be preferences.

00:43:27.100 I pointed this out to Avery at some point, which was we're Christians and we ought to

00:43:32.020 think like Christians in sort of all walks of life, which is to say we ought not be arbitrary.

00:43:38.000 We should consider sort of, hey, what are the implications of this thing for myself,

00:43:43.560 for my health, for my children, for my family, even if there aren't clear sort of negative

00:43:48.560 or positive prescriptions in scripture.

00:43:50.940 And so that was sort of one of the key things.

00:43:53.120 And I would just summarize it all by saying something

00:43:55.000 that we didn't say out loud, but was evident,

00:43:56.900 I think both in the audience as they listened to it

00:43:58.920 and sort of interpreted it,

00:44:00.200 which is we're coming from two different traditions.

00:44:02.220 I think anyone who's reformed or reformed scholastic,

00:44:05.900 they would have tended to agree with us.

00:44:07.420 They would have said, oh yeah, we recognize this category.

00:44:09.680 We recognize the methodology and approach

00:44:11.520 and the argument you're trying to make.

00:44:13.420 We do that, we recognize that

00:44:14.660 because we can look back in church history

00:44:16.500 and church tradition

00:44:17.300 and see those kinds of same sort of methodologies and approaches being taken. Whereas you have sort

00:44:22.340 of this more, I would call it normie or popular evangelical sort of approach, which is, hey,

00:44:29.640 let's demonstrate things from scripture. And it's like, on one hand, hey, I love that. That's better

00:44:34.180 than sort of making things up out of thin air. Fair enough. But to say that in all facets of life,

00:44:40.060 that that is the only approach is something that I think we all innately know is just not what we

00:44:45.680 And part of it is because Scripture is not exhaustive.

00:44:48.780 So it's not that we don't want to make arguments from Scripture.

00:44:52.040 I think that everything that can be argued from Scripture

00:44:55.140 should be argued from Scripture.

00:44:56.940 So we should be able to argue from natural law and reason. 1.00

00:45:00.660 We should be able to argue that homosexuality is wrong. 1.00

00:45:04.700 But because we do have chapter and verse on that particular topic, 1.00

00:45:09.260 we should use it.

00:45:10.520 So we should use not only natural law,

00:45:12.540 but we should absolutely lean on the Scripture and say,

00:45:14.880 God wrote a book. The problem is that the book that God wrote is incredible. It is absolutely...

00:45:22.660 So when we talk about biblical sufficiency, this gets into another topic, the sufficiency of

00:45:27.300 Scripture. The question that that immediately raises, or it should raise in the minds of

00:45:32.960 thoughtful Christians is, okay, we hold to not just biblical inerrancy, but we hold to biblical

00:45:38.480 sufficiency. Sufficient for what? Sufficient for what? And even our Reformed Confessions say,

00:45:44.880 life and godliness. The Bible is perfectly sufficient for instructing us in all things

00:45:53.180 pertaining to salvation. The Bible is perfectly sufficient in getting us to heaven, a sinner to 1.00

00:45:58.960 heaven. The Bible is sufficient for many things in many ways, but we hold, while holding to 1.00

00:46:05.520 sufficiency of Scripture, we do not hold to Scripture being exhaustive. We've never asserted,

00:46:13.460 no one and neither would would russon or avery no one has asserted that the bible is sufficient

00:46:18.340 for engineering or that the bible is like so the bible is not sufficient actually for everything

00:46:24.240 but the bible gives and provides for us the basic building blocks for the biggest things

00:46:30.600 particularly eternal things heavenly things spiritual things and so that's so yes we do

00:46:38.240 want to argue from Scripture, if Scripture explicitly addresses something. But we also

00:46:43.720 want to be able to argue beyond Scripture, not in a contradictory fashion, when I say beyond,

00:46:50.980 but those things where Scripture doesn't speak to, but still matter in the temporal realm,

00:46:57.600 that still have implications, that still carry weight. Scripture doesn't explicitly address this.

00:47:02.580 It doesn't mean that Scripture, therefore, is insufficient. Scripture is sufficient,

00:47:06.120 but the question that that raises immediately is sufficient for what? For heavenly things,

00:47:11.000 for spiritual things, things pertaining to salvation, for life, and for godliness. But

00:47:16.100 Scripture never claims to be exhaustively sufficient on every single topic. And so as we

00:47:25.360 get to some of these other topics that are further beyond the bounds of Scripture, then it either

00:47:31.640 really doesn't matter, that's one option, and I think that's what they were asserting,

00:47:35.760 It's just fully, random, arbitrary preference.

00:47:40.940 Or we can say, no, underlining our preference, not all preference, apples and oranges,

00:47:47.100 but in certain matters of preference, if we're honest, our preference reveals some kind of

00:47:54.180 underlining moral implication that's not expressly stated in Scripture, but is, using a whole

00:48:01.840 biblical theology in the light of nature, something that is still obvious, true, and good?

00:48:08.140 Natural theology, natural revelation never contradicts Scripture either. So you'll never

00:48:12.200 observe one thing in Scripture and then go to the Bible and be like, this doesn't seem

00:48:15.720 to make sense. And so there's these things that Scripture speaks to so plainly. I think of the

00:48:20.360 divinity of Jesus. That is not revealed to us in natural law. There is no natural law argument for

00:48:25.240 the divinity of Jesus from Josephus' writings or something like that, purely revealed to us

00:48:30.080 in special revelation. There are things barely spoken about at all in special revelation, but

00:48:35.440 spoken very clearly about in natural revelation. I think a great example of this would be exercise.

00:48:40.140 The Bible just doesn't say a lot about exercise. It says some things in the Proverbs about not

00:48:44.620 being fat, but we see overwhelmingly when we poll people, when we do studies, when we do clinical

00:48:49.580 trials, if you are overweight, if you don't take care of your body, you will not live as long. You

00:48:54.340 will be more depressed. You will be more anxious. You will be sicker. You will be less productive

00:48:59.280 at work. You will not enjoy life very much. And so even though Scripture doesn't really say

00:49:05.180 anything about it, natural revelation reveals to us conclusively, men and women should not be fat

00:49:11.860 ordinarily. And of course, we understand there's a quadriplegic in the wheelchair. The exception

00:49:16.420 doesn't disprove the norm. But a lot of topics, there's some level of Scripture to it and a

00:49:21.980 decent amount of natural revelation. And I think of homosexuality. It's so clear and it's so 1.00

00:49:26.300 important that a society not embrace it, that scripture reveals to us that homosexuality is 1.00

00:49:31.760 an abomination. And then natural revelation too also comes in and says, oh, men who are homosexual 0.97

00:49:37.420 in the United States, not even counting AIDS, typically die at 45 years old. Nature, the way 0.60

00:49:43.240 God made the world, men who defile themselves in that way live 30 years shorter. They don't live

00:49:49.100 as long. Nature revealing the same thing that scripture comes in and reveals. And so our

00:49:53.860 argument, again, the thesis was not, Scripture teaches that interracial marriage is normatively

00:49:59.380 against God's design. Biblically permissible in some cases, but against God's normative design.

00:50:04.220 We didn't argue that Scripture alone revealed that to us. We argued on the dual basis, God's

00:50:08.640 two forms of revelation. In special revelation, he made nations, languages. When they tried to

00:50:13.580 come together, he forced them to spread out. We think of Abraham, who wanted his son to marry

00:50:18.080 someone from among his people. Because his people, in the case of Abraham, his people,

00:50:22.340 the reason why Abraham had this preference was, you know, for Isaac, right?

00:50:27.420 Abraham sent one of his own servants to go back to Abraham's own native people,

00:50:31.400 his own kin, and he sent his servant to go back

00:50:34.040 in order to find a suitable spouse for his son Isaac.

00:50:36.840 But he did this, right?

00:50:38.300 Let's be honest.

00:50:38.900 He did this because Abraham's kin, his people were Christian 0.76

00:50:42.500 and everybody else was pagan, right? 0.94

00:50:43.840 Right.

00:50:44.320 It was a religion.

00:50:45.480 Oh.

00:50:46.500 No.

00:50:47.320 Because God started the covenant with Abraham 0.92

00:50:49.640 and pulled him out of a pagan society 0.69

00:50:51.700 So the people, his kin and his native people that he was from actually weren't Christian.

00:50:57.260 They were pagan, just like the surrounding nations.

00:50:59.440 And yet Abraham still had a very strong preference.

00:51:03.180 And it was not just Abraham's preference, but it was actually carried out and fulfilled by God supernaturally.

00:51:09.320 Right. God spoke.

00:51:10.300 So Abraham speaks to his servant and expresses his preference, not based on spirituality, not based on saying, go back from among my own kin to find a wife for my son Isaac.

00:51:19.700 He says, go back and do this. And then what Abraham says to his servant is echoed then by God.

00:51:28.620 God then instructs and directs and guides Abraham's servant. Once he arrives among Abraham's

00:51:35.620 non-Christian pagan kin, God gives the word to Abraham's servant and says, go and seek water 1.00

00:51:44.880 from your long journey for you and your camels and the first woman at the well who offers makes

00:51:50.940 the generous hospitable offer to provide water for you and your camels also that is the woman that

00:51:57.660 your master selected by just mere arbitrary preference no that i have selected right for

00:52:04.480 eyes so god confirms it also so it's not mere arbitrary preference and it's uh it's echoed by

00:52:10.500 God. It's his directive. And so God is agreeing with Abraham. Yes, Isaac's wife is here. And it's

00:52:18.040 not because Abraham's family and extended kin back home are Christian, because God pulled Abraham 0.64

00:52:26.040 out. He's the beginning. The covenant starts with him. They're just as pagan as everybody else. 0.90

00:52:31.600 And yet God echoes and affirms Abraham's preference to do this thing. So whether it's Babel, God, 0.93

00:52:37.960 no, you're not going to congregate. You are going to spread out and fill the earth and you're going 0.99

00:52:42.680 to be different peoples with different languages, whether it's God at Babel or whether it's God 0.98

00:52:48.380 through Abraham and then giving a word to his servant and finding a wife for Isaac. There are

00:52:53.760 many instances from the scripture that we can argue this, but beyond that, we would also say

00:52:59.500 in light of nature, in light of reason, that it is a tragedy. It is a tragedy for an entire people

00:53:08.500 to be blotted out from the face of the earth. And interracial marriage is not exclusively 1.00

00:53:14.220 what does that, but what we're saying is that this is one component, although absolutely

00:53:20.620 biblically permissible, this component, especially not just timeless, but timely, providential,

00:53:26.480 in our moment, as it comes to those of European descent in European countries and these United

00:53:32.780 States, in our providential moment, timely, not timeless, you have the absolute full assault 0.98

00:53:39.540 of the LGBT mafia. You have a full assault of on-demand abortion access, a million babies 1.00

00:53:47.180 murdered in the womb in these United States of America every single year. You have mass immigration, 0.98

00:53:52.780 h1b visas the replacing of jobs and the ability to have a livelihood of heritage americans and

00:54:00.680 then also interracial marriage but not just interracial marriage being on the table you know

00:54:05.820 all things being equal the same as everything else but driven down your throat through media

00:54:10.500 through academia through politicians you're hard pressed to watch television and see a commercial

00:54:16.440 on television that's not either a brown couple, a black couple, a white individual, but with

00:54:22.960 somebody who's minority race, biracial couple, or a gay couple. What you're hard pressed to find

00:54:29.940 is white man, white woman. Coincidentally, the only biological arrangement that's able to produce 1.00

00:54:36.100 white children. And this is not, it's not out of desire to be, to simply, to show in media, 0.86

00:54:42.560 in commercials in television shows you know representation if it was to show representation

00:54:47.360 then we would see about 59 percent of our commercials would have a white mom and a white

00:54:52.720 dad it is not over half of the commercials it is well under half meaning that it's uh the the

00:54:59.140 reality as we see it currently and the in the demographic makeup of our nation the current

00:55:06.140 demographics are not represented in our media. White couples, both mom and dad being white,

00:55:13.800 are drastically underrepresented. And what we want to say is that is engineered, that is 1.00

00:55:20.280 intentional, and it betrays a white antipathy. And that, coupled with the fact that we've gone 0.76

00:55:27.220 from 30 to 36 percent global white population about 100 to 120 years ago, now to 8 to 12 percent. 0.66

00:55:33.640 So that coupled with two-thirds of the white global population being disappeared, erased, and with mass abortion on demand in the West and the LGBT mafia and mass immigration, that all these things together, we can look at a timely providential moment and say all the more in light of nature and with good and necessary consequence. 0.55

00:55:57.720 we can argue, both from the Scripture and from reason, that it is a great tragedy for an entire 0.74

00:56:04.780 people to be blotted out from the face of the earth, and maybe it's worth noting. Maybe it's

00:56:10.380 worth speaking to it. And let me give even a couple more examples from Scripture. The Israelites

00:56:14.520 commanded not to intermarry. Ezra, when the wives, they come back from exile, and some of them have 0.87

00:56:19.260 married foreign wives, and they have to send them away. And I know there's a religious aspect to

00:56:23.060 that, but if you have all of those, from Abraham, from the Israelites, to Ezra, you have a bunch of 0.83

00:56:27.400 examples where bringing those people in was not a good thing, and then the examples you cite,

00:56:31.680 they didn't rely on it, so it didn't come up. But in Numbers chapter 12, for example, it's mentioned

00:56:36.360 over and over again. I can even see it in the comments there. Well, Moses married, it says,

00:56:41.040 that Miriam and Aaron railed against him because he married the Cushite woman. Now, most scholars,

00:56:46.100 it's debated what's said there, because nowhere else in the Bible do we see that Moses had

00:56:49.580 a second wife. We only see Zipporah in Exodus. And so we don't know if there's a second wife,

00:56:54.680 And some have said, so Cush is one of the descendants of Ham.

00:56:57.780 Possibly what's being said there is Zipporah, his wife, is darker in her skin tone.

00:57:02.360 And what's even being gotten at there, it's not that she's a foreigner or that he married her.

00:57:05.980 They use that as a backdoor to challenge Moses' authority. 0.60

00:57:10.280 And so the narrative of Numbers chapter 12, for one, it could just be the woman that was already of the people that the Israelites lived within, the Egyptians.

00:57:18.660 It could just be his Egyptian wife that was dark in skin.

00:57:21.380 That is the majority view.

00:57:22.840 Newer scholarship. 1.00

00:57:23.660 maybe it is a second woman. He took a second wife. But even in there, nowhere do we see 0.98

00:57:28.300 disapproval, certainly, or approval. And the narrative is about authority. We talked about

00:57:33.360 Ruth and Boaz during the debate. Practically speaking, for one, she's leaving her people 0.73

00:57:37.940 because they worship false gods. Also, the geographical area that she leaves and travels 0.96

00:57:43.980 to in Israel is the size of New Jersey. So we've got lots of examples and precepts and commands.

00:57:48.780 hey, beware of marrying foreigners. And what stories do we have? What examples, what commands 1.00

00:57:54.300 do we have prescribing it? I would argue you don't even have prescriptions. We simply have

00:57:58.820 a couple examples, and they're left as morally neutral. Rahab marries in. Ruth marries in. A 0.97

00:58:04.600 couple other ones here and there. And so scripture, we could even, let's be generous, we could say

00:58:09.460 it's 50-50. All right, we have some good examples. We have some commands against it, especially when

00:58:13.380 religion is on the line, although not only. So if that's 50-50, and then we go to natural 0.96

00:58:18.340 revelation, you say, well, at scale, this was normative. This would result in the eradication

00:58:23.000 and the erasures of whole different peoples. Hey, you see these problems sometimes when children

00:58:27.380 from parents of two very different backgrounds, they struggle with identity. They don't know what

00:58:31.480 side to identify with. There's some medical concerns. So then we can say, okay, we're looking

00:58:35.480 at these two things. Scripture seems somewhat bent against it. Natural revelation seems somewhat

00:58:40.120 bent against it. We can't go too far, declare it off-limit, because neither natural revelation or

00:58:44.700 special revelation so clearly state that. But we can absolutely make a normative argument. Okay,

00:58:51.440 both of these things are telling us, as well as observing human patterns, 80, 90 to 99 percent of

00:58:57.260 people generally marry endogamously. They marry within their people group. And so we can assume

00:59:02.600 from all of the evidence that generally speaking, as a pattern, as a normative thing, that would go

00:59:09.700 against God's design. But notice, I weave natural revelation, what God reveals to us in the world,

00:59:14.700 alongside the biblical narrative to argue they're both making the same point. So it's not as though

00:59:19.260 the Bible approves of it. I'm trying to use sociology and race science and over here to kind

00:59:24.000 of try to go against the narrative. Scripture gives some warnings. Scripture gives some

00:59:28.600 commendations or brought into Jesus's line. Okay, natural revelation. Sometimes it really is there

00:59:33.540 are no conflicts. Like, it just works. There are people that could report that. And then there's

00:59:37.300 lots of people, and you guys don't see them because they don't talk to you. And this topic is taboo,

00:59:41.720 but they come up and they say, I wish someone had told me this 20 years ago before I married this

00:59:46.820 woman and my marriage dissolved. Rush Dooney, one of the reasons that he wrote against it when he

00:59:51.780 did in the 70s, a lot of GIs brought back Japanese or Asian women from the World War front, so they

00:59:57.420 maybe stayed there longer, or they brought a woman back, and it was disastrous. And so he's a pastor,

01:00:02.060 he was on an Indian reservation for a while, and he pastored in California, where a lot of Pacific

01:00:06.080 Islanders have gone, and he was witnessing firsthand the difficulty of communication,

01:00:10.520 the difficulty of assimilation, and he's looking also at Scripture, which says generally you should

01:00:15.160 not mix together. And the principle Paul takes, and he applies it and says, hey, here's a general

01:00:20.120 equity principle. So he's using Scripture, he's using observation, and then he himself, same thing,

01:00:26.060 doesn't go so far as to say, and it cannot be done. He says there is a caution. She is to be

01:00:30.860 bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. There should be a similarity there that she could be, that she

01:00:35.660 can be His, help me. And when I lay it out like that, and you're free to disagree, when I lay it

01:00:41.340 out though like that, that seems very reasonable, weaving together Scripture and natural revelation

01:00:45.280 to come to an ordinary, generally true principle. Well said, yeah. And I just, I want to point out

01:00:51.380 one other thing with respect to the people who are sort of have their scorecards, they're watching

01:00:55.460 the debate at home, and every time a verse is pulled out, they're sort of like giving a point

01:00:59.560 to Ruslan and Avery, that there isn't, there is a sense in which, you know, the references to

01:01:05.380 scripture, they imply an interpretive methodology. For example, I think there was a reference to

01:01:10.760 Galatians 3.28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, or maybe it's 29. I told you before the debate,

01:01:16.880 I said, take your stopwatch out, set a timer, because Galatians 3.28, it is not if, but it is

01:01:21.760 when that that verse comes up. Right. And it was 25 minutes in. Yeah. So, and the important thing

01:01:26.400 to note is just even when you're taking the approach, this methodology of, I want to demonstrate

01:01:30.420 something from Scripture, that there is sort of an implied mutual agreement or understanding that

01:01:35.720 actually has to occur in a conversation over the text itself. And so, of course, in Galatians 3,

01:01:41.120 like, we don't agree that when you say there's neither June or Greek that there shouldn't be

01:01:45.320 national borders, for example. We believe that that's a category here. We believe that that is

01:01:49.420 specifically within the spiritual realm, that within the church, there is no, before God,

01:01:54.480 God shows no partiality. There is neither Jew nor Greek. And so another example you can imagine

01:02:00.200 in the conversation, Avery having said something like, well, a 12-year-old shouldn't marry a 30-year-old

01:02:05.900 because 1 Peter 3 says you are to live with your wife in an understanding way. And you can't

01:02:12.560 understand a 12-year-old when you're 30, right? We would all recognize, okay, yeah, you pulled out

01:02:16.680 scripture, but that wasn't an appropriate, correct interpretation or application of scripture

01:02:25.080 in that given instance. And so, yes, we heard a lot of scripture, but we also heard a lot of

01:02:30.740 scripture that we felt wasn't actually getting to the, was actually either being used in sort of

01:02:35.980 an erroneous way or category error, or scripture that actually wasn't getting to the heart of the

01:02:40.960 argument. Scripture that we would in one context affirm, but deny the use and application in this

01:02:46.380 particular sort of reputation that they were offering. And so that's another trap I think

01:02:50.220 people can fall into, sort of the broader evangelical camp. It's like, well, I can pull

01:02:54.320 out a scripture, and it's like, well, who interprets the scripture? Is it your interpretation

01:02:57.700 of the scripture, your exegesis of the scripture? That's correct. And of course, in a two-hour

01:03:02.740 debate, you don't have time to actually dig in and say, okay, actually, I think you're in Galatians

01:03:06.560 theory, you're misapplying that scripture. That's not what it's referring to. But yeah, so that's

01:03:11.780 just one of the other traps you'll see. We certainly saw in the debate that people, as they

01:03:16.840 think about Biblicism, they should be conscious of because, yeah, because interpretation and

01:03:21.740 hermeneutic with respect to Scripture is just as important as actually referencing Scripture itself.

01:03:28.080 There's that old saying, you know, you guys aren't ready for that yet, but your kids will love it.

01:03:31.340 And probably about eight years, I would have, I don't know what I would have said about this topic

01:03:35.000 particularly, but I most certainly would have been a chapter and verse type of guy, chapter and verse

01:03:39.180 type of guy. And it was conversations like these that made me realize God has written two books.

01:03:44.120 He's given us special revelation, and then he gave us the world, and he gave us a brain, and he gave

01:03:48.020 us ears, and he gave us eyes, and the ability to exert and pull patterns out of it. And I came to

01:03:53.140 realize like, oh, nature has a lot to say about God's design. And so what I would lovingly submit

01:03:58.200 to you, you're in the chat, you're like, I can't believe this reasoning, or I just think that you

01:04:01.640 got demolished, and where was your scripture? Just take it slow, but realize that God has made

01:04:08.800 this beautiful world with all sorts of things in it, with knowledge that it's the glory of kings

01:04:13.540 to dig out. And topics like these, what are patterns? What's generally good? I think of

01:04:19.100 politics. How many volumes have been written on politics? All of them mining the depths of what

01:04:24.700 God's put in the human soul and how it is that we are to rule well. God has put a lot there.

01:04:31.620 And kings and wise men and philosophers, they dig it out and they pull it out. And if you stay at

01:04:37.520 the level of chapter and verse, you're going to stunt yourself, and you're going to stunt yourself,

01:04:42.860 maybe not necessarily as a theologian or a Bible teacher, you're going to stunt yourself as a man,

01:04:47.840 you're going to stunt your mind, you're going to be... You're just not going to be taken seriously.

01:04:51.860 You should know history, you should know philosophy, you should know normative arguments,

01:04:56.400 fallacies, all of these different things as a support and a buttress all around the core

01:05:00.940 revelation of truth that we have, the Bible, that is also supported by all of these things

01:05:06.080 that hold it up and sustain it and help us to order the world as the Bible sees it.

01:05:10.540 Well said, yeah. One of the reasons I used that example of the 18-year-old and the 60-year-old

01:05:14.780 is because that's something that I actually was asked. I was very much a chapter and verse,

01:05:19.760 and that was one I wrestled with, and I'd encourage people listening and who watched

01:05:23.020 the debate, wrestle with that one. Try to figure that one out. Try to justify age of consent,

01:05:27.560 for example, that's an age appropriate for marriage. You can't do it. You actually have 0.99

01:05:33.980 to say, all right, I know that there is a better answer and a worse answer. And scripture doesn't

01:05:39.480 make, isn't incredibly clear on what is best and what is worst. And so I have to actually use

01:05:44.900 reason. And this is important. Like you read in Hebrews, like the world that God made, like Wes,

01:05:50.700 just to reaffirm what you said, the world God made isn't in contradiction with scripture.

01:05:54.300 He actually, the reason we can do science, for example, is because we have the law of induction

01:05:59.100 because Christ upholds the world by the word of his power.

01:06:02.840 And so all of these things are connected.

01:06:04.640 Our rationality, our reason, the things, by the way, we would agree,

01:06:08.140 and Calvin said this, Scripture does illuminate the natural world.

01:06:11.980 Scripture helps illuminate our rationality and our reason

01:06:15.280 and how we can construct an argument,

01:06:17.380 how we can see things are contradictions,

01:06:19.180 how we can see things are fallacies.

01:06:20.860 And so it's nothing less than Scripture.

01:06:23.720 But we have to be able to move in appropriate categories from Scripture

01:06:28.640 letting scripture have its authoritative interpretation or illumination of the natural

01:06:33.880 facts of the natural world and this is something i think uh there's so many examples of it and

01:06:38.580 people should look these up i mean we've talked about a few of them what we talked about slavery

01:06:42.580 for example we talked about age of consent we can talk about voting we can talk about

01:06:47.060 military service should a six-year-old be in the military should a 12-year-old at what point does

01:06:51.820 it become better or worse what is more appropriate oh of course not a six-year-old um but okay um

01:06:57.500 then then give me chapter and verse for drawing the line between 17 hard no 18 hard yes right

01:07:05.820 right at some point there is the line and you you made a great point about this just in regards to

01:07:10.640 race like um the amazon rainforest right it's it splatters uh patterns of dots and so that you

01:07:19.040 might be um in in a particular uh geographic region where your map you pull up your map and

01:07:26.660 as you're outside of the the amazon rainforest and yet you're still finding certain species and

01:07:31.320 plants and wildlife that is you know um native to the amazon rainforest and so um it's hard

01:07:37.800 to to draw that strong line of where it begins and where it ends and yet um it's absurd to say

01:07:44.700 because it's uh because it's debatable where the line exactly is right i'm like because at some

01:07:51.480 point there is a line it's literally like imagine yourself walking and taking one step like if you

01:07:56.600 really if you bring it down you're on google maps or something like that and you're using um you're

01:08:01.000 using you know charts and graphs and all that because there is actually a point there has to

01:08:05.520 be a point there is a point where if i take one step further i'm further from the shire than i've

01:08:10.760 ever been no but like if i take one step further i'm outside the amazon rainforest and if i take

01:08:16.640 one step back i'm inside the amazon and it may feel arbitrary right but we all know take take

01:08:22.580 the boundaries the uh the determinative edges aside for a moment we all know that the amazon

01:08:28.540 rainforest does exist that it does exist there is such a thing as amazon rainforest and uh there is

01:08:35.980 such a place as not the amazon rainforest and we can debate till we're blue in the face about

01:08:40.840 exactly where those lines down to the inch should be drawn and those are fair and reasonable debates

01:08:47.560 but to say because we because we can't exactly agree or in some cases it feels at least partially

01:08:54.740 arbitrary when it comes to drawing the exact boundaries and the lines down to the inch

01:09:00.120 therefore the amazon rainforest doesn't exist that's silly and that's kind of that goes back

01:09:04.860 to the race like well race is a social construct race doesn't exist it doesn't even exist because

01:09:11.720 i know people uh who are white you know or asian or hispanic that have some of these characteristics

01:09:19.180 you know and um guys what are we doing what are we doing here we know we know that asians exist

01:09:25.560 white people exist we know that black people exist there was a study just to interrupt uh

01:09:30.340 and it took ai and it blurred some 95 to 100 of the images and even with 98 of the image

01:09:37.040 pixelated ai could still pull out from the bone structure the general racial category that x-rays

01:09:43.440 belong to no skin no facial features no language no nothing just the bone structure itself are so

01:09:49.420 distinct that you can blur 95 of the images i've seen them in the study they're gray panels gray

01:09:55.520 images and ai still from pattern recognition can say hey these people generally share this common

01:10:01.040 descent these people share this common descent it is a biological reality that you can't deny

01:10:05.740 what you do with it is a question we have someone in the chat said uh race does not exist

01:10:09.860 and like i mean i felt silly as as i was making the amazon rainforest analogy and like i was like

01:10:15.040 halfway through and i was like why am i doing this nobody needs this and but then i reminded 0.80

01:10:18.060 myself halfway through it's like no but most people are retarded there is a youtube comment 0.86

01:10:22.700 section yeah well we've got one in the chat right now go go ahead no i was just yeah there's a there's 0.82

01:10:28.200 i would say it's probably the more popular view that race is not real race is not a legitimate

01:10:34.120 category. And of course, Ruslan and Avery didn't necessarily make that point in the debate,

01:10:38.540 but I do think that there was some extent to which that is sort of carrying over. I think at one

01:10:43.160 point I'd sort of constructed the syllogism of like, yeah, race is a real thing and it's part

01:10:47.460 of our identity. And he seemed to assent to that. But, but again, the dismissal of race as a key

01:10:53.220 element or characteristic of your identity, I think is, it's basically carrying over from this

01:10:58.280 idea that race isn't that important, that it's not real, that it's a pseudoscience, that it's

01:11:02.740 arbitrary. And so it is actually important that we say, no, it's a real thing. Other races

01:11:07.800 recognize it's a real thing. It's funny, at some point, I think someone in the comments or maybe

01:11:13.240 someone on X had said, oh, man, that debate was really racist, talking about black people using

01:11:18.100 their hands. And of course, it was me who used that example. And I'm like, oh, that was racist.

01:11:21.440 That's interesting, because Avery looked at me and nodded. He recognized that that was a real

01:11:26.700 thing. So of course, the black community thoroughly understands that race is a key

01:11:32.260 important or key element of your identity. They refer to each other all the time. And obviously

01:11:37.100 there are distinctions. And Ruslan pointed this out. Yes, there are Africans who are from Nigeria,

01:11:41.820 you know, from Nigeria or East Africa, and they come to the United States and maybe they don't

01:11:46.240 feel quote unquote black in the sense of being a black American. But certainly at the phenotypical 0.98

01:11:51.900 level, you go to a university, right? And you're going to go to the black student coalition and

01:11:56.920 you're going to see, for instance, from Nigeria. And because there is still this phenotypic trait 0.95

01:12:01.860 by which all people in the black community here in America.

01:12:04.840 There are subconscious tells as far as you can't measure them

01:12:08.120 by looking at someone's face, but they've done this in studies

01:12:10.340 where when you're shown images or arrangements of people

01:12:13.260 that don't look like you,

01:12:14.920 there are subtle physiological stress triggers that come out

01:12:18.000 as far as just your brow, sweat, autonomic arousal.

01:12:21.620 And again, looking at nature, I don't think that's an accident

01:12:24.180 or God didn't know that that would happen.

01:12:26.000 Generally, we prefer people that are like us.

01:12:28.320 They look like us, they talk like us, they act like us.

01:12:30.340 that's been built into the human psyche none of that requires being cruel or mean to other people

01:12:35.540 but we just have to recognize on average and especially prior to 60 years ago for thousands

01:12:40.580 of years everybody generally knew assumed and acted on the premise people like people that are

01:12:47.260 like them that's who they prefer to hang out with that's what they share the most in common with

01:12:50.480 and we see at a physiological level unconscious generally people feel more comfortable less

01:12:56.180 comfortable with people that are less like them and more comfortable with people that are like

01:12:59.620 them. And I'm not going to sit here and condemn that. Oh, that's so evil. No, I think that's how

01:13:03.320 God made people. Yeah. Another part of the debate that I feel like was just quickly passed over and

01:13:08.940 missed, but I want to espouse it once more, because it's important for people to get...

01:13:16.280 Again, we agree the thesis was set forward by us, so obviously we agree with it. Our position was

01:13:22.720 to affirm that thesis, and we affirm it. So interracial marriage is biblically permissible.

01:13:28.200 We agree with that. That said, when we're looking at the Scripture, this is important to note.

01:13:33.600 Two big factors here. One is proximity, the other is time. One is proximity, the other is time.

01:13:40.780 So when you have, for instance, a Moabite, Moabitess, Ruth, marrying into an Israelite family 0.51

01:13:47.380 with Boaz, you have two distinct peoples, certainly very distinct and directly contradicting religions,

01:13:56.920 right but um but when you think of those distinctions uh in terms of the argument of

01:14:04.160 proximity uh the distance of boaz geographic distance of boaz marrying ruth would be like

01:14:11.120 someone from kentucky marrying someone in tennessee that's the equivalent uh what we are

01:14:17.940 experiencing today guys you just you have to recognize that this is novel when the bible

01:14:22.540 speaks about the allowance for interracial marriage when someone converts, right, to

01:14:28.140 Christianity. They convert and begin to worship the triune God of Israel. The Bible does allow

01:14:33.360 for it, but in all these instances, in biblical descriptive, not prescriptive, but descriptive

01:14:38.020 passages that we have, you are talking about the equivalent of someone in France marrying

01:14:45.340 someone in England, someone in Kentucky marrying someone in Tennessee. That's what someone in

01:14:51.600 kenya marrying someone in tanzania um that's the equivalent of what you're looking what you don't 0.92

01:14:56.640 have is you don't have our very novel situation today one through wicked policies um and ideologies

01:15:04.600 and two just through um the reality of technological innovations and and inventions and devices planes

01:15:11.720 trains and automobiles we have made the world relatively speaking small the world is a much

01:15:17.180 smaller place, because I can get on a plane, and tomorrow I could go to a meeting in Japan,

01:15:23.940 which is an incredible thing, but a very novel, very new thing. So one, proximity. The inter-ethnic

01:15:31.620 or inter-racial marriages that we would see in the Old Testament as descriptive text examples

01:15:40.120 are, most of them would be certainly inter-ethnic, they would have been inter-religious

01:15:46.940 if there wasn't conversion, right, from a pagan ideology and religion to the true religion,

01:15:53.000 but they're not. Very few of them. Could you actually argue from the text, are they actually

01:15:59.540 interracial? I'm going to say that. This would be a little bit controversial. Very few of them, 0.96

01:16:05.100 I'll say it again, could you argue are interracial, like two very distinct races,

01:16:12.480 Ruth and Boaz

01:16:14.340 That's hard to argue 1.00

01:16:15.480 Moses and the Cushite woman 1.00

01:16:17.680 Would be a little bit more to argue there 0.85

01:16:20.840 But even there you could push back 0.96

01:16:22.400 Shem to Ham

01:16:22.940 But most scholars have thought

01:16:25.100 That was already the wife he already married

01:16:26.660 Which would have been Semitic 1.00

01:16:27.920 Right 0.95

01:16:28.320 And so here's the point

01:16:30.060 So one is proximity

01:16:31.120 What we have today

01:16:33.180 Is we are importing in the West

01:16:36.060 In European countries and these United States 0.58

01:16:38.320 People not just from next door

01:16:40.660 but people from literally 6,000 miles away, people from the opposite ends of the earth.

01:16:46.440 So one argument is proximity. The intermarriages that we see in the Old Testament and also in the

01:16:53.220 New Testament, Jew or Greek, these are distinct peoples in some regard, but the distinctions are

01:17:00.940 not nearly as distant as a Haitian and a Swede. Okay? That is different. Proximity

01:17:09.860 is an element. It is a factor. Second, I mentioned two factors. The second is time. So proximity and

01:17:17.580 time. Our argument for race is not a Darwinian argument. We reject every false ideology that

01:17:26.780 would seek to assert itself against the knowledge of Christ. We take every thought captive and make

01:17:34.040 it obedient to Christ. We reject Darwin insofar as Darwin sought to wage war ultimately against

01:17:42.880 the Christian faith. So macro evolution, the idea that from the primordial soup eventually come,

01:17:51.100 you know fish and then tadpoles and then frogs and they develop into lizards and they they develop

01:17:57.640 eventually into a porcupine that turns into a um a warthog that turns into a horse eventually

01:18:03.320 turns back into a whale and then turns into a dog and then turns into a monkey and then a gorilla

01:18:07.820 and then eventually a man nonsense absurdity heresy heresy um so we reject that we do not

01:18:18.840 reject however micro evolution i would accept that in a technical sense but better stated

01:18:26.400 adaption simply adaption over time we believe um that uh one species of birds could develop

01:18:35.960 many other subspecies in accordance as the scripture says in accordance with its kind

01:18:42.320 right so that's that's the whole and i tried to argue that and again this was missed as well

01:18:46.820 the whole like evangelicals like ken ham the creation guy you know the the ark encounter i

01:18:52.400 brought my kids we love it like the ark encounter he's our guy you know argue he did his debate

01:18:57.380 against bill nye you know and and everybody you know all the people who are saying we're racist

01:19:01.720 and disagree with us in this debate against russell and avery all them were arguing on you

01:19:06.400 know watching the debate with bill nye and ken ham and they were on the side of ken ham well here's

01:19:09.840 the irony. The irony is that one of the big gotchas from the atheist, the Darwinist, is

01:19:17.900 there are this many thousands or millions of species alive on the earth today, and how in the

01:19:24.020 world, right? The Bible doesn't just say an ark, but it gives the exact dimensions. We know the

01:19:28.320 size of it, the scope of it. How in the world did Noah get all these species that we see today on

01:19:32.820 the ark? And the answer that Ken Ham has provided, and others, that we all agree with, right, is,

01:19:38.300 well ken ham didn't have to bring a thousand different subspecies of dogs he just had to

01:19:43.640 bring two two canines right one female and one male according to their kind and they would

01:19:50.720 actually over time adapt and from two canines you would get all the way up to great danes and all

01:19:56.100 the way down to chihuahuas right which are some pretty meaningful differences pretty meaningful

01:20:01.740 two dogs about three four thousand years ago we now have the tiniest little rats in the world

01:20:07.780 and massive great danes now dogs have a quicker cycle so you're able to have generations of them

01:20:12.940 faster correct but you see a wide differences and there are wide differences between you know

01:20:16.700 undiscovered pygmy tribes in africa and the tall corn-fed guy in iowa right that's what we'd expect

01:20:22.680 to see some variety yes and so so the point is you know two canines not every subspecies of dog

01:20:28.940 but each according to its kind so subspecies would still fall within the category scientifically of

01:20:34.960 kind. Dogs do not beget monkeys and certainly don't become men, but dogs do produce other types

01:20:42.740 of dogs. And we all agree with this. So my point is, one is proximity. Well, interracial marriage

01:20:47.960 is permissible in the Bible, and we see this positive example of Ruth and Boaz. And so we

01:20:51.520 can take somebody from 6,000 miles from Uganda and all the way up to Norway, and it's the same

01:21:02.360 thing well no um you're talking about about a 60 mile distance in the case of ruth and boas

01:21:10.340 proximity geographically 60 mile difference kentucky and tennessee versus what we're doing

01:21:16.880 today with globalism and innovation and mass immigration from every single place in the world

01:21:21.500 that's one argument the second is time so uh over time two dogs two canines could produce

01:21:29.860 different types of dogs. Two dogs eventually become many different subspecies of dogs still

01:21:36.500 within the category of kind, Great Dane all the way down to Chihuahua, and just repeat the cycle

01:21:41.140 with different kinds of animals. You can do the same with felines. You can do the same with this

01:21:45.540 and the same with that. In terms of people, time actually is a factor. When we find Old Testament

01:21:52.600 examples of intermarriage. Consider 60 mile difference versus 6,000 proximity. Second,

01:22:01.460 consider time. How far removed in terms of time, centuries, years is, for instance,

01:22:08.840 Ruth and Boaz and their marriage versus an interracial marriage today? What is the scope

01:22:16.280 of time, the difference in the starting place, to specify that, again, the ark, Noah, his three

01:22:24.920 sons, Japheth, Shem, and Ham. By the time you get to Ruth and Boaz, there has been time.

01:22:33.680 But by the time you get to the year of our Lord, 2026, today, for us, if one of you could do just

01:22:42.160 a quick ai search because i i don't want to misspeak i want to make sure that i'm accurate

01:22:46.700 here but i believe that the difference of the time of noah and the time of ruth and boaz right so

01:22:55.180 their four generations a fourth generation would have been david david's the second king in israel

01:22:59.600 you have multiple kings leading up all the way eventually um until capture and those kinds of

01:23:04.280 things under the roman empire then comes jesus and we're two thousand years removed from christ

01:23:07.920 So I believe that Ruth and Boaz in the time removed from Noah would probably be 1,000 to 1,500 years.

01:23:14.120 1,100 to 1,300.

01:23:15.700 There you go.

01:23:16.220 And so then Boaz and Ruth to us, about 1,100 BC.

01:23:20.800 So 1,100 plus 2,000.

01:23:22.620 So 3,100 removed far back from us.

01:23:25.220 So we're about 4,500 years removed from Noah, Ham and Shem and Japheth. 0.52

01:23:33.360 Ruth and Boaz and their marriage, their intermarriage.

01:23:37.060 you know case closed final nail in the coffin we got it we got them bible chapter and verse

01:23:44.240 their marriage was approximately 1100 to 1300 years removed from these three sons of noah

01:23:51.020 from which all the peoples of the earth descend so they're about we'll split the difference 11

01:23:56.500 to 1300 we'll call it 12 okay 1200 years removed so that's the time factor 1200 years removed and

01:24:04.000 when you have ruth and boaz married it's not ruth from six thousand miles away it's ruth

01:24:09.960 from 60 approximately 60 miles away proximity okay for us today instead of ruth and boaz this

01:24:16.700 is what i'm trying to say ruth and boaz is a marriage 1200 years removed from noah and people's

01:24:22.460 adapting because the point is those distinctions become greater not less greater over time just

01:24:30.260 like dogs. If we're a thousand years removed from the ark and Noah only brought two canines on the

01:24:36.080 ark, how many subspecies of dogs would you have a thousand years after the flood? You'd have

01:24:41.320 several. You would. Would you have several more though 4,500 years after the ark? You would have

01:24:48.360 more. And between more subspecies, you'd also see greater distinctions from Great Danes all the way

01:24:55.820 down to Chihuahuas. I'm willing to bet. I wasn't there. I don't have a time machine, but from

01:25:00.140 good and necessary consequences using reason and logic that god has provided i'm willing to bet that

01:25:05.200 about 1200 years right ruth and boaz from the ark about 1200 years removed from the ark

01:25:11.700 you would have had maybe a third of the number of subspecies of dogs as we have today or maybe a

01:25:20.360 quarter and the distinctions probably would not have been as stark as chihuahua to great day

01:25:26.040 you know it would be more like golden retriever to rottweiler right you know something like that

01:25:31.200 i'm trying to illustrate the point so two big factors proximity time proximity time and to and

01:25:37.500 to say it as simply as possible in the case of ruth and boaz you have 60 miles in the proximity

01:25:43.620 category and you have 1200 years in the time category for today you have 6 000 miles in the

01:25:52.040 proximity category, and 4,500 years in the time category. So you're literally looking at

01:26:00.700 100 times the distance, 100 times the distance, proximity, and you're looking at approximately

01:26:09.460 four times the length of time. And the longer the time goes, the more variations and the wider

01:26:19.480 distance within those variations you get if the guy that everybody agrees with, Ken Ham,

01:26:27.920 is right. And I'm just sitting here as just a sweet, normie evangelical saying, I agree with

01:26:33.080 Ken Ham. I agree with him. And so I find it preposterous and absurd and likely ignorant,

01:26:43.180 but possibly in some cases simply intellectually dishonest, that you would have, because I know 0.92

01:26:48.700 that probably nine out of 10 guys dunking on us

01:26:53.040 and saying, oh, you got your clock clanged

01:26:55.620 by the two rappers, you know, Avery and Ruslan.

01:27:00.660 I guarantee nine out of 10 guys who would say that

01:27:04.040 probably, probably either watched

01:27:07.080 or at least knew, heard about the debate

01:27:09.600 between Ken Ham and Bill Nye

01:27:11.520 and would say Ken Ham was right.

01:27:13.720 I'm rooting for him in that debate.

01:27:15.640 And we're sitting here with his position simply

01:27:18.040 and saying, we think he's right.

01:27:20.340 The way that we have so many species today,

01:27:22.700 and there's no way that all of them could have fit on the ark,

01:27:25.340 is because Darwin is wrong, we're Christians,

01:27:29.460 but microevolution, at least as it pertains to adaption,

01:27:33.520 adaptions within kinds, does actually exist,

01:27:37.180 and it's perfectly biblical.

01:27:39.180 And adaption, variance within kinds, subspecies, takes time.

01:27:45.800 And the longer the time goes by, the more variations and the greater distance between subspecies you can actually have, and they would be fruitful, multiply, and go out, spread out, and fill the earth.

01:28:00.460 So today, it's quite different. Ruth and Boaz, right? The French and the English, 60 miles away,

01:28:08.800 1,200 years removed in terms of the time of adaptations taking place, 1,200 years removed

01:28:14.840 from the ark, versus today, 4,500 years and 6,000 miles away. And so when you point to these

01:28:20.600 examples, we are saying still, our position still remains the same, despite it being much more

01:28:29.200 significant differences today between different peoples, we're still saying, in accordance with

01:28:35.660 what we believe to be scriptural, that interracial marriage, so long as both individuals are

01:28:41.620 Christian, is biblically permissible. And in the micro, can be good and even ideal, even ideal.

01:28:49.860 In the macro, it generally goes against God's normative, not a prohibition explicit, not

01:28:59.680 something like that, but generally goes against God's normative, ordinary design for people's

01:29:04.680 cultures and nations.

01:29:06.460 And we would say, as time goes by, the closer we get to the return of Christ, the further

01:29:11.860 removed from the ark and the original three sons of Japheth and Shem and Ham, and the

01:29:18.120 further the distance proximity, it's a little bit different, America to Canada, or even America to

01:29:25.040 Mexico, versus America to Haiti, that those distinctions become greater, even more

01:29:34.320 visible, discernible, and it requires even more prudence, more wisdom, and this is a perfectly 0.99

01:29:45.460 reasonable position for Christians to take. I just wanted to include that.

01:29:50.500 Well said.

01:29:51.740 Okay. The title of this episode is Homosexuality, Polygamy, and Interracial Marriage. We don't

01:29:59.260 have to spend a whole lot of time, but I was going to say, we just got through the introduction.

01:30:02.060 Let's get into it.

01:30:03.080 No, I just, we'll do this shortly, quickly, but I just wanted to, so I posted this as

01:30:07.660 a clarification. I want to make this clarification. When you say something that lacks clarity

01:30:13.000 or you're off on a certain point, you know, or you just kind of missed it, you know, even if you

01:30:17.820 didn't mean to, even if it was a lack of communication, a lack of clarity, it just,

01:30:23.420 it matters for Christian leaders to own it. And so I want to offer a clarification for a portion

01:30:30.340 of the debate where I brought up polygamy, and I think that I was unhelpful in a way that,

01:30:37.360 and so I just want to read this, because I posted it out, but not everybody reads my tweets,

01:30:41.420 So I want it to be both in, um, in, in written form on X, but then also in spoken form, you

01:30:47.840 know, for those who watch on YouTube and things like that.

01:30:49.820 Cause I, I, I just, um, credibility matters.

01:30:54.800 And for me, when it comes to guys that I look up to and guys that I'm willing to learn from

01:30:59.220 from guys that I trust, um, I don't need perfect records.

01:31:03.040 But what I do need to see is humility.

01:31:05.520 I need to see guys who are willing to admit when they're wrong.

01:31:08.400 And, uh, and so I want to make this clear.

01:31:10.800 So I wrote a clarification regarding polygamy.

01:31:13.580 I'm sure that I could have spoken more clearly on this point in the debate that we recently had.

01:31:18.380 I apologize for any confusion that I caused.

01:31:20.680 My point in bringing up polygamy as an example was to say that chapter and verse biblicism is simply wrongheaded.

01:31:29.360 We can and should, from good and necessary consequence, conclude that certain things are either not the norm slash ideal, parentheses, prudent. 0.60

01:31:38.360 or, in some cases, even inherently immoral, parentheses, sin, without requiring necessitating

01:31:48.460 an explicit condemnation or prohibition in Scripture. For the record, I would agree with

01:31:55.880 both the Westminster and the London Baptist Confession of Faith regarding the topic of

01:32:00.840 polygamy. That said, if a man were already married to more than one wife and we were in,

01:32:06.540 for instance, a Muslim nation, a different context than the West, and that's a key point. 0.55

01:32:11.820 I would recognize if a man came, Muslim man converts to Christ, and his whole household,

01:32:17.800 his wives and children also, and he has four wives rather than one, and we're in some Middle

01:32:23.360 Eastern nation, Islamic nation, and I'm a Christian missionary there, and he wants to

01:32:27.300 come and join the church and be baptized, and his family, his household. If a man were already 0.94

01:32:32.980 married. Not saying, hey, pastor, I want to seek out a second wife. Are you for or against? No. 0.98

01:32:37.460 He's already married, and we're not in a Western context where we have laws against it, and we

01:32:41.600 have precedent, and we have history, and those kinds of things. In that context, if a man were 0.95

01:32:45.960 already married to more than one wife, I would recognize his multiple marriages as valid. Not

01:32:52.200 ideal, not the norm, but still not illegitimate. I would recognize them as valid. Even John Calvin,

01:33:01.260 I put in parentheses here, he argued for a temporary tolerance when it came to polygamy. 0.86

01:33:06.580 Not the tolerance that says, hey, you just want more sex, young man, and so you're chomping at

01:33:11.700 the bit to take on a second and third wife. Well, we'll tolerate that. No, no, not tolerance for the 0.71

01:33:16.800 pursuit of multiple wives, but tolerance in the case of a man who converts to Christ along with

01:33:22.780 his wives, and he's already married to multiple wives. In short, homosexuality, a homosexual marriage 0.96

01:33:30.820 we would say is not a valid marriage. So I put marriage there in quotation marks because it's 1.00

01:33:36.440 not even a marriage. Homosexual marriage, not a valid marriage. It therefore should be immediately 1.00

01:33:42.220 annulled and separated. A polygamous marriage would equal a valid marriage if already established, 1.00

01:33:52.120 but no one should pursue it. And then number three, an interracial marriage equals a valid 0.99

01:33:59.180 marriage it is permissible to pursue not only to maintain but to pursue and even can be ideal in

01:34:07.380 the micro parentheses individual cases but in the macro parentheses at scale it would ultimately

01:34:14.980 serve to erode national slash racial distinctions and therefore is not the norm that's that's my

01:34:24.920 position so in bringing up polygamy what i was trying to do and it wasn't helpful it was a bad

01:34:29.360 example but what i was trying to do slavery i brought up i actually i kind of shotgun did a

01:34:34.900 shotgun strategy i think i brought up like three different things and polygamy and slavery were

01:34:39.180 two of them slavery was much better i wish i had just said that i said polygamy and so then we got

01:34:46.020 pigeonholed with that um and and spent a lot more time on that and slavery would have been the better

01:34:50.720 example, but what I was trying to do is say there are certain things that we all agree

01:34:56.040 are not the norm, but we also agree that there's not an explicit scriptural prohibition or

01:35:07.340 condemnation of it. And I would say that polygamy is an example of that, but the reason why it was 1.00

01:35:12.400 unhelpful is because polygamy and interracial marriage are not a one-to-one ratio. Polygamy, 0.92

01:35:19.020 we can't say it's not the norm we can absolutely say that scripturally historically um it's not

01:35:24.520 it's not the norm but we would say more than that and that's why it wasn't helpful we would say

01:35:28.280 we wouldn't just say it's not the norm um but it's permissible not only to maintain also permissible

01:35:34.300 to pursue and in many cases could be really good we actually wouldn't go that far we would agree

01:35:39.200 with the the westminster divines and the reformed tradition and say uh no we feel stronger much more

01:35:46.620 strongly like the prompt that we wrote the thesis interracial marriage although biblically

01:35:50.720 we we would not just plug and play and and have that same thesis if it was polygamy we wouldn't

01:35:57.760 and so by me bringing it up as another example um it just it didn't it didn't serve the purpose

01:36:05.000 it was unhelpful and so i apologize um for that for that failure um and and a lack of clarity and

01:36:12.880 confusion that I introduced, but the point that I was trying to make, just to be clear, as I was

01:36:18.120 trying to cite, there are other examples of things that are not expressly, explicitly forbidden or

01:36:24.320 condemned in Scripture. There's not chapter and verse Biblicism argument against it, and yet we

01:36:30.380 still all agree that it should not be normative. Polygamy was not a good example. Slavery, I think, 0.99

01:36:36.500 is. The best example is what Antonio brought up, and I'm so glad you did when we got to age gaps.

01:36:41.760 That was really helpful. That was a great example, not explicitly prohibited or condemned in

01:36:47.940 scripture, and actually would be permissible. There actually have been times in the Christian

01:36:53.360 West, historically, throughout Christendom, where a 35-year-old man marries a 16-year-old girl

01:36:59.420 and has a God-honoring marriage, and the Lord approves of it. And yet we still would say,

01:37:05.480 not the norm, and certainly in a timely sense, not timeless, but timely sense in our context today,

01:37:10.940 less than ideal and yet not expressly forbidden slavery um would be a little bit different but

01:37:19.220 would be closer to being a good example like the age gap thing with with you know relating it to

01:37:23.700 the topic of interracial marriage than polygamy and and the reason why slavery um we would say

01:37:29.140 i know that uh russon brought up um the the example of uh paul's letter to philemon to release

01:37:36.040 uh i don't feel like he pronounced philemon correctly but philemon um and that happened

01:37:41.680 and i was like oh yeah oh no take backs on that but yeah we weren't going to correct them right

01:37:47.200 there and you know be be inhospitable um we're we're grateful that they came out and and that

01:37:52.620 was um that was kind of them uh but and the example of paul's letter to philemon he's talking

01:37:58.040 about a particular slave uh who is a good brother in the lord who has done paul personal good who's

01:38:04.280 come to paul's aid and he's saying whatever his debts count them against me like he's saying like

01:38:10.720 he's basically saying hey bro um it'd be really nice if you did me a solid and uh and just let

01:38:18.620 him go for free but if you have to charge still let him go and charge my account and but notice

01:38:26.380 uh this is the same apostle paul who wrote the letter to philemon um in the case of one slave

01:38:32.240 he's not talking about all slaves one slave who did him good it's the same apostle paul who also

01:38:38.520 wrote the book of ephesians it says masters treat your slaves like this and slaves he literally

01:38:45.480 says to slaves um do your work heartily for your masters unto the lord not man pleasing not merely

01:38:52.960 for eye service only working hard when your master is there watching but even when your master is

01:38:58.380 not present. Work hard as unto the Lord. So the Apostle Paul, there is, the point is this,

01:39:03.080 there is no chapter and verse Biblicism. There is no express, explicit condemnation or prohibition

01:39:09.040 in the scripture, both Old or New Testament, that says, masters, release your slaves.

01:39:16.520 And so slavery is permissible. This is what R.L. Dabney, this is what George Washington, 0.88

01:39:25.080 right this is what john adams many different uh good christian jonathan edwards george whitfield

01:39:32.580 right i mean we we could the list goes on and on and on whether it's american political founders

01:39:38.100 and fathers or whether it's um theological spiritual fathers in in the reformed tradition

01:39:43.440 fathers in the faith many of them made these arguments um in in defending the institution

01:39:49.800 of slavery while let the record state clearly while even in the case of R.L. Dabney who's you

01:39:55.420 know has been slandered as you know some terrible immoral man he was profusely vehemently against

01:40:02.460 the transatlantic slave trade he believed that the slave trade which involved man stealing which

01:40:09.560 Leviticus speaks of Exodus I believe chapter 21 speaks he was vehemently and passionately against

01:40:14.480 he believed that the slave trade must be abolished but the question for Dabney was what do we do with

01:40:19.780 all the slaves who are already here, especially those, in his case, what he had on the forefront

01:40:25.160 of his mind was second and third generation slaves. They've only ever spoken English.

01:40:31.340 They speak English. They speak English good. They speak English well. They speak just as

01:40:36.060 their fluent first language. They've also grown up in Christian churches in the South.

01:40:43.000 They've been catechized. They've been taught to memorize the scripture. They share with

01:40:49.100 their white masters and their white the white master's children at the same lord's table when 0.97

01:40:54.840 it comes to taking the supper what what are we going to do we're going to drop them off in the 0.95

01:40:58.460 bush likely a thousand miles either up or down the coast from where they actually came from and

01:41:03.240 even if we find the exact spot they're two three generations removed there's not a single person

01:41:08.100 there that they know they wouldn't even be able to speak the language they probably immediately

01:41:11.540 after dropping them off within 15 minutes they'd be captured and lined up on the coast to be sold

01:41:15.980 again so what what his argument was um how many how many uh shades of separation degrees of

01:41:25.000 separation um that we know that the one who man steals it was punishable by death and the one

01:41:30.720 found in possession right exodus 21 goes further the one found in possession also merits the death

01:41:36.600 penalty so it's not just the one who stole but if one stole and then the one who buys purchases

01:41:42.200 that's one degree separation now

01:41:44.200 purchases but they purchased

01:41:46.180 this individual knowing that he had been

01:41:47.920 wrongfully captured and stolen

01:41:50.040 man stealing then this guy

01:41:52.200 also was doing a great evil

01:41:53.520 but what do you do if a hundred years

01:41:56.260 go by and it's

01:41:58.200 not the original person who was stolen

01:42:00.180 and captured and sold to the

01:42:02.140 first purchaser but now it's like

01:42:04.100 the fifth, sixth, seventh

01:42:06.020 purchaser and it's not him

01:42:07.880 the slave it's his great grandson

01:42:10.020 and

01:42:11.500 you see what i'm saying at what point with degrees of separation does it no longer fall

01:42:17.840 into the leviticus or exodus chapter 21 framework of a crime in biblical terms it's especially a

01:42:24.740 capital crime punishable by death and what what therefore is the solution um when there's nothing

01:42:31.500 to go back to um and and so my point is this uh slavery being permissible and the fact that there's

01:42:37.880 no Biblicist chapter and verse express condemnation or prohibition in the Scripture for it, is the

01:42:43.400 very argument, all things permissible but not all things ideal or beneficial. 1 Corinthians 10

01:42:49.460 argues that, 1 Corinthians 6, that's the very argument that the Reformed fathers made that

01:42:56.900 our American founding fathers made in the case of slavery, while vehemently disagreeing with the

01:43:05.280 slave trade and seeing it as wicked the the continual ongoing man stealing and capturing

01:43:10.340 and these kinds of things and yet what do we do in this case when we're 17 degrees of separation

01:43:17.540 removed from the original thing that was a sin and was immoral was a crime and they would have used

01:43:23.000 that kind of natural law reason rational argumentation to be able to say some of them

01:43:30.660 the slaves must be released others uh no we believe it is permissible under god and uh what

01:43:37.080 should be done is simply what uh what scripture what scripture says ephesians chapter six masters

01:43:44.500 rule over your slaves in this regard slaves regard your masters in this manner um so not the norm

01:43:54.100 right we're not pro-slavery none of us we're certainly against slave trade certainly against

01:44:00.640 against transatlantic slave trade. But even in a general sense, we would say our ideal, 0.72

01:44:07.100 because we believe it's God's ideal, is that every man would be a free man, and every nation on earth,

01:44:11.740 every tribe, tongue, and nation, that every man would be a free man. So we are generally against

01:44:16.660 slavery, and we believe the whole of Scripture, the whole biblical theology, and the light of

01:44:20.880 nature, and the will of God is generally against slavery, because we believe that slavery generally

01:44:27.680 goes against god's normative ordinary design for peoples nations and cultures and yet we would say

01:44:35.460 as our fathers both spiritual and historical political in the west and within the reformed

01:44:42.200 faith argued we say and yet it is biblically permissible that's what that's what i was trying

01:44:49.400 to do slavery was a good example age gap was a good example polygamy was not so much a good

01:44:54.740 example and i apologize all right so any any final thoughts before we go to super chats

01:45:00.360 uh there was one comment someone commented on the video that's what i wanted to

01:45:06.960 mention someone commented on the video and it was the top comment for a while so most people liked

01:45:11.180 it and by liking it it was the top comment shown to people that started it and they said uh people

01:45:16.000 need to realize that ruslan's framing and and obviously avery's to some extension as well

01:45:20.880 that that framing, well, it doesn't matter, we're all one in Christ, that that message to some level

01:45:25.540 is actually driving young men away from Christianity. If you use Christianity as a

01:45:31.160 cudgel to destroy your people, to destroy your race, to say, well, the Christian gospel doesn't 0.81

01:45:36.320 say anything about it. You can throw up your hands. Who cares if white people go extinct? 0.87

01:45:39.640 If that is your message, you will turn young men away from Christianity. Now, I'm not saying 0.95

01:45:45.720 the good and true things about Christianity. There is a truth. It's overused. Galatians 3.28,

01:45:50.380 there is a real truth that no matter where you were born, male or female, that before God,

01:45:54.960 what you are appealing to is not who you were born to, the fact that you're a man, the fact

01:45:58.900 that you did this. You're appealing to the blood of Jesus to save you. But when you use that as a

01:46:03.640 weapon to demolish and level the natural order, you destroy young men's desire, young men's 0.96

01:46:10.600 interest in Christianity, because they look at it and they say, it seems like all Christianity does

01:46:14.880 is tear down the hierarchies and the orders and the framework of the world.

01:46:19.640 I don't want any part of that.

01:46:21.020 Correct.

01:46:21.760 And it's unfortunate.

01:46:23.540 You have to recognize that's your message.

01:46:26.680 Race isn't real. 0.71

01:46:28.120 Interracial marriage, it's great.

01:46:29.540 Who cares if we all are the same shade of brown? 1.00

01:46:31.840 Well, you're going to turn off young men.

01:46:33.960 You're going to turn off people that would be interested in Christianity, 0.80

01:46:36.600 but they're not interested in a Christianity that destroys the natural order.

01:46:40.240 their home and their fathers and their heritage being destroyed right and and that is the sad

01:46:47.600 truth dude i i get dozens and dozens of these emails i'm glad you brought that up i forgot

01:46:52.660 about that comment i get dozens of these emails probably hundreds of these dms on x of young men

01:47:00.180 saying joel i i want to trust in jesus i want to believe in jesus the biggest hurdle for me

01:47:07.700 is how can I believe Christianity is true

01:47:10.560 when it seems as though the central message of Christianity

01:47:15.180 as it's being presented by modern Christians today

01:47:17.820 is the very mechanism for the destruction of my heritage, 1.00

01:47:23.080 my fathers, and my home.

01:47:26.580 That is so sad. 1.00

01:47:28.800 That is so sad that Reformed ministers, 1.00

01:47:33.000 modern Reformed ministers today, 1.00

01:47:35.020 are actually espousing that message, a message that perverts true historic Christianity,

01:47:47.460 the faith once and for all passed down to the saints and makes it nothing, little more than

01:47:54.060 a bludgeon for uh egalitarianism functional egalitarianism uh racial egalitarianism

01:48:03.460 um soft feminism thinly veiled feminism um and that and that's how a lot of young men see it

01:48:12.220 they're like i want to believe in jesus but uh it seems as though i uh a dichotomy has been

01:48:19.660 presented to me by Christian ministers that I have only two options, two options and only two

01:48:25.460 options. I can save the West or I can trust in Jesus. That's so sad. They literally see these 0.89

01:48:34.300 as being directly at odds because individuals like Ruslan, that's exactly what they're saying.

01:48:41.760 What Ruslan is saying is that what it means to be Christian is the very things that at scale

01:48:49.600 logically followed to their reasonable end

01:48:54.260 will mean, inevitably,

01:48:58.060 the complete destruction and erosion

01:49:00.360 of European Christendom,

01:49:05.140 of our great heritage.

01:49:08.580 And young men are looking at that,

01:49:10.100 and here's the reality.

01:49:11.400 I think Roussan does a lot of good.

01:49:13.240 I believe he's a brother in Christ.

01:49:14.600 He's within the bounds of orthodoxy.

01:49:17.680 But here's the reality.

01:49:18.900 for every one person who listens to us,

01:49:23.180 10 are listening to Ruslan and Avery.

01:49:26.460 That's literally, they have 10 times the following.

01:49:30.540 And so when it comes to all these young men 0.99

01:49:32.860 who need Jesus, who aren't Christian

01:49:34.800 and are considering Christianity,

01:49:37.920 but then when they investigate, 10 to one ratio,

01:49:42.980 when they investigate, they're going to hear Ruslan.

01:49:45.360 They're going to hear James White.

01:49:47.240 They're going to hear Joe Boot.

01:49:48.900 They're going to hear, and these are some of the better guys, right?

01:49:51.980 I mean, they'll probably hear Stephen Furtick or Joel Osteen.

01:49:56.360 You know, in those cases, it'll be egalitarian liberalism that destroys the West,

01:50:01.440 plus heresy, actual heresies of prosperity gospel and those kinds of, you know.

01:50:05.740 But just the fact remains.

01:50:08.680 This is what we have to realize we're up against.

01:50:11.400 There are many young men that look to the fields.

01:50:14.480 They are white with the harvest, Jesus says.

01:50:16.320 There is a plentiful harvest right now with young heritage American men on the right wing. 0.59

01:50:26.160 And yet, every single one of them who really is open, when they investigate Christianity

01:50:32.700 and they hear from someone today, they have about a 10 to 1 chance of hearing,

01:50:39.980 being immediately confronted with, here's the Christian faith, here's the Christian gospel,

01:50:45.480 and if you choose it you lose your home that's what they're hearing and so that's why like we're

01:50:53.800 not saying that we're the best we're not saying like there are other guys who are smarter than us

01:50:57.480 other guys who are more faithful than us but the fact still remains not trying you know you must

01:51:03.300 humor me with a little fool's talk the fact remains that we are not the only ones but it is

01:51:10.720 few and far between ministries like ours that have sound doctrine and theology, um, strong 0.97

01:51:19.060 morals, right? We're not going to, uh, nightclubs and live streaming it. Um, strong, strong morals,

01:51:28.260 um, uh, strong biblical traditional doctrine, and also a little bit of common sense and,

01:51:36.600 and a strong affection and love for the Christian West

01:51:40.740 and our homeland and our fathers.

01:51:45.100 They're just, as far as I know, maybe I'm wrong,

01:51:48.300 but there aren't a whole lot of voices out there like that.

01:51:51.620 There aren't a lot of ministries out there like that.

01:51:54.800 There aren't many people who would be willing to do,

01:51:56.660 there are other people who hold our view,

01:51:58.120 but wouldn't necessarily be willing to take that debate

01:52:00.580 because they know it's outside

01:52:02.660 of where the Overton window currently is.

01:52:04.460 they know they're going to get dragged in the comments they know they're going to get slaughtered

01:52:08.200 we're getting dragged right now people you know still like oh what does it say in the bible you

01:52:12.760 know that's um that's where we are right now the lay of the land is not looking great um but we're

01:52:21.840 willing to take on this fight knowing that it's going to come at great cost that we're going to

01:52:26.620 be ridiculed we're going to be slandered we're going to be mocked and so right here at the very

01:52:30.560 and I, you know, if you will humor me, I don't mean to be intrusive. I don't mean to inconvenience

01:52:38.480 you. If you're unable to do it, that's fine. But for those of you who are able and may feel led,

01:52:45.520 I'm humbly requesting that you help keep us in the fight. Would you prayerfully consider

01:52:52.260 supporting our sister organization, which is a 501c3 Christian ministry

01:52:58.520 with offering tax receipts for every charitable donation,

01:53:02.760 would you consider making a donation

01:53:04.420 to rightresponseministries.com forward slash donate,

01:53:09.380 rightresponseministries.com forward slash donate,

01:53:12.400 or if you want to support us financially on a monthly basis

01:53:18.600 and you'd like to do it directly with NXR, which is an LLC,

01:53:23.040 and be able to receive content in return

01:53:26.560 and certain tangible value that we're creating and providing.

01:53:31.080 We are, our Patreon was canceled

01:53:32.840 because we were willing to platform Nick

01:53:36.300 and also because we did this,

01:53:38.680 I don't think it's a coincidence,

01:53:40.380 we did the interracial debate on Thursday.

01:53:43.700 We were canceled Friday morning.

01:53:45.880 Patreon, no warning, shut down.

01:53:47.960 And so we have worked all weekend long

01:53:51.780 because it happened on a Friday without warning

01:53:55.820 to build a new platform where we, Lord willing, will not be canceled and doubling down and

01:54:04.460 offering even more content than we've offered thus far to our NXR subscribers.

01:54:10.960 And so we, you know, humbly request that you consider making a donation through

01:54:18.140 rightresponseministries.com forward slash donate or supporting us as a monthly supporter,

01:54:23.020 getting exclusive content with nxr um and we will tell you we're going to launch officially launch

01:54:30.140 and unveil that platform our new platform and it's awesome uh tomorrow so please be on the lookout

01:54:36.300 for that uh but the point is there aren't a lot of guys who are saying the things we're saying

01:54:41.400 and um and we we need you um to help us in that regard we need your support there are guys who

01:54:48.700 are right-wing and they understand the heritage piece they understand race they understand history

01:54:54.860 they understand some of those things the geopolitics the cultural pieces but they're

01:55:00.240 on the on the christian side they're either not christian or they're christian light and then

01:55:05.360 there are guys who are christian heavy they've got some really good sound doctrine and this and that 0.79

01:55:08.820 but they they don't they don't care they don't care if white people go extinct they don't care

01:55:15.600 about they're lacking the light of nature and reason and good and necessary consequence there's

01:55:21.440 not very many guys who are trying to encompass both the best of both worlds and that's that's

01:55:27.440 what we're trying to do and we need your help you can do it by giving charitable donations to

01:55:32.560 right response ministries or you can do it by becoming one of our club members with nxr and

01:55:38.120 if you'd like to do that we're we're going to unveil and announce our new platform and new

01:55:43.060 content tomorrow afternoon. So stay tuned for that. All right, let's finish up the show now by

01:55:47.840 going to our Super Chats. We just got a couple of them. Wes, would you go ahead and start?

01:55:51.900 All right, we'll start off with this dude rocks. Frequent supporter, we really appreciate you. He

01:55:56.240 said this, could God want a more mixed society post-resurrection as a way of showing how

01:56:02.220 Christianity overcomes all barriers, including walls such as race slash culture, good to see,

01:56:07.480 good faith discussion. Some people have also posed, for example, Pentecost is the reversal

01:56:12.820 of Babel. So if you had the curse of the peoples being scattered and their languages being confused,

01:56:17.460 well, we actually have a corollary to that. In the New Testament at Pentecost, Peter is speaking,

01:56:22.100 and the Holy Spirit is translating, so every person in their own language is able to hear.

01:56:26.540 And I think that argument would have more validity if what we saw after Pentecost was those people 0.61

01:56:31.160 that were all from these different nations stayed in Jerusalem, that they'd now been given this one

01:56:35.460 language, they understood one another, they lived happily ever after in a little communal enclave

01:56:39.640 in Jerusalem for the next 80 years. No, they went back to their home country, and because they'd

01:56:44.340 heard the gospel in their language and understood it, the gospel could quickly disperse from

01:56:48.520 Jerusalem, which was just decades away from being destroyed. And so Christianity wasn't limited to

01:56:53.740 those speaking Aramaic, those speaking Greek, in a geographical location, Jerusalem. But because

01:56:58.840 of Pentecost and all these people not staying there, but going out with the gospel in their

01:57:03.260 language to Ethiopia, and then Paul is a missionary to the Gentiles. The gospel was able to survive

01:57:08.700 the destruction of the temple, and so I think there's different pieces of the biblical narrative

01:57:12.800 that even post-resurrection, God still intended for them to be nations, them to have their own

01:57:18.380 spaces and their own places, and that we will be united, but even still when we're united all

01:57:23.440 together at the throne of God, that we would be unique. We do see nations, tribes, which I didn't

01:57:28.700 hear a response from them on that. The only way there are nations in the eschaton is if they 0.59

01:57:33.020 remain nations, individual distinct peoples here on earth. Right, you don't get eternal, you don't

01:57:38.760 get diversity in heaven eternally if you eradicate it here on earth temporally. But that's a great

01:57:45.020 point. I've heard that preached several times. Pentecost is a reversal of Babel. In the case

01:57:50.100 of Babel, God confused their languages, not momentarily. He did it permanently. He confused 0.99

01:57:57.820 their languages, not for a moment, but indefinitely, so that they would split up and spread out and

01:58:04.960 become distinct peoples. In the case of Pentecost, you have everyone gathered in one place again, 0.53

01:58:11.020 just like Babel, they were congregating. You have everyone from different tribes, 0.84

01:58:14.200 tongues, and nations congregating again in Jerusalem. But in that instance, this is God

01:58:20.180 that we're speaking of. He did it once. In Babel, he could do the reverse in Pentecost,

01:58:24.200 but it's not the reverse. The reverse would be if all of a sudden he supernaturally empowered 0.53

01:58:29.940 everyone to hear and understand and speak the same tongue indefinitely. But it wasn't. It was

01:58:36.720 momentary. For a moment, supernaturally, God empowered all these different peoples from

01:58:42.860 different tribes and different tongues and different nations to hear the preaching of the

01:58:46.600 gospel in their native tongue so that they might have understanding, comprehension. And then the

01:58:52.480 supernatural gift of tongues, it stopped in that moment. It stopped, and they went right back to

01:59:02.520 speaking their own native languages, and the festival that they were gathered for ended,

01:59:07.800 and they all went back home. So the point of Pentecost was not to reverse Babel. The point 0.94

01:59:12.080 of Pentecost was as a catalyst to kickstart the expansion of the gospel into every tribe,

01:59:16.580 tongue, and nation. The point of Pentecost was not to bring every tribe, tongue, and nation to

01:59:20.480 one place to become one tribe, one tongue, one nation, but to instill the gospel into every

01:59:27.600 tribe, tongue, and nation in one place for them to immediately go back for the gospel to spread.

01:59:33.500 So Pentecost is not a reversal of Babel. I think that's wrongheaded. It's a misapplication of 0.74

01:59:39.080 Scripture. And this was about bringing every tribe, tongue, and nation into the one spiritual race of

01:59:49.140 Christians, the people of God, but not in a temporal earthly sense, making one nation or

01:59:54.620 one people. The distinction still persists. Okay, Antonio. Yep. Julian Stevenson sent $5. We

02:00:02.360 appreciate that and says, instead of saying interracial marriage isn't part of God's normative

02:00:07.100 design, say God's design is that interracial marriage isn't normative. I actually think

02:00:13.160 that's a fair point actually uh in the sense of um you know god's design actually being normative

02:00:19.320 in isolation from interracial marriage i think the second sentence is a little bit more clear

02:00:23.840 logically that that's what we're saying which is god has a normative design in in of which

02:00:29.780 interracial marriage isn't a part is it normative in or is it isn't a part of it versus saying this

02:00:35.620 is a fundamental tenet without this interracial marriage being absent god does have no normative

02:00:41.320 design so it's a it's kind of tricky to understand but i do see the difference the distinctions in the

02:00:46.040 in the phraseology and i do think it would be a more clear way to say it okay um p.o andrew he

02:00:53.780 said honor thy father and thy mother honor your bloodline and roots and homeland thank you for

02:01:00.720 speaking up about this you're welcome we do think that that is um one of the further reaching

02:01:07.720 applications of the fifth commandment. We do think that the fifth commandment speaks to this

02:01:11.860 issue. Again, we believe that interracial marriage is biblically permissible. So we don't believe

02:01:16.520 that the fifth commandment directly applies to the extent to where it renders interracial

02:01:23.980 marriage as inherently immoral. We don't go that far. But at the same time, we're not taking the

02:01:33.180 position that the, that there's, there's no application of the fifth commandment into this

02:01:37.920 topic whatsoever. There, there is, uh, we do think that, um, that that is one of the natural and,

02:01:43.880 and further reaching implications of the fifth commandment to honor thy fathers, um, is that

02:01:50.420 you seek to, um, to maintain and further, uh, the lineage, the culture, uh, the heritage of your

02:02:00.420 fathers. And we think that that's something that most people throughout most of history didn't need

02:02:06.200 to be taught, didn't really need to be said. People instinctively understood that. And we're

02:02:13.000 convinced that the reason why there's such an aversion to this idea, this is a very normal

02:02:19.840 idea in our day and age, in our particular time and place here in the West and in America more

02:02:26.780 particularly is because uh we have we have been propagandized um we uh this is this is what people

02:02:35.720 used to think west you even have a chart um that i think would be really helpful i just realized we

02:02:41.400 were supposed to show this chart i texted nathan maybe we'll be over to be able to overlay it on

02:02:45.540 screen when you say it about being normative and maybe this can be the last word on it the u.s

02:02:50.020 approval of marriage between black and white people specifically so this is not interracial

02:02:53.580 marriage as a whole, but between whites and blacks, the approval of it in 1958, the year

02:02:58.140 that they started pulling it, was 4%. And it got all the way up to, in 2022, 94%. So you can take

02:03:04.440 that, and that's about 60 years or so that you've had a complete public reversal on the topic of

02:03:09.760 as far as societal acceptance goes. The vast majority, 96%, disapproved of it in 1958. The

02:03:16.000 vast majority today, 94%, approve of it. Now, popular consensus does not necessarily make

02:03:21.480 something moral. But it's worth stating, and it's worth remembering and calling attention to that

02:03:26.500 at the time, I have this chart in front of me here as well, you just have to take my word for it,

02:03:30.300 but you can look it up. 1950, 1955, and 1960, America was reliably 92 to 95% Christian.

02:03:38.920 So a vast, overwhelmingly, and that's because America, it fluctuates in the 80s, it was never 0.69

02:03:44.080 quite 95 to 100. America's reliably been about 85 to 90% white. So America was 85 to 90% white, 0.62

02:03:51.480 90 to 95 percent Christian, 1950s, 1960s, and your Christian grandparents, your Christian

02:03:58.940 great-grandparents in the 1950s and 1960s statistically overwhelmingly disagreed with

02:04:05.600 it. They didn't approve of it. And one part of honoring your father and mother is, I think,

02:04:10.780 not saying, hey, this view that my good Christian parents held, and maybe they held it ignorantly,

02:04:15.440 and maybe it wasn't rooted in Scripture, but this view is damnable. This view takes people to hell. 0.97

02:04:21.200 You can still disagree. Mama and Papa, they're not always right. They were fallible. But it's

02:04:26.860 worth saying, hey, I recognize that the overwhelming majority of my Christian ancestors,

02:04:31.560 not that long ago, two generations here in the United States, they thought this. And I don't

02:04:36.600 think they were terrible people. I don't think they were evil. I don't think they had sinful

02:04:39.660 partiality. There were different reasons that they thought this. Maybe I still agree now. Maybe I

02:04:44.420 don't agree. But we should have a level of respect and deference to them. And these statistics

02:04:49.560 shouldn't surprise you. You should be aware of it. Okay, we're talking about this topic. Yeah,

02:04:53.220 I recognize that it's only very recently that public opinion on this has shifted.

02:04:58.200 That shouldn't harm your worldview. That shouldn't be a shock to you. Yep, it's shifted very much so.

02:05:03.180 And if you have a reason that you're for it, you need to make a good one. And if you look down on

02:05:09.060 it, there's a way to go about that respectfully that doesn't condemn your grandparents to help.

02:05:13.820 yes that i mean that is it's not infallible right this is not scripture um but it shouldn't be

02:05:23.420 cast away lightly it shouldn't be trivialized like the point the point is prescient that uh

02:05:30.880 over the last 60 years you went from uh 90 94 disapproval 94 disapproval of interracial marriage

02:05:41.560 in the case of a a white person and a black person and 60 years later you have 96 approval

02:05:49.300 um and yet in that same time period the last 60 years the question right because people say yeah

02:05:56.800 well you know i guess uh previous generations they were all just racist right that's that's

02:06:01.400 been the answer because everybody knows historically like there was slavery there was this there was

02:06:04.940 that and the main answer that people would give modern people would give today is yeah and they

02:06:09.600 were wrong. But it really should, it really should be, you know, it shouldn't be that easy

02:06:17.120 to just trivialize and sweep under the rug. It really should be a challenge for us to try to

02:06:22.640 reconcile this basic fact. Your great grandfather had about a, there's about a 94% chance he

02:06:32.880 disapproved of interracial marriage between a black person and a white person. And at the same 0.86

02:06:40.640 time, that's not the end of the argument. The second half is, and in his day, far more people

02:06:47.360 went to church on a weekly basis, far more people identified as being Christian, far more people

02:06:54.540 held to the Trinity, held to the incarnation, held to a bodily resurrection. So you don't just

02:07:01.660 have one thing happening over the last 60 years you have two things happening simultaneously

02:07:05.800 and we could come away and say no correlation whatsoever but you just you got to sit with it

02:07:14.020 though you do have to sit with it that may be your final conclusion no correlation whatsoever

02:07:19.220 however it is still somewhat profound to just at least say out loud and acknowledge in the last 60

02:07:28.300 years, America has become far less Christian. And simultaneously, precisely as we became less

02:07:36.260 Christian, we also became more approving of interracial marriage. Correlation guarantee? No. 0.97

02:07:45.820 But should we pause, think about it, consider that? Because we would say, yeah, we recognize

02:07:51.640 that prior generations thought that way. We know what the historic record is. We're not going to

02:07:56.260 pretend that doesn't exist. Our answer is simply to say that they were all wrong. The hard part

02:08:01.120 about that final piece to just say, well, there's an easy answer. They're wrong. The hard part about

02:08:06.520 that final piece is that in every other category, they were actually more right, not more wrong. 0.52

02:08:13.780 They were more Christian, more God-fearing, less divorce, less abortion. In every single metric, 0.53

02:08:23.240 they were better and so we can sit there and we say yeah they you know we are the lesser 0.87

02:08:29.680 sons of former sires and our forefathers were better than us in every regard except they had

02:08:36.240 one glaring blind spot and that's what most people have concluded most modern christians

02:08:41.020 that's how they would articulate uh yeah you know jonathan edwards and this person and that person

02:08:45.560 they were all better than us george whitfield they were all better than us across the board

02:08:50.280 by every conceivable metric except this one the question though that that raises or at least it

02:08:58.960 should raise is the generation of people who were morally religiously and doctrinally superior

02:09:07.460 by every conceivable metric did they have is there is there a higher chance of that generation

02:09:15.300 being wrong on this issue? Or today's generation that is less doctrinally savvy,

02:09:24.220 less identifying, professing Christianity, less church attendance, more divorce, more abortion, 0.86

02:09:30.740 more sodomy? Which generation has the higher likelihood of being right, of being able to see 1.00

02:09:40.440 clearly of having a a good answer on this topic and i just think that that that should at least be

02:09:50.220 considered so uh were you able to put the chart up there uh nathan did we show it show it here's

02:09:57.160 the chart right here at the end i i can see it on the screen there we go so this is the chart

02:10:02.520 again that's 1958 is when it begins about four percent approval for interracial marriage in

02:10:08.640 america particularly between black and white people and then when we get to about 2022 so

02:10:15.780 approximately what would that be it's about about 60 62 years later so 60 um you have a 94 percent

02:10:25.020 approval so four percent approval then 94 percent approval and the question remains again um

02:10:31.680 you know it's like okay well somebody here is wrong right because it's i mean that's that's

02:10:37.400 pretty stark, that divide. So it's, it's basically, you know, 96% disapprove. And then all of a sudden,

02:10:44.520 you know, 94% do approve. So, you know, it, it, the question is who was, who was right. And that's

02:10:52.860 where I think it's helpful to pan out and to look at other metrics and say, okay, well, in other

02:10:57.880 topics and other arenas, uh, which generation, the generation from 1958 or the generation from

02:11:04.440 2022. Which generation is more biblical in other arenas, more God-fearing in other areas? And I

02:11:13.380 think we know that answer. I think we know. So food for thought, food for thought. Thanks again

02:11:19.500 for tuning in. Make sure here at the very end, subscribe. Make sure to subscribe on YouTube.

02:11:23.780 Click the bell so that you'll be notified with all our content that we continue to produce.

02:11:28.140 Make sure to subscribe on Rumble. We are on Rumble with every single one of our live streams,

02:11:32.180 all our broadcasts, and click the bell there as well. Also, make sure to follow us on X. We are

02:11:37.620 posting live all of our video content from my X account. The handle is at Joel Webbin,

02:11:44.140 at Joel Webbin. So make sure to follow on X. Click the bell there as well so that you'll be notified.

02:11:49.580 And if you want to, you can also follow us on Apple and Spotify. We don't broadcast live on

02:11:55.420 the podcast platforms, but usually within an hour or two of finishing the stream, then it goes up

02:12:00.980 on Apple and Spotify so you can listen in podcast form, audio only, if that's your preference.

02:12:06.480 If you are following us with Apple and Spotify, do us a favor and leave us a five-star review.

02:12:11.720 It makes a big difference, triggers the algorithm, gets this content out to more people. We really

02:12:16.580 appreciate it. It is Tuesday, so we will see you on Wednesday at 12 p.m. Eastern time with our

02:12:26.480 episode four with the nick series myself and nick fuentes and so that's coming out tomorrow

02:12:31.680 at 12 p.m eastern time and then we will uh the three of us wes and antonio myself will see you

02:12:38.120 with our final live stream for this week which will be on friday again at 12 p.m eastern time

02:12:44.820 um i think we did get what one more super chat two more super chats all right go fast real quick

02:12:49.820 michael saying uh said russ uh ruslan is a good friend of my brother can't wait to hear what was

02:12:54.640 said about polygamy so he doesn't didn't watch the debate yet any defenders short answer no no

02:12:59.860 one's no one's explicitly uh defending right so right buck sent two dollars and says it is my

02:13:05.960 preference in quotations equals thought terminating cliche it's very true that's a good point it's

02:13:11.840 very hard to hard to investigate intellectually someone's idea when they're they refer to it as

02:13:17.040 a preference right good point all right thank you guys so much for tuning in and we'll see you uh

02:13:21.420 tomorrow, myself and Nick Fuentes, 12 p.m. Eastern time. God bless.

02:13:51.420 Thank you.

The NXR Podcast - January 20, 2026

NXR Livestream - Homosexuality, Polygamy, & Interracial Marriage ｜ DEBATE REVIEW

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript