09 Jan 2026 (Q&A)

0:00 It is the 9th of January, 2026. I am Corey J. Mahler, and this is at any cost. This is the 11th episode, the second QA episode of 2026, and I think I will just jump into things right away. I will initially go for a question that I happen to notice in the chat. Someone asked about the tetragrammaton. I see that he's already had some people respond with the episode on the Judaizing heresy. That's a good place to start with that. There is also a good thread from Woe on X that is still up. I will go ahead and link to that in the show notes. I'll make a note of that And the short answer is that the word is Lord. It's kurios in the Greek, and we just translate it as Lord. So anytime you see that, and I know there are some English

0:52 versions that leave that untranslated just have the tetragrammaton there or have I don't even want to say the word because it's it's Yahweh, which is not what it is, which is the problem that is Judaizing, you should not use that one. And so if they leave it untranslated, that's not as bad. It's kind of silly because when you translate something, you should probably translate the entire document, not leave random words untranslated. Unless there's some particularly important reason for doing it. given that we have it translated in the Septuagint into curios into Lord, there's no reason to leave it untranslated in English. So if you see that, just mentally translate it as the Lord. That's what I'll do if I happen to be reading the ALV,

1:39 the American Literary Version, because it does that. So So which is unfortunate because I actually kind of like the English of it. I wish it were based on the Septuagint instead of being based on the Masoretic text, but it is still a nice translation to have. It reads very nicely. Even if it obviously has some des deficits. So I will pull up my list of questions here. I don't know that I'll be able to get to the questions I see popping up in the chat. I will note them down for next time. I already have a fairly long list here and I'm going to try to get to all the ones that I have in the list, but we will see how that goes. And of course the first question is very much related to that sort of preliminary question, so I guess this is really the second

2:27 question, but which is the inspired version of Daniel is basically the question. And we deliberately did not address that, because we believe that is a question that should be left to the men who eventually do the real work of translating the Septuagint properly into a true English translation. The English translation that will be basically the master translation for some time going into the future. And personally I am strongly inclined toward just saying use the use the one and the Septuagint. And for those who aren't aware, there's the Edocian, there's the Septuagint, and then obviously there's the Masoretic. And there are some questions about which one is basically the original version of Daniel and which one should be Should be controlling essentially.

3:16 I am inclined towards saying just use the one in the Septuagint. I'm not saying the people who do the translating have to do that. not saying it's a requirement that you believe that, that it's sin not to believe it That's just my personal inclination. I have not spent a particularly great amount of time looking into it, which is why I don't have a definitive answer. I'm simply going to say it's this one. So I'm not particularly worried about it. It's a question for the eventual translating well, the translation committee, right? It's for them. That's why we essentially avoided that in our series on the Septuagint. And partly just because it would sort of been getting off into the weeds, instead of the core focus of that series, which was

4:00 pointing out the Septuagint is the Word of God. So the short answer is yep, that's for the translators to deal with that. The next question I have here is one where we can go ahead and just make the feminists even more angry at me. In the episode on the nature of woman, you say a woman's father. Actually, this is not the episode, the article, rather, this is on my website. I'll link to it in the show notes. You say a woman's father or husband has the duty to rebuke or punish her when she expresses a wicked desire. True. I still hold that position. What is the punishment for essentially what sort of punishment is the man supposed to use with regard to the women who have been entrusted to his care?

4:49 And of course that's a delicate question and has to be a delicate answer, and it's going to make people angry regardless of what I say. Feminists are angry anyway, so it hardly matters. But corporal punishment is really the core of what is being asked here, naturally. Corporal punishment is very much on the table. Spanking children is acceptable. Spanking your wife if necessary and a different context here from the normal one perhaps is also something that may be necessary. It is sort of a last resort because you don't want to be the sort of man who immediately resorts to using your physical strength, which you have an advantage as a man, over if you are have young children anyway, over everyone else in your household.

5:34 You are much stronger than all of them, probably stronger than all of them combined. And so you don't want that to be the last resort. One, it sets a bad example. And two, it's really showing that you don't actually have control over your household, that you have to resort to that. There are other things you should be doing. A big part of this is simply avoiding those issues in the first place by making sure that you are instructing your household well, that you are bringing up your children in the faith, that you are leading your wife, that you are engaging in the things that you have to do as the head of your household to not have those problems arise. Now of course the problems will still arise to some degree because

6:12 we live in a fallen world and everyone has sinful impulses and sometimes they give into them. When that happens, basically it is a matter of wisdom. You are trying to decide what is going to be the most effective in that scenario to achieve the end you want to achieve without inflicting undue harm? It's not because necessarily you're trying to manipulate people or you're trying to avoid To avoid exercising the sort of physical authority that God has given you. Rather, it's because you're trying to do what is best for those entrusted to your care, and that isn't going to be getting out the belt every single time. Everyone really knows that. That sort of goes without saying. We all know that you don't just get out the belt and

6:58 spank your child every time he does anything wrong. You know, if he takes a extra cookie off the counter, you probably don't immediately resort to the belt or the switch. There are other steps in between just a stern talking to sometimes that's enough. And then corporal punishment is at the other end of things. So there is a grade of things. It's going to depend on the nature of the transgression, the nature of sort of the relationship you've built up in your family and you know why did this person do that? Of course that's going to be part of it. Was it a direct challenge to your authority? That's different from just a child giving in to a sweet tooth. That's a different thing. If he took the cookie because he likes cookies, that's one thing.

7:44 If he took it because you told him he cannot have it until after dinner, whatever you happen to tell him, that's a different thing. That's a more serious transgression because he is deliberately saying, I don't really believe you're in charge. He's testing your authority, and that's a different thing. Then it is required of you to more firmly establish that no, I am in charge because God has placed me in charge and you have to obey. The same thing is true with regard to your wife, because of course she is also placed under you in your household. You are her head, you make the decisions, and you'll answer to God for those decisions. So some people when they hear about headship think that it's just

8:23 men getting it to lord it over women and be tyrants in their home, and it's not that, because it is primarily a matter of duty and responsibility, because you are going to answer to God for every single decision you make. This is one thing that I Tend to say to women when they bring up sort of objections to headship and things like that, I point out you should want to help your husband with these things because he is going to answer to God for every single decision he made with regard to the marriage and leading you and all these other things. Don't make it more difficult for him. It's similar to the passage that says that you are to give honor and respect to those who are your leaders and you are

9:02 to do it so that they don't have to do it with grumbling and basically don't be a terrible follower. The same thing is true, don't be a terrible member of the household, making the head of the household's job that much more difficult. So So the short answer, calibrate the punishment to the person, the transgression, the relationship. It's a matter of wisdom. As a man, that is your place in the household, and there's no way around that. No one is going to be able to just give you a spreadsheet where you go, here's the transgression, and then here's the number of times, and all these other steps, and then oh, I have to hit him with the belt three times at half strength. That's not possible. These are matters for wisdom.

9:47 You have to exercise the amount of wisdom that God gave you, the degree of wisdom he gave you to make these decisions. Part of it, of course, is spending time in God's Word so you know his requirements, and if you spend time in God's Word with your children and with your wife, it will help them to know the requirements as well. These things shouldn't just fall out of the sky, come out of the blue. They should know the expectations in the household because you should be transparent with those. They should know what is required of them, and they should know the consequences of not obeying. Because this is very much a matter of obeying, and I know many people hate to hear that word these days.

10:24 But that is the reality. Because Scripture is abundantly clear wives are to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord, and they are to obey him in all things. The only exception is if a husband tells a wife to do something that would say be blasphemy, then it is we must obey God rather than men. That's the only exception. So So that's the basic answer to that question. And yes, I'm sure that will make feminists much happier with me than they already are. The next question sort of shifting gears here to politics. Politics and economics, really, and they are very much related. I have my general view, just to start out before I give the question, is that I don't really think of economics as an

11:13 ideology or an ideological subject. I think of economics as a tool because I think of it as something that you use to achieve a given end. Now, can there be some ideology along the way? Certainly. I think more of that is politics and sociology in the proper sense of the term, not the modern corruption. I think it's more that just applied to regulating the market and commerce. Again, also tools. So I don't have really an ideology when it comes to economics. One of the ways that I've explained it is that I don't have an ideology of hammers. or any other tool. I use the tool when it is suitable for the task. The same thing with regard to economics, but the question here, let me pull the actual wording of the question.

12:05 I was hoping you could speak on the economic model or miracle of nineteen thirties Germany as well as resources regarding this. A friend of mine asked me for resources on this and I did not have anything to suggest He's a former libertarian, as are many on the right, who gave up on capitalism after listening to the Stonequire episode on it and talking with me. Thank you for your time. This is one of those subjects that obviously could absorb more than the rest of the time for this evening. But the short version is that the goal of the third Reich was to break the control of international finance and debt slavery, basically, to build a currency that was part of it, of course, was changing their currency, to build a currency that was based on the

12:59 productivity of the people instead of being based on debt, which is the case with our currency in the United States, for instance, and any other currency that is backed by well a central bank will say to try and not get a strike here. But insofar as reading materials are concerned, I think that's really probably the better recommendation for me to give here because that's what your friend is going to want if he is interested in economics. He's going to want something to read. Just like the men who are very interested in theology are going to want book recommendations. So the recommendations, and I'll put these in the show notes to make sure that they're accessible. And for those who don't know, I publish this after the stream

13:45 as a podcast, and so that is available with show notes and other things like that. And of course I'll try to remember to put all those on the forum as well. And anyone who's a trusted member of the forum can edit the wiki for each episode and add resources or anything I mention if you are so inclined to help me keep that sort of neat and tidy. But the recommendations would basically be Gottfried Freeder would be the primary recommendation there. His manifesto for breaking the interest bondage of money is probably going to be the number one recommendation. And then he also has another work that is the program of the NSDAP and its ideological principles, which again deals with sort of the integration of politics and economics because he was an economist, so

14:33 that was sort of his interest. Another one would be actually an American writer who was writing on related matters? This is Friedrich Liszt, L I S T, the last name. Again, I'll put it in the show notes. The National System of Political Economy. That's going to be another good read for someone who is interested in this area. I'm not saying everyone should read these materials because if you don't have an interest in economics or you don't have a background in economics, it either will not be of interest or it will be quite a slog. It's just going to depend on sort of your your background, your interest level. And then on a more sort of practical level, you have Hermann Göring had the four year plan.

15:14 And you can look up the actual plans of the Third Reich, what they wanted to accomplish, how they were accomplishing it, they basically had progress reports on these things. These materials are all available and many of them are translated into English and of course now with AI, you can get a workable English translation of certainly any German document. And then of course, his book as well, Goering's book, Germany Reborn is the title in English. I think those are probably the best recommendations for someone who is interested in the economics of the Third Reich and sort of how they achieved that economic miracle because of course they went from trying to remember the numbers now, but I think it was six

15:56 million, something like that, unemployed in the in the early nineteen thirties, nineteen thirty two, nineteen thirty three. You can look this up, of course, but that's to the best of my recol recollection. And after a period of five years, so basically basically one four year program, they were able to bring that number down to under a hundred thousand, which is to say basically full employment. Something that very few nations have achieved historically, other than of course nations that have slavery, which is a different matter. So that alone is an economic miracle. There's also the aspect that they were able to massively increase GDP because the GDP The GDP basically doubled in that time period as

16:40 well. Roughly that much. And then on top of that, it's important to note, and I know that many who come out of the libertarian school and others like that are going to perhaps object to what I say next, and they're going to think, oh, you're talking about Keynesianism. But the Third Reich did use deficit spending. And deficit spending should not be a dirty word. I'll give a brief, very simplistic example of why this is not a problem. If your deficit spending is calibrated correctly and it And it increases the growth of GDP. And I know some people are going, oh, don't you not care about GDP? GDP's not everything, but GDP's not nothing. So let's say tiny country, $10 million dollar GDP. We're just going to use easy numbers for the sake of the

17:31 example. Ten million dollars GDP. They spend a million dollars deficit spending in order to stimulate the economy and grow the economy. Let's say they're wildly successful because it makes the numbers easy. They increase the economy to a hundred million dollars. A hundred million dollars GDP. Well, now how much of GDP is that one million they spent in order to incentivize and increase basically the velocity of money through the system and things like that to increase the GDP? Well it was ten percent of GDP that they spent, now it's one percent. And so you can in fact grow your way out of deficit spending. You have to make sure that you're investing in things that are actually worth the investment.

18:20 It can't just be a hundred billion dollars of graft spent in various places around the world, which is basically a description of the US budget with bigger numbers. But if you spend it on infrastructure, if you spend it on things your country actually needs, so for instance in the German case the Autobahn, if you spend it on these things, you actually do increase the productivity of the country, you increase the productivity of your people, you incentivize economic development and you actually manage to effectively spend nothing because that deficit that you spent is paid for in the increase in GDP. And so that's the basic outline of how deficit spending can be used to incentivize an economy.

19:03 And I have nothing wrong with that. I have no objection to that whatsoever. We did do that with Works programs and things like that in the US in order in order to help get out of the depression. That was one of the things that we did. If you go to particularly those of us who like hiking and camping and things like that, go to the national parks. Some of the nicest parts of the infrastructure in the national parks were public works programs. They still are to some degree because of course the National Park Service is socialism, if you want to use that word. It is something that is paid for by the government that benefits society at large, but it was literally a public works program for men who were out of work during that interwar period that built

19:47 many of those things. One example would be the roadway that goes up to the Sequoia Park in California. If you go up to that from the south side, the stonework was done by that works program, and it's beautiful stonework done exceptionally well, better than most of the stuff we do today. Tangential note, don't take that route if you're in a large vehicle. It has hairpin turns. Take the one from the north. But it is something that was produced by what many would call socialism. There's nothing wrong with that. It works, it can be done well, and it was certainly done well, at least one time in a Western country, with exceptional, virtually miraculous results. But at the same time we shouldn't really call it miraculous, because

20:36 it can be repeated. If you call it miraculous, you're sort of implying that it shouldn't have turned out that way. It was contrary to what you would expect to be the outcome, and that's simply not the case. Because I fully believe that if we replicated those programs here, we would have the same sort of success. Now, there's going to be some problems, we have to clean out some corruption and things here, but I still think it could be done. But I think those are those books are the place to start for your friend. The next question is sort of a more lighthearted one. Someone asked me about my favorite tank. Unfortunately for the person who asked, the answers I don't really have one. I never really got into tanks.

21:20 That was never really my particular interest. So I mean obviously I like some of the German tanks from World War II. I don't think anyone is surprised by that answer. But I don't really have a favorite tank. And A more serious question from the same person, not a follow up, but I guess it's sort of related. Having already listened to A Young Man's Life, the Stone Choir episode, would there be any other words of encouragement to a younger guy trying to find love? This is one of those questions that comes up all the time and it's not surprising if you look at the marriage statistics, and don't look at the divorce statistics and think that it's as bad as they look. Because bear in mind when they give you that number, it's for

22:07 all marriages. The number you want is first marriages, because if you marry and stay married, well the number of divorces you had is zero, right? But if there's another person who marries and divorces fifteen times, well now the average divorce rate for this small system is seven plus. That's the problem. You have people who are included who marry and divorce like they're changing shoes. If you exclude those people, the numbers are nowhere near as bad. But obviously the big problem for younger generations, that's certainly millennials like myself, zoomers and younger, although for the much younger generation it's not an issue yet, will be in the coming years. It's that first marriage, right?

22:58 Because many of the younger generation are not married. They've never been married. And some of them are not dating and things like that. And there are a lot of reasons for that. And there's a related question that I know I have later on in my list for tonight that I'll comment on more of this stuff there, but the biggest thing is you just have to get out there and try. And I know it's not the sort of advice that most people want to hear, and I know it's hard advice to hear, and there are going to be those who think, oh, you're just out of touch. No, I know how hard it is out there. It's terrible. It is not good at all for the younger generations. And that doesn't mean that you can't find a wife.

23:41 It doesn't mean that you don't have an opportunity to start a family. It does mean that it's going to be much more challenging than it was for previous generations. It's certainly going to be harder if you are a Zoomer, if you're Gen Z, than it was for your boomer grandparents, or whatever they happen to be for you, probably grandparents in your case. That is the reality of the situation, but we do the best with what we have. And I've recommended to guys one of the best things you can do is go out there and just ask out a barista or someone working at cat as a cashier, wherever it happens to be. Some guys get hung up on they are trying to find this perfect woman, and I don't really necessarily hate to be the bearer

24:27 of bad news, but I'm gonna tell you she doesn't exist. Perfect wives don't exist. Now, you can find women who will make better wives sort of out of the gate, as it were, because if they were raised by a staunch Christian father, if they were told from the time they were little that you know, your duty in life is going to be a wife and a mother, you're going to be a homemaker, you're going to do X, Y, and Z. It's going to be a lot easier for you to step into the shoes that he's sort of already prepared. And many of the older generation drop the ball on that. And so you are going to find some women who don't have any of that background. You can sort of train those women to be good wives. And that's sort of the point I'm getting at here.

25:17 Good wives are made, not just found lying around. You don't just go to some random church and it's full of perfect wives waiting for a husband to appear. But the kind of women you do want to avoid are the ones who have been so damaged by their path through life that they have decided they are going to do everything they possibly can to never be a wife, or to be a terrible one. And that's going to be a matter of discernment. It's not always going to be the easiest call, but to some degree guys have sort of an instinct for that. You know when a woman is going to cause trouble in your life. Every woman is going to cause trouble in your life, but you know when she's going to cause the kind of trouble that

25:57 you don't want to have. Because Paul's not wrong when he says if you marry you're going to have trouble in this life. That's true in every marriage. Even if you have a very good marriage, there's still going to be days that are difficult. There are going to be things you have to work through together. There are going to be problems. That is the reality of living in a fallen world. You're fallen, she's fallen. Together you have to work through some things. Some women are going to be more work than others, and some are going to be so much that you are just creating a disaster for yourself in your life. So there's the aspect of wisdom having to find the woman who has the potential to be a good wife, but

26:39 don't turn down a woman just because she doesn't seem like the exact perfect image of a wife that you've built up in your head. Because you're not going to find that perfect image in the real world. You're going to find a woman who is willing to put in the effort to be a good wife. That's the woman you want. And there are still a lot of those around. Even if there are, of course, the other kind that are a lot of trouble, and that's going to depend partly on where you live in the country. Some areas are better than others, some are certainly worse than others. And just go out there and put in the effort and take some risks. You may not find her on the first try. It is partly a numbers game. But if you put in that effort, and do, of course put

27:26 in the effort into yourself as well, you know, make yourself presentable. One of the best things a guy can do is not I'm not saying go to the gym six hours a day and get absolutely shredded, right? It would seem a little hypocritical if I said that perhaps, but it's not that. It's just stay in decent shape. Don't be a fat slob, basically. Dress decently, and you'll stand out quite a bit just doing that since no one dresses well dresses well at all anymore. If you just wear a button down shirt, you're already ahead of the crowd. The bar is pretty low for guys that these days. It's extremely low for women, but it's pretty low for guys as well. Stay in decent shape. Have some ability to talk to women without stumbling all over yourself.

28:11 Part of that is practice. Part of that is just developing that confidence. But if you just put in some basic effort and then go out there and take the risk, there's reward to be found. the world is not hopeless. So the guys who think that, oh, there are no good women left and everyone is terrible and that's not reality. That's just them and sour grapes. They are looking at the state of the world and perhaps some of their past experiences many times as that, and just deciding that everything is hopeless and there's no point. That's never true. Certainly it's not true today. So there are good women out there. Go find one. Maybe she's currently making coff hopefully not this time of night, but

28:57 maybe she's currently making coffee. I guess it's not that late West Coast, but or she's a cashier at Kroger. There are good women out there. Maybe you're looking in the wrong place and maybe you have that mental image of what you think is perfect that is preventing you from finding something that will make you very happy for the rest of your life. And do bear in mind, perfect is what you get in the next life. And someone in the chat said women are malleable. That's true. You are going to conform her to yourself. So don't start looking for her being exactly what you want because she Because she's not going to be. You are going to make her into a good wife. Part of it is going to be that she is a wife,

29:41 and so she's going to conform to the role over time. Men and women both change. Women change more than men. And that's a blessing and a curse. In this case, it's a blessing. She can become what you want. Just find one who doesn't have the sort of baggage that is going to destroy the potential. You know what you can deal with. You know what you can't handle. Find a woman who has baggage that you can handle and go for it. Part of life is taking risks. Sometimes things don't go perfectly. Generally things don't go perfectly. But perfect isn't the goal. The goal is sort of good enough. It's not that I'm telling you to settle, it's I'm telling you to look at life realistically. You're not going to find perfection, particularly not in human relationships, so

30:34 go out and try. I think you'll be surprised at sort of the ease with which you can find sufficient success. And also bear in mind you only have to succeed once. It's not like you have to succeed a thousand times, you have to find one woman you can tolerate for sixty years. You can probably do that. Someone said her having a job can be a red flag. It depends. You know You know, the reality of the society and the economy in which we live, a lot of women are going to have a job. It's going to depend in part on the kind of job. So if she's a barista or a cashier or anything like that, I don't think it's a red flag. If she is a high ranking executive in a tech firm, then well, first off, she's probably in her forties, but second, yeah, that's

31:30 probably a red flag. But matter of wisdom. Use the wisdom God has given you. These days a woman having a job, I don't think it's a red flag. You're not going to find a woman who doesn't. And quite frankly, all women do. Being a wife is a job. It's a lot of work. Keeping a home, cooking, cleaning, all those things, that's a lot of work. That's a lot of hours per day. And it's one of the things that's so terrible about feminism because it took the women out of the home, which means that all that work that should be done in the home, there was no one around to do it. That's all it did. It made everyone more miserable and made everything worse. That's sort of a an aside though, so I'll leave that perhaps

32:09 for another time. The next question sort of shifting gears here a I guess a theological question one could call it. It's about casting lots. I don't think I have the specific wording that the gentleman used. Pull that up. That may be the fullness of the wording that I have. So I will just comment on it generally then. Obviously, we have the example in the New Testament of casting lots to replace replace Judas, right? Now do note they narrow it down to two men first. They don't just break out the dice and throw them and go for broke, right? They narrow it down to two men, and basically they're in a position where they're going, we can't decide between A and B.

33:12 We don't know which of these two men, both of whom are qualified, we don't know which one to choose. And so they cast lots. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. And you know part of it of course is going to be why, we do have the New Testament example, of course, but two, I'm Western European, and we definitely have a very strong conception of fate in our cultures, and I don't think that that's a wrong way to look at the world. So I don't think that relying on lots for something like that is impermissible for Christians. I think we can certainly do that. I think the biggest part of the reason we don't do it today is Today is we just don't need it. How often does it come down to A or B for an

33:59 important decision? I'm not talking about which restaurant you go to tonight, but when it comes down to picking which person is going to replace Judas and you have two equally qualified men, that almost never happens. So you almost never have to cast lots. But I think if you came down to A versus B and you didn't really know what to do, I think it's totally fine to flip a coin. If you are going to call a pastor for your church and somehow miraculously, and I think in this case it actually is, you manage to find two candidates who are equally qualified and you can't possibly decide between them, go ahead and break out a coin. Go ahead and do the sort of easy version of casting lots. I think that's completely fine for Christians to do.

34:44 I don't think it's testing God. I don't think it's mocking God. I don't think it's impermissibly leaving things up to, you know, the fates uppercase F relying on the gods of chance. I think it's just recognizing that sometimes in life you wind up in a position where you have equally good or equally bad, hopefully the former not the latter, but you have equal choices and you don't know how to choose. Leaving it up to fate is fine. Go ahead and flip the coin. Make it a challenge coin if you're so inclined. A little harder to flip, but a little more interesting for those observing what you're doing. Let's see, the next one is sort of a follow-up question. I commented very briefly on the stock market and said that I

35:33 am not invested in the stock market, which is true. I don't hold any stock. I don't think I hold any stock whatsoever. Unless there is maybe a small exception somewhere, you know, companies occasionally, if you buy something, they'll give you like one stock as a you know, a throwaway thing they put in the box. Maybe I have something like that somewhere. I don't have any deliberately purchased stock or investment in the stock market, other than I do have a money market account. So I do have a savings account that is technically an investment in the stock market. That's as close as I get. So I did say my objection is not to all investment. I don't think it's all wrong. I'm not going to say you can't do that.

36:16 I'm not going to say it's anti Christian. I would abolish those things under an ideal system, but Christians do have to live in the world. We can't just say the world isn't perfect, and so I refuse to live in the world. That doesn't work. That would be like saying, Well, this food in front of me is not absolutely 100% pure and perfect, and so I'm going to starve to death. That would certainly not be exercising the wisdom and the judgment that God has given you. That would be horrible foolishness. The same thing is true with regard to how you manage your money. That's one of the resources that God has given you. And so managing your money is something that you have to do wisely as a Christian.

37:01 So how do you do that? Again, I'm not going to say that you can't invest in the stock market. You can certainly do that. Don't become obsessed with it, right? Because some guys sort of use that as a proxy for gambling and it becomes a problem. That's a different sort of pro thing. Don't do that. But But these days, personally, my firm recommendation would just be invest in things that are a little more tangible because the state of the world is such that I think I would probably rather have a really well situated personal family compound, so animals, a garden, all the sorts of things you need to be self-sustaining to some degree. I'm not saying be you know crazy prepper fifteen years worth of food in the basement

37:52 sort of thing. Because there's a balancing of relying on God and exercising the wisdom and using the resources he gave you wisely. But I do think that most people would benefit from more concrete investments. And so do bear do bear in mind when someone says investment, it doesn't just mean stocks, bonds, whatever it happens to be. It doesn't just mean the market. Building a greenhouse is an investment. You know, you can spend some number of hundreds or you can spend twenty thousand dollars on a greenhouse. At any level, that's an investment. And if you can manage to produce some of your family's food, that's an investment in their future as well. Because even if things continue, even if things go really well, right?

38:41 Let's say everything goes great. We manage to win politically, the problems are solved peacefully, we don't have any of the bad outcomes. I'm gonna go ahead and decline to list those, but let's say we have none of the bad outcomes. Are you worse off for having built the greenhouse? The answer is no. I know someone's going to say, well, the opportunity cost and you could have done X, Y, and Z with the money. Sure. But your family's going to benefit from the greenhouse. There's not just the better food. There's not just the certainty of that food. There's also the fact that it's good for you to go out and get your hands dirty. So I think investing in sort of those concrete things is something

39:26 that is often neglected, but something that would be far more beneficial these days. It is something that I think is a good option, not necessarily an alternative, but sort of something to add to your portfolio. Don't just think of your investment options as buying more stock or you know cryptocurrency, and I have thoughts on that, but don't think of that as your only option, those as your only options Remember there are other things you can do with your money that are also investing. You can invest in a local business, you can invest in your land, you can acquire more land. There are all sorts of things that you can do. It just depends on the amount of money that has been entrusted to your care

40:15 by God. So basically, your liquid cash and also your abilities. Maybe you're a truly terrible farmer. If no one in your family has a green thumb, and no matter how hard you've tried you can't manage to grow even tomatoes, then maybe the greenhouse isn't the best option in your case. As an aside, basically everyone can grow some produce, no matter how bad you think you are at it. So just keep those concrete things in mind. They're a very good option. option and they're often neglected these days. I'm gonna take a sip of my tea. Unfortunately for those who liked it, I didn't go at the ambiance of the teapot, the candle in the background this time because I was out and about today so I made tea in a thermos.

41:08 Which actually does just about as good of a chance a job, rather, of keeping it warm. So Despite appearances I am not sponsored by Hydra Flask. So the next question here What are my thoughts on Satan's little season? Of course, that is referring to Revelation and the interpretation, the exegesis of Revelation. I think it's just a tribulation. Satan is released for a short period of time at the end of the church age. And I don't necessarily want to get deeply into eschatology in the timeline here. I've done that elsewhere. We did it on stone choir, so I think I would just recommend you look at those resources. And the Lutheran stance on this is also very accessible, very wide widely known. Many people have commented on it, so you can of course look

42:03 at that and I don't deviate from the general Lutheran stance on this, so there's nothing specific for me to say. The basic outline is this. You have the church age, and I'm not going to deal with things before the church age because it's not relevant to the question. The church age begins either at the resurrection or at Pentecost. It really doesn't matter when you pick there because you know a difference of a very short period of time. Hardly Hardly matters. It begins in the New Testament era, the beginning of the New Testament church. And then the church age runs until the second coming. Or if you want to say it ends at the tribulation, fine. It doesn't really there's sort of an overlap there.

42:49 That's the thousand years. One thousand being a number of perfection, because what is one thousand? Ten's a number of completion, it's ten cubed cubed, three Trinity God. This is obviously the Cliff Notes version of this, but one thousand is a number of perfection. You can think of this also in terms of God saying that he owns the cattle on a thousand hills. He doesn't own the cattle on a literal thousand hills because he owns all of the cattle. And so a thousand is a number of perfection, number of completion. The church age is the period during which you have the in-gathering of the New Testament church. And then at the end of that, Satan is basically let off his chain for a little while to be terrible.

43:31 That's the tribulation. Seven again is a symbolic number. It's not necessarily literally seven years. Maybe it is. Hardly matters. There's a period of tribulation, and then the second coming. That's it. There's no rapture, there's no you know, earthly rain, all these other things that are various forms of chiliastic theories, millenarianism, whichever term you want to use, Greek versus Latin. That's not really part of it. That comes from reading parts of scripture that are are not literal, as if they were literal, and then turning parts of scripture that are literal into symbolism. You have to know the kind of book you're reading. Genesis is history. You read history literally. There's some symbolism in there, of course, obviously, but it is a

44:24 literal recounting of history with symbolic elements. Revelation is not. it even says it isn't, because Revelation is a symbolic book. It is an eschatological book. It is an apocalyptic book. You have to interpret it in a different way. But so the basic version is that yes, there's a little season, it's just Satan is allowed to be particularly terrible for a period of time near the end of things, culminating in the second coming. And that's part of the reason, of course, that Lutherans and others will say there's no rapture because that would be the second coming, and then the second coming would be the third. That doesn't work. So that's the short version of that. Someone asked me sort of basic question about Wells, which is the

45:16 Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod. It's the other Lutheran Synod in the U.S, and I know there are going to be people who object to that because there's some tiny microsynods, but it's not the point. You have the LCMS and Wells. And they asked what are some problems with Wells or why would I object to Wells? And I don't have any objections to Wells other than their doctrine of the ministry is wrong, which is why you have the split between the LCMS and Wells, but that's inside baseball. Most people aren't going to care, and it's sort of hyper technical and Wells is just obviously wrong. But the reason that I would tell people you're not going to avoid the problems the LCMS has if you go Wells is because Is

45:59 because the way the structure works in Wells, they are going to speedrun the problems in the LCMS, and they are going to probably wind up worse. And they're going to do it, like I said, more quickly. So if you can find a good wells congregation, go ahead and attend. I think that their obviously their doctrine of the ministry is wrong, but I don't think that endangers your soul. I think that's something for the theologians and others to argue about and hopefully come to some resolution. Realistically they won't, because we're going to wind up forming a new synod. But if you find a good congregation, you're fine. Because Wells, like the LCMS, is congregationalist in its polity. And so if synod, if the corporate structure tells the congregation to

46:49 do something, they have They have the option of just saying no thank you and then leaving. You have to leave the synod, but that is something you can do because you probably own your building. Which is the advantage that you have if you have a congregationalist this is lowercase c polity, not theology, but polity, you probably own your building, you probably own or you know at least rent your land, rent your building, whatever it happens to be. Your bishop equivalent doesn't own it. So they can't use that to force you to stay. So if you find a good Wells church, go ahead and attend it. If you find a good LCMS church, go ahead and attend it. If you have a problem that you know something your local bishop equivalent or your synod starts to do, then you're

47:38 going to have to work to have that congregation leave that corporate body. And that's completely fine. And then once you have a faithful corporate body somewhere, you can go ahead and join that one. So short answer is go ahead, join Wells. They have the same problems as the LCMS, but they're congregationalist, so You can certainly find a congregation that is good if you happen to be in an area where you have a good congregation. It's going to depend. Some areas of the country have basically no Lutherans, right? And so there you are going to have to start a home church. But if you live in parts of the country that have Lutheran churches, I'm not going to say you can't go to Wells. Wells is fine.

48:20 The LCM even the LCMS is fine. I'm not going to say the LCMS is if you join it you're damned, right? I'm not going to say that. Because they're good congregations. But you have to make that assessment. You're not just going to be able to go, oh, it says LCMS, they must be faithful Lutherans. That's no longer true. The same for Wells. And yes, I will get to super chats and things like that. And I do always note down the or at least attempt to I'm not going to make a blanket statement because perhaps I'll miss them in the chat. But I do try to note down questions from the chat and then answer them usually in future episodes because usually by the time I get around to those I can answer a couple at most

49:00 at most before I run out of time for the particular episode. Not because I'm limited on time as it were, but because, again, I've explained, I don't want these to really run over an hour each week, for various reasons. The next question is about how to improve American birth rates. And obviously that means for actual Americans, this is it someone asking about the American race, not about people who happen to be living in the country that is called America, because America is the nation. The United States is the country. Distinction there. We've gone over that at length for Stone Choir, so people can go and listen to that if they have questions about those, or perhaps I'll address at some point in the future.

49:47 It's worth repeating. But the This is the one that is related to the earlier question about basically how do you go out and find a wife. The issue with regard to the birth rates is multifaceted. A big part of it is that the economy has been destroyed for actual Americans. And so if you don't have the economic ability, the wherewithal, the means to raise a bunch of children, you are going to have people have fewer children because people actually do respond to economic ins incentives to a certain degree. So So someone who is having trouble making rent is probably not going to try to have six or seven children. So you have to address those issues. That's one of the things that needs to be addressed.

50:47 Trump actually just did something that I'm willing to say he did something good when he does something good. And I'm certainly willing to say he does something bad when he does that as well. But he's recently been talking about capping interest on credit cards and prohibiting the ownership of single family homes by large corporations, investment firms, things like that. That is very good. That is exactly what we should be doing. I would, of course, say abolish interest, but that's sort of a more radical step, a little more difficult to take, certainly when you have certain backers. But if we make single-family homes, or even if they're they don't have to necessarily be single-family homes, I don't object to nice apartment buildings,

51:31 for instance. I lived in an apartment in California, I lived in an apartment in Berlin. I don't object to apartments. I think they can be done very well, and they can be suitable even for families with, say, two or three children. Once you start to get more children than that, then you probably want a single family home, or a multi generational family home, which is obviously even better. If your parents or even grandparents live with you and help you to raise the children, do things like that, various tasks around the home. And then you can care for your grandparents as they age. That is a more natural way for human beings to live. The isolated, atomized, immediate nuclear family home and no one else is

52:10 very unusual historically. And it's sort of anti-human. It's not what you want. But to sort of return to the question, if we make it so that these homes are more accessible, whatever form they happen to take, but we make them more accessible for Americans, then you can remove one of those hurdles. It's particularly a mental hurdle, but it's not entirely a mental hurdle because it is a real hurdle. If you can barely afford housing, then wisdom is going to tell you maybe you shouldn't have a bunch of children right now. The problem is you only have a certain number a year, particularly as a woman, obviously. You have a certain number of years. You probably got about fifteen, sixteen years during which you can have

52:50 children. Maybe a little more, maybe a little less. But right about there. That's limited. If you are scrambling to try to make rent and student loan payments which are deeply accursed and the short answer there is they should just be abolished. Period. Wipe the slate clean, be done with it. That would be a huge step in the right direction. But if you can't make these payments, if you have these problems, you are going to have more trouble convincing yourself that you should have children. You're probably going to take steps to not have children, and then you're going to be scrambling for money and all these things for these dwindling number of years during which you can have children. And then you're going to wind up with two or three instead

53:37 of six. And I don't think that we should necessarily be aiming at you know infinite growth and have forty billion people on the planet, that's not what I'm saying. But I do think we should have more Americans. I do think we should have more Europeans, and I think we need to increase our fertility rate to do that. Part of it is getting rid of the pernicious debts that are student loans. And I know some people object to that, but when you look at the numbers, it's pretty obvious that we have to do it, or we are shooting ourselves in the foot to vastly understate things. A significant percentage of American women in their fertile years have student loans. That is going to stall family formation.

54:26 It is going to delay at the absolute least having children. It is going to delay at the absolute least purchasing a home. And all these other milestones that lead toward having that stable environment in which people are more inclined to have children. We're talking about incentives, or perhaps as economists would say, nudges, although in this case the pretty big nudges, you have to take these things into account. If we don't have proper policies in place, we're going to continue to see this abysmally low fertility rate. So part of it we could just basically borrow things from the Third Reich. So if you have X number of children, your home loan is forgiven. So you forgive some percentage, whatever it is, twenty, twenty-five, some

55:15 percentage of the loan for each child. I think that makes sense. That's a good thing. You can also help young families with things like their first car. Or education if someone needs training in order to get a better job, in order to support more children. These are things that a functioning society should have. Excuse me. And I know that some people object and say, oh, it's socialism and of course it is. But it's not a bad thing. The reason it's not a bad thing is because you've just been taught that word is bad. Call it communitarianism if you don't like the word socialism. It is caring for your own people, desiring what is good for them, and taking concrete steps toward helping them. That's just loving your neighbor as yourself.

56:06 That's Christianity translated into politics. And no Christian should ever object to any of that. You can object to the individual wisdom of individual programs, that's a different thing. But you can't object to the socialization of all costs, of all programs and things like that. We have plenty of them already, to which no one really objects. I mean, I'm sure there are people out there who think we should just completely get rid of the Postal Service, but that's often libertarian land. Those are the same people who think you can have a market for roads, which is insane for many reasons. But there's nothing wrong with having social programs. As long as they are managed well and achieve the ends toward

56:51 which they were aimed, for which they were created. So, yes, there should be audits, you should have oversight, these things should not just be a black hole in which you throw money. But there are concrete programs we can enact in order to improve particularly the fertility rate. On sort of a practical and I guess a not so much policy-driven note, but more of a social note. One of the things that needs to be done is older generations need to step up and start trying to pair people off. That's been part of human culture, human society from the very beginning. This modern idea that you just have to go out and aimlessly search for a wife is insane. No one did that historically. Your parents helped you because historically your parents happen to know the

57:41 parents, who had a young woman who was, you know, five years younger than you. Seemed like she'd probably be a good match for you, and then somehow they magically made it so that you two spent time together. That works really well. That's how things should be done. And so the old ladies at church should be trying to find wives for the young men at church and trying to find husbands for the young ladies at church. That's how things are supposed to go. The older generations have long ago given up on doing that. They have been negligent in their duty. They need to be reminded that is one of the things they have to do as an older generation. That's one of the things you're supposed to do as an elder.

58:19 You're supposed to make sure the next generation starts off on the right foot. And part of that is certainly getting married. Because the overwhelming majority, the absolutely overwhelming majority of people should be married. That is the default state. God says to Adam, It is not good that man should be alone. And that's Adam walking with God in the garden. I don't know how you can possibly interpret that except thinking that marriage is one of the most important things in life and should be a priority for society. In fact, Lutherans in particular can't object to it because we're confessionally bound in our confession, it says that one of the duties of the state is to ensure that people get married and have children.

59:04 Not just parents, not just grandparents, not just the church, the state. It goes so far as to say is the prince will be judged for whether or not he does that. So that's certainly something that the older generation generations need to be doing. And then I guess one more brief comment would just be sort of the biological reality. Some of you listening undoubtedly are single and millennial, so perhaps like me, right? If that is the case, if you're a male and you are late thirties, early forties, you're going to have to date younger if you want to have children. If you want to have any number of children, because that's just the biological reality. There's nothing wrong with that. Go ahead and date a woman who's 10 years younger.

59:51 That's fine. Is it ideal? Maybe not 10 years is ideal, but we're not dealing with ideal circumstances. We're dealing with reality as it has been handed to us by previous generations that were incredibly negligent to say the absolute least. So if you have to marry a woman who's ten, twelve years younger than you, so that you can have four, five, six children, however many God chooses to give you as blessing, then by all means do that. That's the biological reality. If you're forty five and you marry a forty five year old, chances are you're having no children. Maybe one. And also bear in mind, there are more consequences when the mother is older than there are when the father is older. There aren't zero.

1:00:39 There are risks as well when the father is older, but they are nowhere near as bad, and they are nowhere near as prevalent as when the mother is older. So just the the biological reality of it. There are people who object, will say it's terrible, someone will surely try to take that out of context and say something awful about me, but that's inevitable. But the biological reality is that if you don't marry someone who is in that window, and again, it's only about sixteen years, whatever it happens to be plus or minus a number of years. If you don't marry a woman who's in that window, your odds of having children drop off precipitously. That is simply the reality of being a flesh and bone creature,

1:01:19 a biological creature. Women have a fertility window. Men really don't. So you can't get mad we mean you can. You can get mad at biology, but you can't ignore it because if you ignore it, you're not going to obtain the desired outcome. A question I've fielded before, moving on to the next question. A question that I've fielded before, but I'll answer it again just because why not? I will pull up a web page here so that I can actually show people. Someone asked about the intro and outro music for Stone Choir. Probably spell it correct. So if you go to stonequire.com slash resources, it will give you the intro and outro music. Those are available there. It also gives a little bit of information about it.

1:02:08 And so the intro music is the tune. And of course the tune's all that matters because there's no singing. The tune is Ebenezer, and most Lutherans will recognize it as thy strong word. It is one of the more famous, one of the more well known hymns in Lutheranism at least, that uses that tune. Baptists will probably hear O The deep love of Jesus, because that is more common in their tradition, same tune. And then the outro music is Ach Gott von Himmel, which is translated into English as O Lord, look down from heaven. You can go ahead and look up those lyrics on hymnery is usually the best website, hymnery.org. I will again try to remember to put those in the show notes. Make a note of that quickly so I remember that.

1:02:57 Till I have a secretary doing this live I have to take the notes myself, but you can go and look at the lyrics for those, and basically I just edited those in garage band, because yes, I'm a Mac user, as you might already know. So I edited those in garage band and that's the intro and the outro. And we just sort of ran with it. The next question here, I think I will try to at least get through a couple more questions. I will go ahead and answer the the super chat here because I think that I think that just seems like the right thing to do before I get to some questions that I just pulled off X in various other places. I got through all the questions I wanted to get through from the forum for tonight.

1:03:43 I did not get through all the questions on the forum, so don't think that I missed your question. There are some questions that are going to take me a little more time and are going to take me a little bit of prep work because I got asked about a couple things that were less familiar to me, sort of things in other countries, things like that. And so I want to spend a little more time and I just had a very busy week. I didn't manage to get to it. As you might have guessed from the fact that I'm doing the Q and A at at ten o'clock at night on Friday. But the question from the superchat here is what is your take on Stephen Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist? Particularly his opinion that sodomites cannot possibly ever be one to Christ.

1:04:24 So I have mixed feelings about him for a number of reasons. One, he's really bad on race. Two, he of course is a Baptist, and so I disagree with him vehemently with regard to the sacraments, and he is particularly obnoxious when it comes to his treatment of the sacraments and things like that. But to comment more specifically on the question of sodomites, and sort of that's my general sense of the man, but I've interacted with him a little bit on X. Just a little bit, but when it comes to Sodomites, can they be one over? The answer is yes. And the New Testament actually says that explicitly, because there's a listing of sins and then it says such were some of you who were past tense. These are men who have converted and become believers.

1:05:18 Now this interacts with something that is a question actually, someone brought up Excuse me, a question to which I do not think I will get tonight, but I'll get to it next time. It's sort of the confluence here of the punishment for certain crimes. In that case particularly adultery was one of the ones mentioned, blasphemy, sodomy is certainly another. The recommended punishment, and I would say required punishment because thinking about how deeply I want to get into this for this particular episode, but I think it's worth addressing this facet of it. In the old testament, there are two kinds of abomination that are listed as something that is prohibited or must be punished. Typically both.

1:06:10 But there is the abomination for you, which is addressing Old Testament Israel. And so for instance, a lot of seafood is an abomination for the Old Testament Israelites. Pig's flesh is an abomination for the Old Testament Israelites. It is prohibited to them by God. What God does not say is that it is an abomination, period. It is an abomination to you, to them specifically. There are other places where it says something is an abomination full stop or is an abomination to God. Sodomy homosexuality is listed as an abomination to God and the punishment is a capital punishment. My belief, my firm belief, and I don't see how anyone can get around this despite the fact that many modern exegetes so called

1:07:09 have tried, is that when God says something is an abomination to him and says that it must be punished with capital punishment, I don't think we get any say. I think at the absolute most, perhaps we could suspend the capital punishment for a period of time if you wanted to use the person for hard labor or something. I think that's probably permissible. But I don't think you get to avoid the reality of what it says in the Old Testament. And so the question is, can the person repent? The answer is yes, but that doesn't mean the state shouldn't punish him for what he has done. The same thing is true with regard to murderers. A murderer can certainly repent of his sins of his crimes before he is executed.

1:07:54 But the state must still execute him. Just because you have been forgiven your sins does not mean the temporal consequences of that of those sins are washed away. The temporal consequences remain particularly for those sorts of crimes. So yes a sodomite can certainly repent, yes the state should still absolutely punish them, and the Old Testament is the guide for that. So, yes, I I don't think that his conclusion that sodomites never repent is true. I would say they rarely repent. I think history bears that one out, and I think we all know that from looking at our culture today. But if you're asking about the possibility of it, yes they can. Will they? Much less likely. The next question and this may be the last one I will

1:08:51 do, maybe. I think this will be second to last. This will be the penultimate one that I do tonight. But a question about do I support absolute monarchy basically is the the short form of the question here. And the answer to that is yes. And I'm actually going to pull something up here because Lutherans, I don't want the Athanasian Creed. Lutherans are technically bound to believe that the monarch is absolute. Because it's actually in our confessions, one of those things that people tend to ignore and I don't know why. OBS decided to zoom there, but it will hardly matter. Thankfully I I know where this is. It's in the article on the bishops, the ecclesiastical power here. So in this article, and we'll see if I can get

1:09:49 OBS to agree to show the fullness of the page instead of that. Maybe I'll just pull up the browser's the full thing. You don't need my face for this. So speaking of the bishops, because this of course is an article on church authority, but in passing it mentions something about the power of kings and tyrants. But their power, speaking of the bishops, is not tyrannical, that is, without a fixed law, nor regal, which is to say, of a monarch, above the law. Well, monarchs are above the law. That's just stated as a simple fact in the confession. I know there are going to be those who will try to say, oh well it's not a theological point. I strongly disagree. I think it's a core theological point.

1:10:38 And so I would say that Lutherans are actually bound to believe that the monarch is above the law, because it very clearly says here in the apology that the regal power. Someone said muted. Am I muted? I don't know how I did that. Am I muted? Is someone in the chat say if you can hear me because nothing shows is muted on my end during full screen. Wow, that's okay, cool. So apparently OBS just decided to be very cooperative there when I was full screen. Okay, so I will just re-say what I said. In the Book of Concord, in the Apology, it says that of the of the bishops, but their power is not to be tyrannical, that is, without a fixed rule, nor regal above the law.

1:11:38 And so what that says is that the monarch is above the law. I would say Lutherans are confessionally bound to believe the monarch is above the law, and I think that that also flows logically, both theologically and politically, because the question ultimately is what is the source of the power of the law? Well we've tried in modern democracies and republics to say it's this document, it's the Constitution, right? The Constitution doesn't have any power. The piece of paper doesn't have any power. The Magna Carta doesn't have any power. What backs those ultimately, of course, is the military, but then you're just down to raw naked use of force, which yes, of course, might makes right to a certain degree.

1:12:31 But I think that it is entirely proper to ground the law, the force behind the law, in the person of the monarch, or at least in the monarchy as an institution. And so necessarily, the institution from which the authority of the law flows is itself above the law, not bound to it. That just follows naturally and logically. And so I agree, I affirm what the Book of Concord says that the monarch, the regal power, is above the law, and so I do support an absolute monarchy in that sense. But the law that the monarchy has, because of course, the comment about tyrannical is also, I think, fairly applied to the monarch in the negative, which is to say the monarch cannot be a tyrant, because he is not without law.

1:13:23 He is under the moral law, because he is bound by God's law. One of the duties of the Christian prince is to transpose the moral law into the positive law. And for those who don't know, the moral law is the god is the law that flows from God's nature. So for instance, Genesis nine six He who sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed, for God was made in the image for man was made in the image of God, right? That is moral law that is unchanging that flows from God's nature. The positive law is the written law that men use in our governments, our courts, our day to day life. And so for instance, you have thou shalt not kill in the moral law, or thou shalt not murder to use the modern term.

1:14:12 Kill is the old English term that means what murder means today, basically. In the positive law, we have laws defining types of murder, and then charging that person and then punishing that person with various punishments depending on the kind of murder he committed. That is a transposition of the moral law into the positive law. That is one of the duties of the king, because the king is in fact bound by the moral law, and king and Christian prince are interchangeable in this case. Christian prince is the generic term. It doesn't mean that he's a prince, it just means that he is the Christian ruler of a particular area. Of a particular nation, particular land. So that's one of his duties. He's not above all law, he's above the positive law, because he

1:15:00 is the one that is the source of the authority for that positive law in his lands, being the one who has the duty to transpose the moral law into the positive law. So yes, I do believe in that sense in an absolute monarch. I don't believe the monarch can say adultery is now legal. don't think he can say murder is legal, Because that would be to put his throne above God's throne. That's to be antichrist, and that man does not deserve to remain king. And so I think I will end with perhaps a more lighthearted, easier to answer question here. Someone asked if I have any knowledge about sort of the number and existence of female listeners to Stone Choir? And I guess this as well, because it was a more generic

1:15:53 question. The answer is yes. There's actually a fair number, a fair percentage of female listeners to Stone Choir and I haven't looked at the statistics specifically for this and I don't keep any creepy statistics. YouTube does. So I can look at YouTube and see the rough breakdown of male and female and unfortunately, at lists other as well, but there are female listeners to this, and there are certainly female listeners to Stone Choir. The overwhelming majority of listeners to Stone Choir are male, at least according to YouTube. Now that's not perfectly accurate because the YouTube audience for particularly this kind of content anyway, skews mail. And it skews younger in male. So it's sort of z like zoomer to m Gen X, right?

1:16:46 I'll pretend Gen X exists for the case of this. That's sort of the YouTube audience, the bulk of the audience for at least this type of content. And so that's going to skew the percentage. And then there's also the fact that YouTube is the only platform from which I have any real analytics. There's some for Spotify. But like I said, and like I've said many times before, I don't use creepy analytics, and we never used it for Stone Choir. Literally all that I have for Stone Choir, insofar as analytics are concerned, is in order to make the system robust to support changes to the URL structure so that downloads would continue to work, I can tell roughly how many times an episode was downloaded directly.

1:17:34 For anyone who understands this technology in this area, you know how little that means. Because it means that anything that was cached on a third party server, Spotify, YouTube, I don't think Apple caches, I think Apple does direct downloads. I have no idea. So all I know is this rough number of people who download, and then I can look at YouTube and figure out like kinda roughly male versus female. So I don't have good numbers, but I can certainly say that we do have female listeners. I've I've met some of them. I know some of them. I've talked to them. So I I know that we do actually have female listeners. There are women who are interested in this material in these things. And so perhaps that's some

1:18:19 good news for the men who are looking for wives. There are women out there who actually do have an interest in these things. Again, that's not something you have to require in a wife, right? You can introduce her to these things, but you know, it's one hurdle not to have to overcome. They exist. Those women exist. They're not all married. Some of them are single. Go find them. That's one of the things you need to do as a man. I think that pretty much sums it up for this episode. I think that's where I'll close it out for tonight. I don't want to take up all of your Friday evening. Although I suppose most people who are going to watch this will probably watch it after instead of live since I did it on

1:18:57 a Friday. It's part of why I tried to do it on Thursday, but like I said, I had a very busy week. I did not manage to get around to it yesterday. But thank you for those who submitted questions and I will try to note down all of the questions in the chat that I did not answer and the ones that were in responses to the ex post and things like that and get to them next time, hopefully. There are also the pending questions from the forum. I know that those are still outstanding, in particular's one about South Africa and a few other things. So if you ask those questions, I have noticed them. I know they're there. I will get to those when I have the time. And again, thank you for submitting the questions and thank you for

1:19:37 your time. And I hope that you all have a wonderful evening and a great rest of your weekend. And of course, go to church on Sunday. And God bless you all. See you next week.