Ep. 258 Feminists Take Celibacy Oath To Own The Cons
Today on the show, feminists have discovered the value of abstinence. They’re going on a sex strike to protest abortion restrictions, and personally I think it’s a great idea. Also, a democratic congresswoman says something horrific and bizarre yet again, and yet again she’s the real victim because people are quoting her. Finally, someone emails with a question: are there contradictions in the Bible? Date: 05-13-19
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Today on the Matt Wall Show, feminists have discovered the value of abstinence.
They're going on a sex strike to protest the pro-life laws that have gone into effect in some states.
Personally, I think it's a great idea.
I support it 100% and I'll explain why.
Also, a Democratic Congresswoman has, yet again, said something bizarre and horrific.
And yet again, she is the victim.
She's the real victim because people are quoting her verbatim.
Also, someone wrote to me with a question, a very interesting question.
They want to know, are there contradictions in the Bible?
I will do my best to address that question today, as well, on The Matt Walsh Show.
Well, I hope you had a great weekend, a wonderful Mother's Day as well.
I can tell you that, well, I think my wife had a great Mother's Day.
She really loved, especially, The vacuum cleaner that I got her as a gift.
And I knew that she loved it because as soon as she unwrapped it, the first words out of her mouth were, I can't believe you would do this.
And I said, I know it's, it's unbelievable.
It is unbelievably generous of me, but that's just the kind of guy I am.
And I even included, I had a card of course, and in the card there was this little, well, I called it kind of a treasure map, you know, a little bit silly, but it was a treasure map with a map of our house where I had kind of put an X.
Over all the parts that really needed to be vacuumed.
And it was, it was great.
She even asked me to sleep on the couch at night because I guess she wanted to vacuum all night in our room.
And so it was just, it was great all around.
Not to, I mean, I nailed the gift, not to pat myself on the back or anything, but I just wanted to tell you that.
All right.
This is exciting.
Some feminists got a—maybe you heard about this—they got a sex strike going over the weekend.
The strike started with Alyssa Milano, who's been in convulsions of rage for days now over the Georgia abortion law.
And finally, on Friday, she decided to take things up a notch, and she said, we're going to do a sex strike.
This is what she said.
Our reproductive rights are being erased.
Until women have legal control over our own bodies, we just cannot risk pregnancy.
Join me by not having sex until we get... So that's just kind of a funny phrase.
Join me by not having sex.
Anyway, join me by not having sex until we get bodily autonomy back.
I'm calling for a hashtag sex strike.
Pass it on.
Now, a number of feminists came out in support of the sex strike, and they got it trending on social media.
Reading a couple of supportive comments, just to give you an idea, Maureen Shaw said, Our feminist foremothers fought for sexual liberation, which goes hand-in-hand with bodily autonomy.
It's up to us to protect it.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Sex strike.
It sounds like a movie or something.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
Sex strike.
Columnist Sarah Reese Jones says, Hey everyone upset about Melissa Milano's sex strike?
Thanks for helping this trend.
That was the point because women's lives are in danger.
P.S.
It's not Melissa Milano's fault that our culture is patriarchal.
She doesn't own that just because she's acknowledging it.
Someone else says, sorry boys.
Yes, I said boys.
Men should know better than to make decisions on something they know nothing about.
Our bodies, our choices.
Hashtag sex strike.
And then there were some men who were supporting their, expressing their support of the sex strike as well.
One guy said, men have autonomy over their own bodies.
Women deserve equal reproductive rights, free from government interference.
I joined my friends Alyssa Milano in supporting a sex strike until women have equal protection under the law.
Alright, there's a lot to be said here about this, but I want to focus just for a moment at the beginning here on these pitiful men.
I mean, imagine being a weak, emasculated, submissive man who supports the murder of children because you're afraid that feminists might yell at you if you don't support it, and you've given up your soul and your man card and your masculinity and your credibility and your respect and everything in order to obey your feminist overlords, and you hope that at least it will help you, you know, with the ladies, you're thinking.
Because you're kowtowing to them.
But actually it doesn't.
It has the opposite effect.
Because all of the truly beautiful and worthwhile women want nothing to do with a submissive milksop who tolerates the killing of children.
And so that's already backfired on you.
And now you find that even the women who will potentially be with you have now boycotted sex.
So that you and your fellow wimpy men are the only ones being punished.
You've given up everything, and now they're boycotting you because that's the thing.
Of course, conservative men want nothing to do with feminists, so conservative men are not affected by this.
It's only going to be men like this guy that tweeted this.
They're the only guys who are going to be affected.
And so then, what do you do?
You go online and pretend to support the measure.
Say, yes, I support this sex strike too.
Sure.
These guys are so pathetic.
I almost feel sorry for them.
Almost.
But then I remember that they are apologists for the mass killing of children, and so I don't feel so bad anymore.
I get very close to feeling bad for them, and then I remember who these guys are, and all of a sudden that sympathy goes away.
So there's that.
But another thought I'm having is that last week, We should really stop and appreciate this, that last week was a banner week for pro-lifers.
It could not have gotten any better.
Well, it could have gotten better if they overturned Roe v. Wade.
That's really the only thing that could have made it better.
Because think about what happened last week.
The Georgia law was passed, banning abortion after six weeks.
We have that hugely successful pro-life rally.
And then feminists decide to stop having sex at the end of the week.
Feminists become celibate.
I mean, you couldn't have asked for a better way to... You couldn't have asked for a better capstone on the week than that.
It really is incredible.
We... That was... I almost got tired of winning last week.
Almost.
But, of course, the biggest takeaway is that Alyssa Milano and her friends, what they're doing here is they are acknowledging the effectiveness of abstinence.
So she says, we can't risk pregnancy, so let's stop having sex.
Yes, exactly, Alyssa.
That's the point.
That's what we've been saying.
If you aren't sure that you want a baby, That it's foolish to risk pregnancy, which means it's foolish to have sex.
So a sex strike is a great idea.
I fully support it.
That's why conservatives and pro-lifers, we're totally on board with this.
I think it's a great idea.
In fact, I would say go further than that.
Keep the sex strike going indefinitely.
Or at least until you get married.
And if you never get married, then yeah, you should really own the cons.
You should really, you know, show us what's what by being celibate your whole life.
Right?
I would, again, I cannot express this enough.
I am fully supportive of any feminist who wants to be celibate.
I think it's awesome.
I could not be a bigger fan of that idea, especially if you're not married.
How else do they think we're going to react?
What do they think is going to happen?
These feminists who say they're pledging celibacy.
What do they think we're going to... Do they think all the conservatives are going to say, oh no, feminists, no, no, please have sex, we want you to!
No, please!
Anything but that!
No, we're not going to react that way because, as I said, first of all, it doesn't punish us.
Conservative men generally will avoid left-wing feminists like the plague.
But more importantly, you're doing exactly what we've been advocating all along.
And you're doing it for the reasons that we've been giving also.
You're avoiding sex because you don't want to risk pregnancy when you're not in a position to care for a baby.
The only difference is that you think that killing the baby is a viable option, and the only reason you're going on a sex strike now is because you're afraid that you'll be prevented from doing that.
Which is pretty horrible and morally deranged.
But the basic idea here we agree with, which is sex is something that naturally, fundamentally creates babies.
And any time you have sex, there's a chance of a baby being created.
So if you don't want a baby, Then don't have sex.
That's... Yeah, we're on board.
And we've been saying that for years.
It's great that feminists have finally caught on and are understanding that.
So, I think it's wonderful.
And, of course, the last thing that comes to mind when you think about this is how we're always told that the sex lives of Feminists and liberals and everyone, their sex lives are none of our business.
And that's true.
I agree.
It's none of my business.
I don't want to hear about it.
Yet they're constantly advertising what they're doing in the bedroom or what they're not doing in this case.
But if you're going to put it out there and tell us, I say thumbs up.
Great idea.
Keep it going.
All right, I am sad to report that Representative Rashida Tlaib has been victimized again.
Really sad to tell you this.
Poor woman.
She apparently has been unfairly attacked again.
She sent out this statement on Twitter today.
She said, Policing my words, twisting and turning them to ignite vile attacks on me will not work.
All of you who are trying to silence me will fail miserably.
I will never allow you to take my words out of context to push your racist and hateful agenda.
The truth will always win.
That's the statement she put up.
So why are these, quote, vile attacks being waged this time?
Well, because of this.
She was on a podcast called Skullduggery, which is a Yahoo News podcast, apparently.
And in the course of that discussion, this is what she said.
I'm gonna read verbatim, and I'm gonna read the entire context.
She says it's out of context.
Well, here is the entire context.
of what she said.
She said, there's always kind of a calming feeling, I tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust and the tragedy of the Holocaust and the fact that it was my ancestors, Palestinians, who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways have been wiped out and some people's passports And just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews post the Holocaust, post the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time.
And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that right in many ways, but they did it in a way that took their human dignity away and it was forced on them.
Okay.
So putting aside the, it's a little bit unintelligible, a little bit incoherent, but putting that aside.
A calming feeling when I think of the Holocaust.
What?
Now, here's the thing.
I don't need to twist those words to make them seem bizarre at best.
Because they just are bizarre.
If you're going to start a sentence with, I get a calming feeling when I think of... If this is like Mad Libs or something in the sentence, I get a calming feeling when I think of... Now, there are a lot of things you could fill in the blank with.
You could say sunsets, beaches, puppies, rainbows.
I get a calming feeling when I think of rainbows.
Any of those would work fine.
Perfectly fine.
But Holocaust?
You get a calming feeling when you think of the Holocaust.
Now, look, the rest of the context, she does talk about how the Holocaust was a tragedy, a terrible thing.
So she says, that's fine.
And I guess that's what she's referring to, which is, well, you're taking my words out of context.
I called it a tragedy.
Great.
Yeah, you did.
But you also did say that you get a calming feeling when you think of the Holocaust.
You did say that.
It's right there, verbatim.
That's what you said.
And there's, There's really nothing you can say before or after that sentence that's going to make that sentence okay.
Context can't always save you.
There are certain sentences that if you say them, you've said them, and there's nothing that you can say after that to make it okay.
Unless the context is, you're quoting someone.
So I just used the phrase, I get a calming feeling when I think of the Holocaust.
But the context for me is, I'm quoting her.
So that's okay.
That context makes it okay for me to say.
But if you're expressing your own feelings, nothing's going to make that not completely insane.
Sorry.
But Tlaib isn't the only Democrat woman being victimized by verbatim quotes.
This seems to happen a lot with Democrat women.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has once again fallen victim to this form of abuse, apparently.
As she wrote this over the weekend, she said, This is a technique of the GOP to take dry humor and sarcasm literally and, quote, fact-check it.
Like, the world ending in 12 years.
You'd have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it's literal.
But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office, so who knows?
Oh, she's so relatable.
Isn't she?
She's a relatable millennial making office jokes.
I want to vote for her based on that.
She relates—she gets me.
But dry humor and sarc- so she's now saying that when she said the world's gonna end in 12 years, that was sarcasm?
So what- so the world isn't ending then, she's saying.
She was being sarcastic about it.
So this whole time was she making fun of environmentalists?
I'll be honest, when I read the Green New Deal, like many people, my first reaction was, this has to be a parody.
This has to be satire.
There's no way this is real.
And now she's telling us what?
That it was?
This is performance art on her part?
This has all been an act by her?
Is that what she's telling us?
Because if that's the case, then bravo.
It's brilliant.
But I feel like that can't possibly be it.
You know, this is the tactic used by people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a lot of these new female congresswomen on the Democratic side, where they go out saying stupid, insane things, and then all we do is quote what they said and criticize it, which is perfectly valid, and they've been victimized.
That's the way it always goes.
All right, I can't let this one go without mentioning it.
Here's an argument that has gone viral, because I guess people think it's very persuasive, and so I've got to say something about it.
Heather Ann Campbell is a TV writer, apparently, and she wrote this recently, and I've seen it all over the place.
She said, sperm has DNA.
DNA is when life begins.
Every sperm is a potential human being, so no more self-pleasuring, gentlemen, unless you want to be convicted of a felony.
Carrying a cell phone in your pocket damages your sperm, so no cell phones either.
Skirts only for men to protect sperm.
Then she goes on talking about other ways, other forms of legislation that will need to be passed in order to stop men from killing their sperm.
And you get the point here.
The analogy, the comparison she's trying to draw, she's clearly trying to equate that with outlawing abortion and saying it's a similar kind of thing.
Now, even though this is a ridiculously stupid argument, you do hear versions of it a lot.
I suppose I did last week the, whatever it was, the seven dumbest pro-abortion arguments.
I guess I should have included this.
Because what we're doing here is conflating sperm with an actual human being.
Conflating them on the basis that they both have DNA.
And she's saying DNA is when life begins.
No one is saying that DNA is when life begins.
I've never heard that sentence before.
It doesn't make any sense.
Pro-lifers say that conception is when life begins.
But nobody is saying that everything that has DNA is its own life and should be treated like a person.
Your fingernails have DNA, okay?
Your skin cells have DNA.
Nobody thinks that you're committing genocide when you scratch your nose or when you clip your nails.
Why?
Because the issue is that the DNA in question in that case, when you clip your fingernails or when you scratch your nose, that DNA is your DNA.
But even if you shed skin cells, you still continue existing as a person.
You go on surviving even as your DNA is shed through your skin cells.
But the being that forms upon conception becomes a thing with unique DNA.
That's the point here.
It's not just your DNA.
Okay, your child does not just have your DNA.
This is a unique separate entity with its own DNA.
That's the point.
So, sperm is an ingredient For lack of a better term.
It's an ingredient that helps to make this separate person, but it is not itself a separate person.
I think that's a really crucial distinction here.
Now, this is kind of a crude analogy, but I understand that.
It doesn't work 100%, but no analogy does.
So it's similar to, if you're gonna say, well, sperm is a potential person, that's like looking at a stick of butter or a cup of sugar or a bag of flour and saying it's a potential cake.
No, the cake is when all those ingredients are combined and mixed.
Okay, now you have a cake.
And if you go and you put it in the oven, nobody, you know, no one says that it's only a cake once it's been in there for 30 minutes or I don't know, I don't bake.
How long does the cake go in the oven?
No, when, when we put a cake in the oven, we say a cake is in the oven.
You know, if you made a cake and you put it in the oven and it's been in there for one minute and I come in and I say, Hey, what's in the oven?
You're going to say a cake, a cake's in the oven.
You're not gonna say, oh, a glob of ingredients, a mixture of ingredients are in the oven.
No, you're gonna say, that's a cake.
Okay?
Not just a potential cake, but a cake.
And if the cake isn't cooked all the way, if it's undercooked, and someone serves you an undercooked cake, what are you gonna say?
You're gonna say, this cake is undercooked.
You're not gonna say, oh, this cake is still ingredients, it's not a cake yet.
So that's the difference.
Sperm is one of the ingredients that goes into making a person.
It's not itself a person.
So if sperm is destroyed, nobody thinks that a person has been destroyed.
Just like if I go and I steal your stick of butter, you're not going to say, oh, you stole my cake.
It's not a cake yet.
But if you had it already, and you had it all mixed, and it was just in the oven for a second, and I come in and I take it and I throw it out, you're going to say, you destroyed my cake!
You see, that's the difference.
I feel like the distinction is relatively easy to understand.
And they're just pretending they don't understand it.
All right, let's go to emails.
matwalshowatgmail.com.
matwalshowatgmail.com is the email address.
This is from Amanda says, Matt, love your show.
Wanted to ask you about a conversation I had with an atheist friend recently.
He insisted confidently that the Bible is full of contradictions.
He said if it contradicts itself even once, then that proves it's not the Word of God.
He listed a bunch that I can't even remember, but it was a long list.
Later I looked it up and found an apologist who said basically that the claim that the Bible contradicts itself is ridiculous and a lie by atheists.
His explanation seemed logical, but are atheists really making this up?
My friend did have many examples.
Was he lying or what?
Thanks for taking the time to read.
And again, I appreciate your show.
All right.
This is a good question.
I like questions like this.
Very meaty.
Gives us a lot to talk about.
All right.
So we got a few things going on here, right?
We've got the claim that the Bible contradicts itself.
Then the claim that this proves that it's not the Word of God.
And then the competing claim that such claims are ridiculous and unfounded.
I happen to basically disagree with everyone you've cited there.
I don't believe ultimately that the Bible contradicts itself, but the idea that those claims are completely ridiculous is itself ridiculous.
And I think an apologist, I don't know what apologist you're referring to there, but an apologist who just waves off this issue of Bible contradictions and says, ah, it's ridiculous, I don't even have to talk about that.
I think that's someone who is way overcompensating and being far too defensive.
Yes, the job of an apologist is to defend the Bible, so defend the faith.
That's what being an apologist is.
So in that sense, they're going to be defensive.
but I mean defensive in the negative sense.
Defensive in the sense of really not defending.
Of not even engaging with the argument, but instead completely dismissing it.
So, just because a statement is wrong... Now, to say the Bible contradicts itself, I think that that statement is wrong, but just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's ridiculous, necessarily.
And if we treat every challenge to our faith as ridiculous, then we only show that we are empty-headed spin doctors, and there's no reason to take us seriously.
If we're not going to take the challenges to our faith seriously, then the people who are challenging our faith have no reason to take us seriously.
And so, we don't want to do that.
We want to be intelligent, thoughtful, and honest.
So, Bible contradictions.
Now, I'm going to focus on the Gospels when talking about this.
And this is an issue... I've thought a lot about this.
I've read a lot.
So, I want to... Specifically, when it comes to the Gospels, Because we got to focus.
This can't be a five-hour conversation.
We got to focus somewhere.
You'll hear about contradictions in the Old Testament, too, especially in the first book, Genesis, where scholars these days, some scholars propose what's called the documentary hypothesis, which says that the Pentateuch was cobbled together from like four different sources, which they claim in some cases compete with one another.
And they'll cite, for instance, the two different creation accounts, seemingly, The seeming different versions of the Noah story that can be found in there, and so on.
I'm not going to focus on that, but I will say that I reject this idea that these books were cobbled together in this way.
Now, it doesn't make sense, because if someone was going to cobble together these different sources, Why wouldn't they iron out the differences?
Why would they just put all these competing versions together and then send them out there?
So I don't believe that.
I don't know if I necessarily believe that Moses wrote those books, because they do narrate his own death after all, which would seem to create a problem there.
But I don't believe the idea that they were So, there are ways of harmonizing those apparent contradictions in Genesis and in the other four books.
It's not that hard to do, but I would rather focus on the Gospels.
With the Gospels, we've got four of them, as you know, and they do appear at multiple points to contradict each other.
I do think the differences can be explained some easier than others.
But to say that it's ridiculous to point to those contradictions is just not honest.
There is stuff in the Gospels that an objective and honest person could point to and say, well, yeah, that seems to be a contradiction.
And I think the correct response from us is to say, yeah, I see why you say that.
But here are some thoughts about how these things might be might fit together.
Um, there are some easy ones.
So all of the gospels have Jesus saying different things on the cross.
Um, and it's not hard to imagine that he said all of those things and each gospel just has a somewhat condensed version of it.
So we have, we have the seven last words of Christ, but no gospel individually has all seven.
They all have different things.
But to me, that's not a difficult one.
He said all of them, the Gospels focus on different things, they record different things that he said, and you put it all together and you have the seven last words.
Makes sense to me.
Easy enough.
Also, from the cross, one Gospel has both thieves mocking Jesus, while another, Luke, Has one of the thieves sticking up for Jesus?
We know the famous story of the penitent thief, which is one of my favorite stories in the gospel, as I've shared before.
So how do you harmonize that?
Well, maybe the one thief had a change of heart while on the cross.
I think it actually makes the story even more powerful in some ways.
Even initially on the cross, he was defiant, and then had a change of heart.
Really, really at the last moment.
So that's a perfectly plausible explanation there.
Earlier in the story, Matthew has the lengthy Sermon on the Mount that we all know of.
When we think of the Sermon on the Mount, we're thinking of Matthew's version of it.
While the other Gospels give us just the Beatitudes, and then they have the other teachings from the Sermon interspersed throughout the narrative, Whereas Matthew has it all in one chunk there on the Sermon on the Mount.
Well, it stands to reason that Jesus gave the same teaching multiple times.
Jesus was a traveling preacher.
He went around giving these teachings, and it makes a lot of sense that he would have given them more than once to different audiences.
Because it's not like everybody in the region was there for the Sermon on the Mount.
So, I don't think there's a problem there.
There's a lot of stuff like that.
The order of things being jostled around, which I think is no big deal.
John has the cleansing of the temple at the beginning of his narrative, whereas the synoptics, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, have it at the end.
It's possible that Jesus did it twice, but that seems probably unlikely.
It's unlikely that a person could get away with doing that twice, especially because in the synoptics, Jesus cleansing the temple is one of the things that leads to his execution.
So, it seems that John moved the order of things around a little bit.
He also has Jesus being crucified on a different day.
Now, this is only a contradiction.
If you fail to understand what John is trying to do with the Gospels, and that's one of the main... that's one of the important things here.
When you're reading the Bible, we have to realize that the Bible is... it's not like one person wrote the entire Bible.
There are different books, different forms of writing, and they're all trying to do different things.
And so we have to know what the writer was trying to do.
What was his point?
What was his method?
What was his style?
Right?
So John is clearly a more poetic, more theologically focused document than are the synoptics.
I think the synoptics are clearly more just straight historical accounts, whereas John is doing something more theological.
And once you understand that, once you understand that John is not writing a simple biography like the others, though it is biographical, of course,
then the switching up of the order and the other changes that John makes aren't a big deal.
John is also very different stylistically.
You'll notice when you read John that all of the people
who are given dialogue in John's account, they all sound different.
Like, Jesus sounds different in John's account than he does in the synoptics.
But that, again, is stylistic.
So, I think to call that a contradiction is to show that you don't understand what these writers are trying to do and what John is trying to do.
So, I think all of that, you know, is basically easy to explain.
And that's what I would say to your atheist friend.
There are, for me though, if I were to think about what are contradictions in the gospel that are more challenging to understand and explain, I think there are two.
There are two areas I would point to.
And they bookend the gospels.
So there's the end and the beginning.
And the part at the end would be how many angels were at the tomb when the women arrived on Easter morning.
Just going from memory here, so we have Mark.
Mark says that there was a young man who greeted the women.
Matthew has an angel.
Luke has, I believe, two men.
And then John has two angels.
So that's something atheists are going to point to and say, there's a contradiction.
Mark has a young man, and then John, you know, John being the last gospel written, says it was two angels.
Well, which was it?
Was it a young man or two angels?
So there's two things we have to keep in mind there.
First of all, in the Bible, angels are referred to, this goes back to the Old Testament, it goes back to Genesis.
You find angels being referred to as men, especially young men, quite frequently.
So, that seems like a contradiction until you look at it in the full biblical context and you understand that it was common for biblical writers to refer to angels as men.
So, there's that.
What about the number, though?
We've got one or two.
And apologists will generally address that by saying, well, listen, just because you say there was one angel or one person or whatever, that doesn't mean there weren't two.
So it's like, you know, the comparison I've heard is if you say, you know, a police officer pulled you over on your way home from work and you told somebody, hey, a police officer pulled me over.
Well, what if there were actually two police officers in the car and you only said a police officer?
Does that mean that you're lying or you're contradicting the truth?
No, it just means that you're saying it's true.
There was a police officer who pulled you over.
There was also a second one who you didn't mention because you didn't think it was necessary.
But that doesn't mean that what you said is untrue.
That's generally how that's dealt with.
I don't find that to be a totally satisfying explanation, but it works anyway.
And then at the other end, I think the most difficult seeming contradiction is in the infancy narrative where you've got, you know, only two gospels give you the infancy narrative and that's fine.
The other two don't mention it.
That's not a contradiction.
They just don't mention it.
Matthew and Luke give us an infancy narrative.
And Matthew has, Luke has the, you know, the famous story of the holy family going from Nazareth to Bethlehem for the census.
And then they're there, and the shepherds come, and there's the presentation in the temple, and then they go back to Nazareth, and that's sort of the story.
And then in Matthew's Gospel, they're already in Bethlehem to begin the story, and Mary gives birth, and then the three magi come.
And then they have to flee because Herod sends the, you know, Joseph is warned in a dream that people are coming to kill their child.
So they flee to Egypt and then after a length of time, then they go to Nazareth.
So the contradiction there is that Luke does not mention the flight to Egypt and Matthew does.
So again, the way of dealing with that is saying that, yeah, Luke doesn't mention it.
He also doesn't, he doesn't say that it didn't happen.
He just doesn't mention it.
And that's basically the way to deal with it.
Again, I find that it's, it's that word, that explanation works.
It does work.
It's true that Matthew does not say it didn't happen.
It does seem like a rather significant detail to omit from your account.
Um, And so we're left kind of, because in Luke's account, he's got presentation of the temple and then next sentence, they're going back to Nazareth.
So what we have to do to fit Matthew into Luke is to stick this entire story of the flight to Egypt in between those two sentences, which seems like quite a detail to fit in between two sentences.
I think that's basically, you know, again, it's not technically a contradiction.
And I'm also okay saying, look, you know, I can explain most of this pretty easily.
I think any reasonable person can.
There are a couple parts in there that I don't fully understand.
And I'm okay saying, I don't know.
You know, I don't fully get it.
I'm not totally sure how these things fit together.
I have faith that they do.
And I think it's okay to say that.
I think it's okay to admit that.
I don't think we have to claim that we understand everything 100%.
In fact, I think we should realize that we don't and admit that and be okay with that.
And then continue studying and trying to increase our understanding.
So, that is my very long explanation for that.
And that's how I would maybe think of a more succinct way of giving that to your atheist friends.
Because they'll probably fall asleep if you give an explanation like I just did.
Just as everyone in the audience is probably falling asleep by now.
So, we will leave it there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
Good job, I guess?
For the left, life is a sexually transmitted disease from which no one has ever recovered.
