Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

April 19, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show

37:36

Ep. 243 - The Dangers Of Cultural Relativism

Today on the show, media has stopped talking about collusion. What a coincidence. Also, a horrific story out of Bangladesh which I think proves yet again that we should not engage in cultural relativism. All cultures are not created equal, it turns out. And Netflix says that the term chick flick is offensive. Their reasoning is hypocritical yet hilarious. Date: 04-19-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Today on the Matt Wall Show, the media has coincidentally stopped talking about collusion.
	You know, isn't that interesting?
	As soon as Trump is vindicated of collusion, they stop talking about it.
	Also, a horrific story out of Bangladesh that I think proves yet again that we should not engage in cultural relativism.
	All cultures are not created equal, it turns out.
	And Netflix says that the term chick flick is now offensive, and their reasoning is Quite long and complicated and also hilarious.
	So we'll talk about that as well today on the Matt Wall Show.
	Well, I hope you're all having a blessed Good Friday.
	I do say blessed Good Friday, not happy Good Friday.
	I cringe a little bit when someone says, happy Good Friday!
	Although they mean well, I suppose.
	But today is more of a somber remembrance than a happy occasion.
	It's a day that, for me, brings to mind my favorite story in the Gospel, which is, as I think I've shared before, which is the one of the penitent thief on the cross.
	It's a small little tidbit.
	Three of the Gospels don't even think to mention it, but Luke does, and I've always found it to be especially powerful because it's this image of repentance on the cross, you know, moments before death, and The way that the penitent thief is assured of right then and there of his salvation.
	You just imagine the joy that he must have felt.
	It's a great story.
	So I hope that we all take some time to read.
	and reflect on the entire passion narrative today on Good Friday.
	Now, there's a lot to cover. I'm not going to harp much on the Mueller report today. I think
	all that needs to be said about it has already been said and will continue being said, of course,
	ad nauseam for the next two years, really. So we know that Trump did not collude. He's not being
	charged with obstruction either. He is guilty of being reckless and dishonest, as the report does
	show. But all that is baked into the cake at this point. I think that's something that maybe some
	people still don't understand is that, you know, we...
	Anyone who's been paying even a little bit of attention over the last two or three years knows what Trump is all about.
	And we've taken that into account.
	We've factored it in one way or another.
	So the political damage will be minimal here, I think.
	But as we discussed yesterday, the goalposts are being rooted out of the ground and dragged across the field now.
	Whereas before it was all about collusion, now it's not about collusion anymore because Trump has been vindicated on the collusion score.
	And notice how, you know, no one is really arguing about that.
	Now they're arguing about obstruction and should there be impeachment.
	They're using those words.
	So you're going to hear, you know, the word collusion has fallen out of the media's lexicon.
	And instead what we're hearing is obstruction and impeachment.
	But it's really interesting that nobody's even bothering to Dispute the collusion thing, because Trump was so thoroughly absolved on that score that even his enemies are not even trying to claim anymore that he was colluding with anyone, but instead they're saying, no, he obstructed.
	So for example, let me pull up the, where'd it go?
	The Washington Post, front page of their print edition, which honestly, I'm shocked that physical newspapers even still exist, but they do.
	And so this is what they're, if you, if you went for some reason and bought a Washington post at the seven 11, this, these are all of the headlines on their front page.
	Okay.
	Notice what word is missing.
	So the big headline is, Mueller details Russian interference, Trump's attempt to disrupt probe.
	That was a big headline.
	And then other headlines on the page says, again and again, President's aides refuse to carry out his orders.
	Question of obstruction seemingly tossed to Congress.
	Frame it however you like, but it's a damning portrait of Trump's presidency.
	These are all headlines on the page.
	Trump's efforts to obstruct were clear, Democrats say, but impeachment isn't.
	Offers from Russia were not reported or forcefully rejected by campaign.
	Okay, so those are all the headlines that the Washington Post offers.
	You notice what word is missing?
	Collusion.
	There's no mention of collusion.
	They don't even think to mention in any of their articles on the front page, oh, by the way, he actually was not colluding with Russia.
	He was not a secret Russian agent, it turns out.
	This is the way it's gonna go.
	The media is at war with the president, has been since the beginning of his term, of course, but that war has now entered a new phase.
	If you thought that it had already gotten as ugly as it was going to get, you were mistaken, because it's gonna get a lot worse.
	And you know what?
	They just might salvage this thing for the president.
	I think this is probably good news for Trump.
	The media, against all odds, might salvage 2020 for Trump.
	I think all things being equal, okay, Trump faces the very real possibility of not just losing in 2020 but of a landslide historic and historically embarrassing loss.
	He does face that possibility and there's just no denying it.
	And I'll tell you why.
	Because he won in 2016 with 3 million fewer votes than Hillary.
	And the reason why that happened was because Hillary ignored the Rust Belt.
	So there was that.
	She didn't focus on those states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania.
	And the urban voters in those states did not show up.
	They didn't show up in great numbers in Philly and in Detroit, which is, that's how Democrats win, you know, Pennsylvania and Michigan is by, is by getting the turnout in those, those cities.
	And the reason that those voters didn't show up and why, you know, a lot of Hillary's voters didn't show up for is because number one, they weren't excited about her because she's Hillary Clinton.
	And number two, because few people took Trump seriously and they figured, well, he's going to lose anyway, you know, I don't need to go vote.
	In 2020, Trump is not going to have those advantages anymore.
	He will not be running against Hillary, unfortunately.
	And the Democratic base will show up.
	Absolutely.
	They will show up in force because they hate Trump's guts.
	And it really doesn't even matter now.
	I mean, he could actually run against Hillary again, and I think this time it would be completely different, because it almost doesn't matter who they put up against him.
	Their voters are going to show up en masse.
	They'll have their biggest turnout ever, for sure.
	No question.
	So what that means is that Trump cannot win if he simply has maintained the same voters.
	He certainly can't.
	If he's lost any voters, then he can't.
	He's doomed.
	He needs to have not only maintained, he needs to have gained a whole bunch of new voters to win again.
	And then we have to ask the question, has he really done anything in office to attract new legions of supporters.
	I know that if you're a diehard supporter, then you're still a diehard supporter, great, that's good.
	But you might not be a good judge of this because your support of the president
	has maybe clouded your ability to look at it objectively a little bit
	because the fact is, while maybe you love the things that he's done in office
	and the way that he's generally carried himself, I don't think it has necessarily attracted new people.
	So at a minimum, I think he's kind of flatlined as far as that goes,
	but he's probably lost people as well, which is bad news.
	But there's a lot of people who are The point is, the media may pull this out for him again, like they did in 2016.
	They might just do it.
	Because the one thing that could manage to actually give Trump a bigger turnout than he got in 2016 would be people just completely disgusted with the media and with the left, and so they're turning out en masse against that group.
	It's possible.
	I think that's Trump's best hope at this point.
	And with the way that the media has, I mean, with the way it's conducted itself over the last two years, but especially now with this Mueller thing, they're just being so blatantly dishonest.
	And if they continue with that, and maybe if the Democrats move forward with impeachment, Trying to impeach even though there was no underlying crime.
	Well, maybe they'll alienate just enough people to put Trump over the top.
	So, you know, I guess our message to them is continue right along.
	Continue as you were, basically.
	All right, now let's turn to an absolutely horrific story out of Bangladesh.
	I'm going to read a part of the report from the BBC reported by Mir Sabir, and here's what it says.
	This is just a terrible story that I'm trying to pull up.
	Okay, it says, Nusrat Jahan Rafi was doused with kerosene and set on fire at her school in Bangladesh.
	Less than two weeks earlier, she had filed a sexual harassment complaint against her headmaster.
	Her courage in speaking out against sexual assault, her death five days after being set alight, and everything that happened in between has gripped Bangladesh and brought attention to the vulnerability of sexual harassment victims in this conservative South Asian country.
	Nusrat, who was 19, was from a small town 100 miles south of Dhaka.
	She was studying at a madrasa, or Islamic school, on the 27th of March.
	She said that the headmaster called her into his office and repeatedly touched her in an inappropriate manner.
	Before things could go any further, she ran out.
	And it goes on a little bit later.
	It says, at the local police station, she gave a statement.
	She should have been provided with a safe environment to recall her traumatic experiences.
	Instead, she was filmed by the officer in charge on his phone and as she described the ordeal.
	So the officer was filming her.
	In the video, Nisrat is visibly distressed and tries to hide her face with her hands.
	The policeman is heard calling the complaint no big deal and telling her to move her hands from her face.
	That video was later leaked to the media.
	So this scumbag guy made sure to get her face on camera and then immediately sent it to the media.
	Then after she went to the police, they arrested the headmaster.
	Then things got worse for Nusrat.
	A group of people gathered in the streets demanding his release.
	The protests had been arranged by two male students and local politicians were allegedly in attendance.
	People began to blame the woman.
	Her family say that she started to worry about her safety.
	Then she Went back to school, regardless of this, fearing for her safety, she still went to school because she wanted to finish her final exams.
	According to a statement given by Nusrat, a fellow female student took her to the roof of the school, saying one of her friends was being beaten up.
	When Nusrat reached the rooftop, four or five people wearing burqas surrounded her and allegedly pressured her to withdraw the case against the headmaster.
	When she refused, they set her on fire.
	And it goes on from there, in the ambulance, fearing that she might not survive, she recorded a statement on her brother's mobile phone.
	She said, the teacher touched me.
	I will fight this crime till my last breath.
	Um, and then eventually she dies.
	Okay.
	Uh, so the first thing that jumps out of the, uh, out at you about the story is the incredible courage of this young woman.
	I mean, she obviously knew the risks involved in reporting the conduct of her alleged abuser.
	When you think about how hesitant we can be even in this country to report inappropriate conduct by people who are in authority over us, not just sexual misconduct, but any kind of misconduct.
	You think about how hesitant we can be because of the consequences we might face.
	Well, the risks that she faced were a hundred times greater than anything we face, and yet she did it anyway.
	So that is extremely heroic.
	And then even as she was dying, after being set on fire, she still was standing her ground And demanding justice.
	I mean, you just don't encounter this kind of courage every day.
	The second thing is we have to realize that in fundamentalist Islamic countries, this is what women face.
	They're not only required to walk around in bags, essentially, covered from head to toe, but if they're raped or abused, they can be punished for it.
	They can be set on fire or stoned to death or attacked in some other equally gruesome way.
	And this is why it's so dangerous, I think.
	To engage in the sort of cultural relativism where we say, Oh, well, all, you know, all cultures are equal.
	We can't judge, you know, everything is, it's all, it's all equal.
	This is why it's dangerous to condemn people who celebrate Western culture as objectively superior to other cultures, which it is.
	Our Western culture is superior to the culture that, um, that this woman lived in.
	It's dangerous because when you do that, when you do this relativistic thing, when you insist that even this culture where this happened is equal to our own, you are denying or downplaying or dismissing the horrific treatment suffered by women.
	And, and, and homosexuals and many other groups in these countries.
	What you're saying is, yeah, it's not cool, but you know, it's not so bad.
	I mean, it's not, it's not so bad that we should make any statements about the overall culture, but we should, we should.
	There is something deeply disordered about a culture where women are treated like this.
	Where a woman is not even allowed to show her face in public for fear of being killed.
	I mean, there's something deeply wrong there.
	The point is, when we say that Western civilization is better than the cultures that essentially enslave women, we are not saying that the individual human beings themselves are better.
	Okay?
	It's not what we're saying.
	We are saying that our system of treating women with respect and dignity is better.
	We're saying that that's a better way.
	And that's what we should be saying.
	We should be putting that forward as an objectively better system and saying, you know, this is a better way to be.
	So you just, you can't have it both ways.
	You really can't.
	You cannot claim that you are You know, fighting for equality for women across the globe, and then in the next breath say that, well, you know, cultures that treat women like cattle are equal to ours and we can't make any judgments.
	No.
	In our culture, you know, Western civilization is not perfect.
	America is not perfect by any means.
	And I'll be the first one to say that, listen, through abortion, We have killed 60 million babies through abortion.
	And so that is a historic atrocity that is certainly holding us back morally from being the kind of moral light to the world that we could otherwise be.
	So there are serious problems in our own civilization.
	And interestingly enough, Most of the people who engage in this cultural relativism who say that, you know, hey, we're not much better than them.
	They're the same ones who defend this atrocity that is preventing us from being that moral light.
	So we have our own issues.
	The fact is, in this country, you know, despite what feminists say, I mean, women are free in this country and they can walk around in public and they can get jobs and they can live lives just like any man can.
	And you're not going to hear stories like this in America.
	So we, you know, it's easy enough to say that, well, we condemn this particular incident.
	Of course, everyone would say that, right?
	But we also need to condemn the aspects of that culture that allow this sort of thing to happen.
	Let's see here.
	Couple other things.
	I wanted to mention something on a much lighter note.
	A guy posted a picture of his son's math test to Facebook a couple of days ago, and his son is in second grade.
	He wanted to call attention to some of the comments that the teacher made on his second grade son's math test.
	Okay, so this is what, there's the image of the test and what the teacher allegedly wrote, now we have the image that he put on Facebook, but the teacher on this image, the comment says, absolutely pathetic.
	He answered 13 in three minutes, sad, with a smiley face.
	Uh, first of all, I wouldn't take this at face value.
	Maybe it's legitimate, but that by no means is established.
	And just because you see a picture of something on the internet doesn't mean that it's true.
	I think hopefully by now we all understand that.
	So it might be a hoax or something like that.
	But if it isn't, I mean, is it wrong of me to laugh at this?
	Maybe this is the kind of feedback that our kids need.
	It toughens them up a bit.
	It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and I don't know.
	There might not be anything wrong with that.
	That's all I'm saying.
	Okay, finally, Netflix launched into a hectoring tweet storm a couple of days ago, complaining about the phrase chick flick.
	I want to share this with you for a couple of reasons, but first of all because you see here a stark contrast between the sorts of things that feminists are worried about in this country versus what women face in other parts of the world.
	And you start to think, you know, maybe feminists should be less concerned about this sort of thing and should be spending, I don't know, all of their time and efforts calling attention to women who are being set on fire and killed for being sexually assaulted in other parts of the world.
	But in this country, this is what they're worried about.
	So this is what this is what Netflix said in their feminist screed.
	They said, for starters, chick flicks are traditionally synonymous with romantic comedies.
	This suggests that women are the only people interested in one romance and two comedy, which I can promise from the men I've come across in my life, simply isn't true.
	These aren't sweeping categories specific to men.
	You don't hear people asking to watch man movies.
	Instead, pretty much every intersection of genres is on the table and seen as for men, except, of course, the aforementioned rom-coms.
	The term also cheapens the work that goes into making these types of films.
	Romantic comedies and or films centered around female leads go through just as much editing, consideration, and rewriting as any other film.
	And nicknaming films chick flicks drives home that there's something trivial about watching them.
	But what's trivial about watching a film that makes you feel a thousand emotions in 90 minutes?
	Overall, there's nothing inherently gendered about liking a light-hearted film with a strong female lead and emotional arc, so next time you call something a chick flick, you better be referring to Chicken Run.
	Uh, okay.
	So, the first problem here is just the triviality of it.
	And this is what feminists are worried about.
	The second thing is, you do hear people talking about man movies or movies for men.
	And I'm not offended by that as a man.
	It doesn't offend me.
	But here's the double standard.
	Because, okay, if we call something a chick flick or a movie for women, that's offensive to women, apparently.
	But, if we were to say of a Bruce Willis action movie that it's a man movie, that's offensive to women.
	So, no matter what, it's offensive to women.
	Now, how does that work for a second?
	So, I thought if we gender a movie and say it's only for a particular gender, then it is offensive to the gender that we have assigned it to.
	But no, that's apparently not the case.
	No matter what you do, it's just going to be offensive to women in the end, and that's the way it works.
	But of course, in the end, it doesn't matter, because it's a lighthearted way of referring to a movie.
	It doesn't matter.
	And this really reminds me of this clip that's making the rounds online right now.
	of Brie Larson reacting to a light-hearted joke that one of her fellow castmates made.
	But watch this.
	I do all my stunts.
	See, this is the thing.
	I did my stunts because I thought that that's what everyone did, and then... Can we get Tom Cruise over here?
	No, I want to be the first me, not the next Tom Cruise.
	Thank you very much.
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	And that's what feminism has become.
	Can't even take a joke.
	I mean, you're taking yourself way too seriously.
	I guess if we were to sum up feminism in one kind of line or one phrase, I think that's sort of what it is.
	It's women who take themselves way too seriously and have no sense of humor whatsoever.
	All right.
	Let's go to emails.
	MattWalshShow at gmail.com.
	MattWalshShow at gmail.com.
	This is from John.
	It says, Matt, crucial questions.
	What's your favorite type of beer?
	Ale, lager, amber, et cetera.
	What's your favorite mass produced beer?
	Like Coors, Sam Adams, et cetera.
	What's your favorite craft brew?
	It's a fascinating inquiry.
	Here's how it breaks down for me.
	If I'm going to sit down and have only one beer, which I mean, why would I ever do that?
	Of course it's absurd.
	Obviously you'd have more than one, but in that case, I'll probably go with a porter.
	That's my, that's my go-to.
	You can't beat the richness and complexity of a porter, in my opinion.
	But, I'm not going to sit there and have three porters.
	It's a little bit too much.
	So, if I'm going for higher volumes, then I'll go with an ale, probably an IPA, you know, something like that.
	So, for me, ales and porters are number one.
	Best mass-produced beer?
	Well, Miller Lite Budweiser, that tastes like watered-down goat urine.
	And, yes, I do know what that tastes like.
	So I would say best mass-produced probably be Sam Adams or Sierra Nevada.
	Sierra Nevada, probably.
	And then finally, best craft brewery.
	That's a tough one because I think they're all great.
	I've never encountered a craft brewery that doesn't make good beer, but I guess I got to go with the OG of craft breweries.
	That would be Dogfish Head.
	I don't know, dogfish head, you really can't beat them.
	This is from Brian, says, Matt, I love your show, but I disagree with your assessment of Trump as a, quote, reckless loudmouth.
	I think he says what's on his heart, and I find that refreshing.
	Well, Brian, I get that you find it refreshing, and you know, I respect that.
	That's your opinion, your perspective, that's fine.
	But what you have to understand is that The vast majority of people don't feel that way.
	And I think there are also a lot of people who used to feel that way and don't anymore.
	And I think that there's probably nobody Who, you know, really didn't like that style, but recently has decided, you know what, that's great.
	I love it when Trump's constantly running his mouth and, you know, just saying whatever happens to pop into his head, whether it's true or not, whether it makes sense or not, whether it's relevant or not, whether it matters or not.
	You know, I don't think there's anyone who has recently decided they actually love that.
	I think there are a lot of people who have in the last few years have just gotten sick of it.
	And would like to see maybe a little bit of presidential behavior, maybe just a little bit every now and then.
	So that's my point, that you might personally like it, and that's fine.
	But as a supporter of the president, when you encourage more of it, you're not doing yourself any favors, you're not doing Trump any favors, you're not doing his re-election chances any favors.
	You're just not.
	I'll tell you, think about in the last, I mean really throughout his presidency, what are the moments when Trump seems to, you know, Really almost verge on the edge of even getting some good press.
	And what are the Trump moments that you can think of where at least pretty much all conservatives seem to rally around it and be energized by it?
	When does that happen?
	It seems to happen.
	Well, the last example I can think of is a State of the Union speech.
	It seems like a million years ago now.
	But his State of the Union speech was a great speech.
	All conservatives seemed to be energized by it and loved it.
	And he even got a little bit of credit outside of the conservative circles for giving a good speech.
	And I think any other example you can name would be something like that, where he delivered a scripted speech and he had what appeared to be a presidential moment, where he really seemed like a president, like a dignified kind of guy up there in charge, in command.
	Those are the moments that appeal beyond Trump's hardcore fans.
	He never has moments like that because of what he tweets or because of one of his rambling pep rally speeches that he gives.
	That appeals to the people who he doesn't need to appeal to because they're on his side no matter what.
	His most hardcore fans.
	I think to win in 2020, he needs fewer of those moments.
	Where he is winning people who will vote for him literally no matter what he says or does.
	He needs fewer of those moments.
	He needs a lot more of the State of the Union type moments.
	And I think if you're interested in him getting re-elected, that's what you would be encouraging.
	Let's see, from Jesse says, Hi Matt, just want to let you know that your show is definitely the worst on The Daily Water.
	You're not as thoughtful as Ben or as funny as Knowles or as entertaining as Clavin and your long wandering rambles about theology and biblical history and whatever other topic you feel like babbling about are not interesting.
	I don't even say this to be mean.
	I'm just trying to be honest and I'm not, in all caps, sending this so that you'll read it on your show.
	Sorry about that.
	I'm just giving some honest feedback.
	Okay.
	You know, I don't, I mean, I don't even care what you, what you think.
	So hold on, put some water.
	Look what you've done.
	You've hurt my feelings.
	Does it look like I'm crying?
	I can't get the... You know, I really feel like I could... I was thinking about this the other day when I was watching TV, that I could be a Hollywood actor.
	I think I could act.
	You know, I think almost anyone could.
	It doesn't seem like that hard.
	Except for the fake crying thing.
	I can't pull that off.
	I don't know how they do that.
	When you've got the scene where someone's really emotionally distraught and, you know, they're just, the water works.
	That I could not do.
	That's the, that is the one, that's the most impressive element of acting in my opinion.
	Let's see here.
	We'll do one more.
	This is from Tina.
	Now my glasses are getting fogged up from my fake tears.
	From Tina says, Very disappointed in your presentation related to the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
	I would have thought you would have done a better job with that, in particular in the way of understanding the dynamics of those gifts and the use of them, especially in the modern church today.
	Yes, it is a gift that is given to only particular people, and just like any gift that's given to you or me, we can abuse that gift.
	I would highly encourage you that when you do any kind of commentary on something this
	specific in regard to the spirituality of those in the Catholic Church, that you give
	it due respect and due research.
	Mockery does not serve you well.
	I was very offended personally by your cavalier approach to a very important topic and a very
	important part of the spirituality of many faithful Catholics like myself."
	She's referring, I believe, to when we talked about speaking in tongues, and I said that
	people who babble and gibberish are not really speaking in tongues, and that is not a gift
	of the...
	Speaking gibberish is not a gift of the Holy Spirit.
	It is just theatrical, embarrassing nonsense, and I wish the Christians wouldn't do that.
	So she says that she's offended by that.
	Well, Tina, I never objected to the concept of Holy Spirit of the Holy Spirit giving gifts.
	I agree that that happens.
	We all have gifts from the Holy Spirit in one form or another, but the question is whether babbling in gibberish is a gift from the Holy Spirit or if it's just a man-made thing and something that people do because it's a trend in modern Christianity.
	And I emphasize a modern trend.
	Nobody was babbling in gibberish in the church prior to the 19th century or so.
	So, that's really the question.
	Is gibberish A gift of the Holy Spirit.
	Now, when you babble gibberish and nobody can understand you, and nobody on earth recognizes it as a language, am I supposed to take your word for it?
	That it's some kind of mysterious, angelic language that no one can understand?
	Like, when my son starts babbling gibberish and says, I made up a new language, Daddy.
	Am I supposed to take that seriously as an actual, real language?
	Well, you know, I guess I don't, to be honest with you.
	I guess, and I don't mean this in an offensive way, but I just don't see any reason to believe that your gibberish is really some kind of miraculous event and not just gibberish.
	Sounds like gibberish, looks like gibberish.
	According to everyone around us, it's gibberish.
	No one understands it.
	You know, it seems by all accounts to be gibberish, so I'm gonna go with gibberish.
	There simply is no reason to believe anything other than that.
	And considering how detrimental this stuff is to the church, and how it serves no functional purpose whatsoever, unlike when the early disciples did it, and they were doing it so that other people could understand them, so that they could evangelize to those people.
	But this does not serve that purpose.
	It doesn't really seem to serve any purpose other than to So, I'm led even more to the conclusion that there's no reason to believe it's miraculous.
	Do you really think that God is evangelizing?
	God is drawing people to himself by inspiring Christians to babble nonsensically?
	It almost is blasphemous.
	You're going to babble nonsensically and blame it on the Holy Spirit?
	Of all the miracles that God can perform, you think making people babble is a miracle?
	Well, I don't, honestly, and I'm not going to believe you just because you say it.
	And again, no offense there, but like if you told me you had the ability to heal the blind, now that's a real miracle.
	And maybe there are people in the world today who can heal blind people.
	I'm not going to say that they don't exist, but I'm not going to take your word for it.
	If you come up to me and say, I can heal blind people.
	I'm not going to say, oh my gosh, you can?
	Wow, okay, well I totally believe you.
	And see, my reluctance in believing you is not a reluctance in trusting God.
	This isn't about God, it's about you.
	I'm not going to implicitly trust what you tell me.
	Because you're a person.
	You're not God, right?
	So from you, I'm going to need more evidence.
	I'm not just going to believe it because you say it.
	And so if you say you can perform that kind of miracle, you can heal the blind, I'm going to say, okay, show me.
	Let me see.
	Let me see you do it.
	Bring a blind person in here and let me see you heal them.
	But if you can't do it, or if you heal a blind person, but by all appearances, they're still blind and they can't see at the end of it, Uh, then I'm going to say that no, you don't really have that gift.
	You're either confused or you're a charlatan.
	Lying.
	You know, it seems to be the two options.
	I'm not accusing you of lying, but I think that people can, by the power of suggestion, come to sincerely believe that they're in the midst of a divine trance, when really it's just an ecstatic, kind of hysterical, but totally earthbound phenomenon.
	I gave the example of hypnosis.
	That's a good parallel, I think.
	People really believe that they are hypnotized.
	Hypnotist on TV and you see people go up there.
	I'm gonna ring the bell You're gonna bark like a dog and then they ring the bell.
	He barks like a dog.
	They're not he's not really hypnotized Nothing has happened there other than he's been convinced to play along Without realizing that he's playing along and that's what I think the gibberish is.
	I'm afraid to say So once again, the issue is That nobody has provided me one single substantive reason to believe that gibberish is a miracle, and you insisting on it and saying that you're offended is not a reason, and that's just it.
	And quoting the Bible and say, well, it says here in the Bible that, yeah, I know it says that, but that doesn't prove that that's what you're doing.
	The Bible recounts many miracles, but that doesn't mean that you can do it.
	And if you say you can, again, I'm gonna need evidence.
	I'm not just gonna believe you.
	And I think that's the approach that we all should have.
	And that's the other thing.
	As Christians, we don't want... I think we undermine our faith when we appear to be gullible.
	Like, if it seems that we'll just believe anything anyone tells us, then you know what people on the outside, they're going to start to think?
	They're going to say, oh, well, so maybe their whole religion is just that.
	It seems like this is a gullible person who just believe anything, so I guess that's all the Bible is.
	Just another story that this gullible person believed, because they believe everything.
	I think we want to show some discernment and show that, no, we do have some standards here, and we're not going to fall for any story someone tells us.
	All right, so that's that.
	I guess we'll leave it there.
	I hope you guys have a great Not just a great weekend, but a great Easter weekend.
	The most important weekend of the year for Christians everywhere.
	So, God bless and Godspeed.
	Today on the Ben Shapiro Show, we recap the Mueller Report, Democrats call for impeachment, and the media change their tune from collusion to obstruction.

▲