Oh, the gospel will overcome in a world full of sorrow, by evil over all. Where darkness has failed, the light of the sun And we know that the gospel overcomes. You're listening to The Dean's List, an analysis of news, culture, and theological trends from a biblical worldview. This is your place for intelligent conversation on the relevant issues of our day, each Friday and Saturday at 1130 and each Sunday at noon. And now, here's the host of The Dean's List, Dr. Paul Dean. You are not going to believe this, Mary. Boy, what? Yeah, this is big. Now, we've said, Christians have said that the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is going to have far-reaching implications, and things are going to come down the pike. We've mentioned the polygamy, polyamory, and a lot of other things. All right, well now, and I got this through Jim Denison, the Denison Report, and he linked over to Slate. But here's an article arguing that humans should be able to marry robots. That does sound funny. But again, this is one of those things that would be funny if it weren't tragic. Right? It's tragic. I mean, it does. It sounds ridiculous. But they're arguing for it now. It's not just far-fetched. There are people who sit around, literally, and I get this, they think about the future. They think about cultural trends. They think about technological trends and where we may end up in the future. I remember reading a book, gosh, it's been maybe 20 years ago now, Future Edge. And yeah, and about the, you know, paradigm pioneers and paradigm shifts and all. And see, that's common language now in the business world. But anyway, people sit around and think about this and they say, well, you know, this, this, you know, robot human marriages might be next on the list. Now, it might not be immediate. I was going to say, that seems really far out there, but you never know. Well, you never know. You never know. It's probably, again, if things don't change, if the Christian worldview doesn't gain ascendancy again, then it's probably inevitable when you look at the way our culture is going. A lot of critics of same-sex marriage, including a number of conservative Christian opponents, of gay marriage have argued that the court's recognition of same-sex marriage would inevitably lead to robotic human marriages. Believe it or not, there's recently been, in their words, a burst of, I wouldn't call it this, but this is what they call it, a burst of cogent accounts of human robot love and pop culture. I'm not even going to get into it. There's a number of books. There's a drama series. Unbelievable. You can look at any number of things. So here's one of the things that they point out. And by the way, we're not going to do the entire broadcast on this issue. We're going to put it into a larger context in just a moment. I promise you. OK. We're not going to get bogged down. OK. But here's what they say. Robot human marriage is not about robot rights. What do you mean robot rights? Well, I mean, do you watch Star Trek? Data. Data? You know, I find myself rooting for data, you know, in the show. But I'm not going down that road in real life. But that's what they're doing. They were trying to do. And look, when was that? That show is 20 years. That's the next generation. That's 20 plus years old, and they're talking about data being a person, being sentient, and having rights. That's where we're going. Now, they're quick to say, well, it's not really about the rights of the robot, although robots may have rights in the future. See? People advocating for animal rights now. Why? What's the rationale? No different than humans. Unbelievable. But here's what they say it's about, it's about the right, and here, listen. It's about the right of a human to choose to marry a robot. Now, that carries more traction, and that sounds, okay, well, a human to choose, that sounds pretty good. And you know me, I'm all about liberty. I'm all about choice. But there's a problem with this. Okay, so, just hang on. They provide a little bit of analysis here. In the end, obviously I'm going to come to a different conclusion, but it's not that the analysis is not somewhat sound. If you look at the Supreme Court's decision protecting same-sex marriage, the question is, well, will it open a door to robot human marriage? If you look at the majority decision again, it was based on four what they call principles and traditions. You know, same-sex marriage is good, four principles and traditions. Here's the first principle, individual autonomy. the right of each of us to decide our own private choices. Okay. Second, um, the special relationship that marriages facilitate between two persons. The court basically said the right to marriage dignifies couples, reinforces bilateral loyalty, represents an association for a noble purpose. Now, if you think about a human and a robot, again, you're talking about two persons that you think, well, then that would be excluded, because again, robots are not persons, but again. The same principles could apply there. That's right. If that's your worldview. That's right. And will robots achieve personhood status in the future? I think they very well could in this particular culture. Unborn babies aren't persons. But robots, they'll be persons. Why? Because of our mixed-up worldview. And it's based on feelings and emotion. And an evolutionary worldview. Evolutionary worldview. There is no God. We decide. Third factor. Let's see. They talk about the fact that marriage safeguards children and families. Well, now, see, we would argue, OK, well, how is a homosexual marriage going to safeguard children and families? It's destructive of families. And we would certainly say it's destructive of a moral value system, a biblically moral value system when it comes to children. But again, the court essentially argued that many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. So again, So some would say, well, again, OK, human robot. If a robot, what they're saying is it is conceivable that robots could eventually serve a parenting role for children. Yeah, you could. They're programmed, right? They would have no anger, maybe. They might even serve better. There you go. There you go. Philosophically. I know. And this is their case. You're making it. Yeah. Do you agree with it? No, I'm kidding. No, no, no. Watch out now. I'm going to keep you around. Oh boy. Lastly, the court relied on the fact that marriage was central to many practical and legal realities of modern life, such as taxation, inheritance, property rights, hospital access, insurance coverage. Here's what they say. Most, if not all, of these factors are not relevant to robots unless in some distant future they achieve, again, personhood status. So that would be a little problematic, but here's the deal. We believe in freedom. Sure we do. Sure we do. But the problem is twofold. I mean, it's multifold, but we're going to hit two issues. Two points for you? OK, go ahead. Yeah. OK. One is, and we've talked about this before, so we're not going to belabor this, we're going to launch into a larger discussion here, but one is, it's not just, we're not just talking about the freedom of people to choose something, we're talking about altering the definition of marriage, which technically is impossible. Why do I say that? Well, Christy and I talked about this on a broadcast. She and I, she's my daughter. So our relationship is father-daughter. We can call it marriage, but it's not marriage. In other words, marriage describes a particular kind of human relationship. So I can have a friend. I can have a grandson, I can have a nephew or a niece, and these are ways to describe these human relationships. Some are biological, some are not biological. Some are by blood, some are not by blood, but they're different types of human relationships. Well, marriage, of course, is between a man and a woman. And that's biological, based on the way we're made. And again, I understand that non-Christians would argue against that, but you're arguing against... It's like the emperor with no clothes. You know, you're arguing against all common sense. You're arguing against reality. I mean, ultimately, if you don't have a man and a woman, you don't have procreation. You just don't. That's right. Okay. Now we're not talking about, you know, couples who are, you know, barren, you know, or we're not saying adoption's wrong. Adoption is a wonderful thing for heterosexual couples. It's a biblical thing. But again, we're talking generally speaking about the way human beings are made and the way it works. And I'm not going to go down that road any further. I'm just saying. So now what we're going to do is, well, marriage can include you know, homosexual couples. So marriage can include a human and a robot. It's not marriage. It's a relationship to be sure. But it's not marriage. Now, folks say, well, why can't people, you know, still do what they want? Well, that leads me to my second issue. I'm not necessarily against people doing what they want, but I am against changing definitions and being stupid. And I am against the government redefining marriage. Forcing a view against our religious convictions. That's right. Well, not only that. It is against God, but I'm just saying from their perspective. Well, yeah, it's both. To me, it's an insane definition. So here's the government forcing insanity on us. and not only forcing an insane definition on us, changing the definition that has been the definition for the entire planet for 6,000 years up until 2001. No one questioned the definition of marriage in the entire human history, the entire history of the world. I'll put it, the entire history of the world until recently. and so now we got again and people have made this point we got what five people on a bench who now just changed it five people for all of us so it's an insane definition and yes it does go against biblical teaching it goes against religion etc but but the real issue is because where did marriage come from and different people would argue different things but but one thing we can all agree on it didn't come from government I can agree with that. Now you and I know it came from God. That's right. God is the one who ordained marriage, designed marriage, defined marriage. You know, He's the one that tells us what the purpose of marriage is, what the nature of marriage is, what it typifies, the Lord Jesus Christ and His relationship with His church. So that being said, that being the case, not only are we going against human history, but we're going against the fact that God defined marriage. My point is government ought to be out. Government should have nothing to say or do with marriage. We'll be right back and that's what we're going to talk about in the second half of the broadcast. Stay tuned. What would happen if an experienced homicide detective applied the investigative tools he uses to prove that God exists? Well, on the next edition of Breakpoint This Week, John Stonestreet welcomes former cold case detective, J. Warner Wallace, to discuss his newest book, God's Crime Scene. You'll learn how to present critical evidence to unbelievers while reinforcing your own faith in the process. Don't miss Breakpoint This Week. Sunday afternoon at 1.30 on Christian Talks 660 and 92.9. The reasons for it seemed right. I felt alone, scared, and pushed. Everyone thought it would be best. We were all wrong. It changed everything, then and now. If you carry this Secret Sorrow Abortion Recovery Assistance at Piedmont Women's Center can help you find forgiveness and freedom in a small, confidential Bible study group, call 244-1434. We will listen and understand. I called, and I am changed forever. NORTH GREENVILLE UNIVERSITY WHERE CHRIST MAKES THE DIFFERENCE AND ALEX MCFARLAND PRESENT TRUTH FOR A NEW GENERATION AT FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH SPARTANBURG SEPTEMBER 18TH AND 19TH. COME AND HEAR SOME OF THE TOP SPEAKERS IN AMERICA TALK ABOUT WHAT IS TRULY NEEDED TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. THE BENHAM BROTHERS, WILL GRAHAM, LEE STROVELL, DR. ALVIDA KING, TODD STARNS, DELL TACKETT, STEVEN MEYER AND MANY MORE. TICKETS ARE GOING FAST BUT THEY'RE AVAILABLE TODAY AT TRUTHFORANEWGENERATION.COM. THAT'S TRUTHFORANEWGENERATION.COM. In the Upstate Bible Quiz League, children grades three to 12 memorize God's Word in a fun and competitive environment. The cost is only $2 per quizzer. So sign up your child today at upstatebiblequiz.com. Hi, I'm one of the coaches for Bible Quiz. It's exciting for me to see how much fun the youth are having memorizing God's Word. One of the most fun parts about Bible Quiz is the sweet fellowship we share with each other. Sign up today at upstatebiblequiz.com. Christian Talks 660. Welcome back to the Dean's List. For more resources including articles, books, and archive broadcasts, simply log on to TrueWorldView.net. Once again, here's your host for today's edition, Dr. Paul Deen. Hey, look, like Rand Paul, this is Ron's son, like him or not, You have to agree that what he said in the debate when they asked him about homosexual marriage, you have to agree his answer was tremendous. Well, maybe you don't have to agree. I was going to say, some don't. I certainly agree. But you know what he said? I don't have the quote exactly, but he said something to the effect, I don't believe in registering my marriage or my guns with the government. Yes. Gloves are off. You know what he said last broadcast? That's what you said. Don't want to register my marriage with the government. And I could say some things if you didn't want me to reveal some private things about registering marriages and all that. But I won't. I want to protect our guns. I may or may not have guns. Who knows? Alright now I am a peacemaker though. Yes, I will say that As much as far as possible was in Romans 13 be at peace with all men. That's right. Yeah, and you're not you're not for the gun. I Can't remember what you called him. It was still packing pastor. Yeah, I remember that Yeah, got some clarification on that and my deductions are actually accurate. Yes, I didn't have all the information But I knew where that was going. Anyway, the guy was running out the door Yeah Oh, oh, oh, and the pastor said he came back in, you know, and that's when he shot him. Well, to me, if you're running out the door, just let him go. You can replace laptops. But see, this guy wanted a confrontation, I'm telling you. I'm calling him out. Look, he set a trap for the woman he held on his porch at gunpoint. He set a trap for her. He laid him wait for her. He put the bait out there like she's an animal or something. This guy's got a problem. But anyway, we're not going to talk about him. We're going to talk about another pastor. Now this is a friend of mine. Now listen, what did I say? Where are we going? What I said was and where we're going is I said government ought to get out of marriage. That's why I was quoting Rand Paul a moment ago. Because you delineated where it was going in the first half. Government shouldn't define marriage. Then people can say stupid stuff about marriage if they want to. That's their right. But we know they're not married. Right? I mean, they're not married anyway, regardless of what the government says they're not married, but OK. Because God defines marriage. But here's Richard Phillips, my good friend. Well, I say good friend. What I mean by that is we've met many times. We've talked many times. Boy, his preaching is tremendous. I got a couple of his commentaries and all. But it's not like I hang out with him, so I don't want to mislead people. Oh, yeah, me and Richard drink coffee, but we don't. He probably doesn't even know my name anymore. I'm joking. He knows my name, but again. So we're good acquaintances. How about that? And I love a lot of what their church is doing. Robert Spears is down there. Love Robert Spears. Yes. Anyway. Hmm. The Evolution Against Evolution group. Oh, the creation study group. There we go. Yes. Second press. Absolutely. Absolutely. Awesome. Okay, so, but here's Phillips. Now he wrote an article entitled, Should the Church Divorce from the State in Marriage? That's the difference between Baptist and Presbyterians. Baptist, yes, we should. Well, historic Baptist. Not Baptist today, but historically, yeah. But you're already tipping the hand. I'm sorry. It's okay. It's okay. You know, women like to have it out there. Get it out there. Then we can argue about it. You're right. Well, I know. I like some of his language here, though. In line with the recent Supreme Court decision granting civil rights for homosexual marriages, the question is raised, should the church divorce from its marriage partnership with the state? In other words, should I refuse to declare, listen to this, when he performs marriage ceremonies, by the authority vested in me as a minister of the gospel and by the state of South Carolina, I declare you husband and wife. There's the difference. I have never said that. You've never said that. That's true. about the authority vested in me by the state of South Carolina. They didn't invest any authority in me. I don't answer the state of South Carolina on marriage. Are you kidding me? Now, I mean, your gloves are off. Come on, Richard. I love you, brother, but give me a break. I'm not mad. You know, interesting enough, you know, I love the Proverbs. Read it every day. Do you know what Proverbs 15-1 says? What does it say? A soft answer turns away wrath, but grievous words stir up anger. Yeah, I know. That was a little harsh, but okay. Maybe I should invite him to coffee. Yes, you should. Oh, me. And look, he can come on the show, too. I'll let him do that. He can write an article, and we'll have some fun. Y'all can debate it. Yes. Yeah, we'll have some fun. I'm just saying, though, I've never said that. No, you have not. That's true. And I wouldn't say that, anyway. I do say, by the authority vested in me as a minister of the gospel, I've said that sometimes, but certainly not the state of South Carolina. So anyway, basically, he goes into a lot of stuff, but he says, I would argue, you know, in answer to the question, should the church divorce from the state in marriage, I would argue, at least for the present, no, we should not divorce from the state. And he gives some reasons why churches and ministers should continue to partner with the state in joining biblical marriages. All right, here's his first reason. You ready? Yes. It's like you're getting ready to go to the dentist or something. OK. All right, number one. While Christians lament the failings of our courts, it remains true that the civil state is fulfilling an important and legitimate role in regulating marriage. And see, I would disagree with that. It's not the role of the state to regulate marriage. Well, and if you didn't have the tax, complicated tax code, it wouldn't really matter. Well, yeah, but that's not where he's going. OK. You know where he's going? No. It ain't the Bible either. Okay. And I'm poking fun at my brothers. Okay. Because every time I argue with... Maybe this is why my listenership is declining, this next statement. So maybe I shouldn't make this statement. Well... You know what? Maybe this will help them. Okay. Don't take it as a jab. Take it as a constructive criticism. Okay. There you go. Every time I argue with a Presbyterian brother, they go to Westminster Confession of Faith instead of the Bible. I'm not kidding. Okay. Yep. And that's what Richard does right here. Okay. What is the confession saying? He says, as the Westminster Confession notes... Yeah, what does the confession say? Yeah. God has ordained civil magistrates to pursue the public good. Ah. That is not... And then they got a reference here to 1 Peter, which is absolutely ridiculous. Okay. It has nothing to do with the public good. It has to do with our sanctification. That's right. Anyway, um... Second, we're running out of time already, I bet. Oh, okay. Second reason. I'm going to move. I had more to say. He says, well, basically, the last thing he says with reference to that, churches do well to acknowledge the state's role and to serve the state in joining biblically faithful marriages. I was just thinking Germany over here, but go ahead. No, that's good. Serve the state. All right. Number two, how about serve King Jesus? Amen. We have another king. We have no king but Jesus. Yeah. You remember what some of the folk in the Bible said? They said we have no king but Caesar. That's right. That's what was rolling through my mind as you were saying that. I know it. All right, here's the second reason. Past experience shows that the church can maintain biblical standards even when the civil authority does not. Yeah, where's that shown? Well, it passed experience. He says an example is no-fault divorce, which violates the Bible's teaching. True churches simply respond to divorce differently from the laws of the state, imposing church discipline on members who divorce without biblical grounds. I agree a lot. He says we should do the same with respect to same-sex marriage. Okay, well, I agree with that. But so your argument is because the church can maintain biblical standards even when the civil authority doesn't, we still need to remain united with the state. Y'all are wrong, we're right, but we're still gonna be united because we can be right even if you're wrong. Scripture, another that rolls in my mind, how can they walk together unless we agree? Yeah. Yeah, I'm just saying that's the argument. And we're gonna come to some conclusions here in a minute. Number three, but I gotta move. Yes. Like the animals, gotta move. Okay. All right. It is a blessing for Christians to have a faithful minister I agree with that part, but listen to what he says. It's a blessing for Christians to have a faithful minister representing the state in performing weddings. Given its unbiblical stance, Christians will want to distance themselves from civil authorities preferring to have godly pastors act on the state's behalf. Well, why not just say it's a blessing for Christians to have faithful ministers when they perform weddings? Given the state's unbiblical stance, Christians will want to distance themselves from civil authorities preferring godly pastors. Why does it have to be godly pastors acting on the state's behalf? Because he thinks the state has to sanction marriage. That's what he's saying. According to the Westminster. Exactly. The state has to. See, this is the fatal flaw. And it's not just a flaw. It is a fatal flaw. And here's a point, in case we run out of time. As long as the state's involved in marriage, guess what? We're going to have people marrying robots. That's probably true. And getting tax breaks for it. And Christian ministers are going to have to perform those weddings. I'm just worried, as we were talking during the break, that what if the robots decide that us humans are, you know, lacking and get rid of us so they can marry each other. That's what Gary was talking about during the break. Anyway, but go ahead. Sorry. What was it you were talking about, Gary? Robots? Are they making robots now? More intelligent? The robot makes the next robot, but makes it more intelligent and further advanced than the robot itself. So it continues. I guess it evolves. Ah, watch out. Well, it evolves through an outside designer. Yeah. So there you go. But anyway, yeah. And AI is a big thing. That sounded so educated. AI is a big thing. That's a big thing coming down the pike. Oh, me. The issue of artificial intelligence is a weighty. Has lots of philosophical and ethical. A weighty philosophical, ethical, and practical reality before us. That's right. That is exactly right. So, our involvement with the state. I'm sorry. I just can't get my head around this statement, you know. It's a blessing for Christians to have a faithful minister represent the state because, you know, the state has to be involved. That's his argument. Moreover, he says, it is a service to society for godly pastors to act on the state's behalf in establishing godly marriages. It does help society for a pastor to bolster and help marriage, but the other half of the state part, I don't. Yeah, I think if you just change this whole... It does help society, but... Yeah, if you just change the whole article, it's not the state fulfilling an important and legitimate role in regulating marriage. See, that's where he's wrong. It was number one, wasn't it? The Bible does that. Church. The church can maintain biblical standards when the civil authority does not. True. Therefore, let's divorce the civil authority. That's right. It's a blessing for Christians to have faithful ministers, not faithful ministers who represent the state. We represent King Jesus. The state is a rival to King Jesus. We'll talk about that next time. You've been listening to The Dean's List, an analysis of news, culture and theological trends from a biblical worldview. To access archived broadcasts, go to trueworldview.net where you'll find other helpful resources as well. Join us each week at 11.30 on Friday and Saturday and noon on Sunday for The Dean's List. The opinions expressed on today's program are those of the announcers, their guests, and callers, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff and management of his radio network, the Radio Training Network, or iHeartMedia.