23 Jan 2026 (Q&A)

0:00 It is the 23rd of January, 2026. I am Cory J. Mahler, and this is at any cost, this is the 13th episode, the fourth QA episode of 2026. And I will just get right into the questions. I have five questions prepared for tonight and if any others pop up in the chat during the stream then I will try to get to those as well. And so the first question is sort of an extension of a previous question about investing, but sort of independent as well. It's about the morality of investing in pro-abortion or pro-homosexuality companies. And this is again one of those questions where the answer is going to be that it is partly a matter of wisdom. And the And the reason for that is that I'll try not to smack my camera here.

0:54 The reason for that is that given the current state of the economy under which we live, some of these things are going to be unavoidable. For instance, if you draw out the morality to its fullest extent, then you can say that paying taxes is funding abortion. Because it is. Because the US government currently funds abortions both at home and abroad. And so is paying your taxes moral? Well, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, pay taxes to whom taxes are owed. But there is also the aspect that yes, funding abortions is immoral. And so the question is: where is that line? What are we permitted to do? What should we do? I think I think given the sort of just the reality of the situation, the best answer is that obviously yes, you have to

1:52 pay your taxes. That's you don't really have a choice there. But we have to act and attempt to change the system such that we try to stop funding these immoral activities. And so it's not authorization or warrant for you to stop paying your taxes, to tell the IRS I have a religious exemption. That won't go well for you, so don't do that. You can consider that just regular advice and legal advice. Don't not pay your taxes. The IRS will eventually come after you, and it will be a very unpleasant experience. More so depending on the state in which you live, because as it turns out, some state tax authorities are worse than the IRS. California, for instance, as I know well, thankfully no longer subject to

2:39 that particular body. But when it comes to investing, let's say for instance you invest in a mutual fund, right? Or something like that. Some vehicle, some investment vehicle, where some third party essentially does the investing for you into a large portfolio, spreading obviously out the risk, return, all that. I'm not getting into the mechanics of investing here. But undoubtedly some of those companies are going to support things. They are going to do things that are immoral. Do you as a Christian have a duty to go through every single company and examine all of them, looking for all of their activities, and then assessing if those activities are moral? I think clearly the answer is no. One, not every man can do that.

3:31 Two, it's completely ridiculous to expect even the men who can do that to do that. Does that mean no one should? Absolutely not. For instance, there are those in a position of oversight or authority who should be looking into those things. And so as Christians, again what we need to do is support those who are trying to change that, who are trying to make it so companies are not legally permitted to fund abortions. So healthcare companies don't cover that with insurance. So realistically the goal with abortion of course is to make it illegal. I guess good timing here, the march for life just happened. Look at that whatever way you please. There are pluses and minuses to that kind of activity.

4:14 But the Christian goal should be to remove the immoral activities from society, but the way that we achieve that is not going to be completely removing ourselves from society. That will simply mean that you have no influence, you have no effect, you have no power to change anything in society. Part of participating in the society is going to be using your money wisely, and yes, that is going to involve investing so that your money does not basically become worthless, partly due to the nature of the fact that well, unfortunately inflation is a very real thing these days. Part of the nature of the beast with our current economic system, but That's sort of the reality with in which we live. We don't have a way to avoid it.

5:03 And so we exercise wisdom in how we use the resources that God has given us, but not in the sense of becoming I don't want to say a legalist because it's not really a legalist. It's right to recognize that evil is being done and there is a measure, an amount of participation to some minor degree because you know if you have ten thousand dollars, which is non-trivial for most men, but if you have ten thousand dollars in Apple stock, how much are you really influencing a multi-billion dollar company, a nearly trillion dollar company, the answer is effectively zero. So just because your participation is minimal doesn't mean there's no moral concern, of course. We all recognize that. But there's a fundamental difference between investing in, say, a company that

5:56 pushes these things or its core business is this, so don't invest in Planned Parenthood. You can't do that as a Christian. That's immoral. Don't do that. But is investing in a company that then goes on to have policies of its own that run counter to Christian morality necessarily a moral transgression on your part? I think the answer is, as I've already said, no. The Christian thing to do is to work to change those things, not simply to withdraw yourself from everything and become neurotic about these things. It's right to recognize that evil is being done and that something should be done about the evil. But I don't think the thing that we need to do as Christians is to withdraw ourselves from society and make ourselves have less

6:43 of an impact and essentially squander our resources. It's not to say that if you don't see a maximal return on your money that you're being unwise with the talents that God gave you. Rather, I think that you have to have a measure of wisdom in how you use those resources. And if you look at the policies of any major corporation, you are going to find things to which you can object as a Christian, which would leave you in a position where you simply could not invest your money at all, which I think would be unwise. And so there's that balancing of wisdom against the reality of the fact that many of these companies, probably all of these companies, are immoral in some way. So yes, invest your money wisely, do with your talents what God

7:33 wants you to do, which is use them wisely to see a return on them, and that includes your money as well, obviously. It's not just your talents in the sense one of those words that's convenient in English because talent is a measure of usually gold, a fine metal, and also your ability to do something. But see a return on both of those, your money and your abilities. But don't invest in the companies that are openly wicked. The next question is an exegetical question, so I will pull up logos here so we can all actually look at scripture assuming that it will cooperate with me. There we go. And the question is The question is about exegesis of Isaiah sixty five and of course related parallel similar passages, not just this one.

8:34 Primarily about the latter half of this, which I'll pull up right here, starting with verse seventeen. For heaven will be new, and the earth will be new, and they shall not remember the former things, nor shall they come upon their heart, but they shall find joy and gladness in it, because look I am making Jerusalem as gladness, and my people as a joy, and I will be over Jerusalem, and rejoice over my people, and no more shall a voice of weeping be heard in it, nor a voice of crying, and there shall not be there one who dies untimely, or an old person who will not fulfil his time for the young person will be a hundred years old, but the one who dies a sinner will die a hundred years old and accursed, and they shall build houses with themselves, and they themselves

9:22 shall inhabit them, and they shall plant vineyards and themselves shall eat their fruit, and they shall not build another's inhabit, they shall not plant another's eat, for according to the days of the tree of life shall the days of my people be. They shall make old the works of their labours, and my chosen ones shall not labor in vain, nor bear children for a curse, because they are an offspring blessed by God. And it shall be that before they have cried out I will listen to them. While they are yet speaking I will say, What is it? Then wolves and lambs shall feed together, and a lion shall eat straw like an ox, but his snake shall eat earth as bread. They shall not do wrong or destroy on my holy mountain, says

10:04 the Lord. And so the first thing that should be noted, of course, is this passage is eschatological. This is about the new heavens and the new earth. This is not about anything done here in time in this creation if we want to speak of a creation and new creation versus recreation. Not getting into that right now, but obviously it says for heaven will be new and the earth will be new. And we can see the parallel passages. I could pull them up, but I think we all know them in Revelation, in Peter and other places, right? We have a new heavens and a new earth. This is the new creation. This is not about obviously some people will latch on oh it's Jerusalem. This is not earthly Jerusalem. I went over this in a previous episode.

10:50 This is heavenly Jerusalem, this is eschatological Jerusalem, this is a stand and a symbol for the new earth. And so one of the questions that comes up for people, and part of this is going to be of course, that you have a difference in, say, the ESV, in things that are based on the Masoretic. Let me zoom in on the text a little bit here. And one of the ways that it differs, and the difference here is what is going to trip some people up. So part of the solution is just use the actual scripture. But it says, for the young man shall die a hundred years old. And so obviously if you're dealing with the Masoretic, now you have to explain how we're dealing with death in the new heavens and the new earth.

11:32 It's not a problem if you're over in the Septuagint, right? But it still is something that needs to be exegeted because it's speaking about men filling out their days. This is speaking in symbolic terms about the new heavens and the new earth. There's no death in the new heavens, there's no death in the new earth. So filling out your days is eternity. You live forever. And you don't have suffering, you don't have pain, and of course it says, nor bear children for a curse. This is one that there are actually two things, two points I want to make here. One is I have no position on whether or not childbearing is something simply for this creation, and then And then the new creation does not have that.

12:20 I don't think that there is a sufficient answer from what we have in scripture that I can conclusively say A or B. And I quite frankly don't care. Because that's God's problem. And it will be perfect. We're dealing with the new heavens, the new earth. We're not dealing with fallen man, that's no longer an issue. I'm not going to take a position on it. And the second point I want to make there, never listen to a man who's not willing to say what I just said. Because what did I just say? I just said I don't know. Never listen to a man who always says I know the answer. Because they're really only two ways that can go. You have one the sort of man who wants you to believe he has an answer to everything and you should follow him around.

13:06 And then two, you have the sort of man who wants you to believe that every time you ask him a question, he has an answer ready to go. That's a sycophant. Neither of those men is going to improve your life. And so be very careful about any man who does not say the words or similar words, I'm not saying you have to quote this, but who does not say I do not know. Because no man knows everything. And so this is a case where I don't know, but I don't think it matters incidentally here, so I'm not concerned about it. A related matter that I've touched on many times before elsewhere, but I'll repeat it here Marriage, right? This question comes up all the time. This is not a question I have in my notes for tonight,

13:50 but I'll just answer this one because it is tangentially related and it's sort of a core matter here. Does marriage exist in the new earth? And I can stop saying new heavens and new earth because obviously the new earth is what applies to us because resurrection of the flesh. And it should be flesh, you can say body, but understand it is the physical body, the flesh. The answer is yes. Marriage still exists. And I know there are those who are going to say, Well, Jesus says when he's talking to the Sadducees that they neither marry nor are given in marriage. And my response to that is true. but pay attention to the verbs. What does he actually say? He says they neither marry, which is to say take a wife,

14:34 nor are given in marriage, which is to say be taken as a wife. What does it not say? What does he not say to the Sadducees? And that's leaving aside the fact that this is partly polemical because he's mocking the Sadducees. Christ mocks people in Scripture, so anyone who tells you you can't mock people is just wrong. God does it, it's morally permissible. He doesn't say they aren't married. That's a different thing. If you say that no one is married, that is not the same as saying no one no one gets married or is given in marriage. Well what wouldn't happen in the perfect creation, in the new heaven, in the new earth? Well in the new earth, there will be no divorce. There will be no separation.

15:20 None of that. And so just because he says they are not given in marriage, they do not take a wife, does not mean there's no marriage. And on top of that, I do not think that we can say that marriage will pass away because of how highly marriage is praised in the pages of scripture, all the places that deal explicitly with marriage, and probably the first place I would go for that was That would be the fact that I brought this up before, but it's worth repeating because it's such an important passage of scripture that we just sort of read and keep going as if nothing happened. Adam walked with God in the garden, and God said it is not good for man to be alone. That is how important God believes marriage to be.

16:05 That is how vitally important to the nature of man marriage is. And so I do not think it will pass away. The destruction of that which is good is evil. And so marriage being a good creation of God, I do not believe it will pass away. I'm not saying you're compelled to believe that, you can believe either way. I don't think that by looking at scripture you necessarily have to agree with me. I think that my logic is entirely sound. I think that it follows. I think it necessarily follows. But I don't think you're in sin if you disagree. I'm just saying my position is that looking at scripture, the totality of Scripture, the totality of the teaching and comments on marriage in Scripture, and yes, the philosophy, the theology, I think it is very

16:47 clear that marriage still exists in Paradise. But But I don't think the issue of whether or not there are children born after the resurrection is addressed to a point where I can clearly say one or the other. So I take neither position on that one. But But that tangent aside, this passage and the similar passages, parallel ones elsewhere in scripture, I mentioned a couple of them, dealing with the Eschaton, dealing with the new creation. And so realize the language, because you're dealing in prophetic language, is going to have more symbol, it's going to be heavier in terms of allusions to things, more figures of speech than when you're dealing in something that is purely historical like many passages in Genesis.

17:36 So you have to take that into account when you exegete the passage. This is the new heavens and the new earth. There's no death, there's no suffering. Those things had passed away. This is a contrast here. Many of these things that are said here are a contrast with the world in which we live now, which has children who are born and then suffer or die immediately, sometimes along with the mother. All of these things that happen in this fallen world, they're gone. They no longer exist. That's the point of this passage in parallel ones as well. The next question, let me pull up the actual wording here. I have a close friend who is pagan, neopagan, and race first, and his main objection to Christianity is that he sees it as

18:35 inherently Jewish because of Jesus' historical and ethnic origin. From your perspective, how would you address the claim that Christianity is fundamentally a Jewish religion rather than rather than a universal or European one? Are there specific works, thinkers, or historical arguments you recommend that help disentangle Christianity from modern ethnic or rabbinic Judaism, without falling into theological compromise? There are a number of questions here, but I think my core answer initially is just going to be go listen to the relevant episodes of Stone Choir. We addressed much of this. In particular, the episode as a foundational matter that would be very useful would be the one dealing with the difference between Jews, Hebrews,

19:20 Israelites. Like these are different terms. They do not mean the same thing. And part of the problem is that I I recognize I've answered this before elsewhere, but it's worthwhile to answer it again. It's going to just keep coming up for years. This is the reality of our situation. If you don't get the terms right, as many modern men do not, you're actually not going to have any idea about what you're talking. And so you'll say Jew and he'll say Jew, and maybe you mean totally different things. Maybe you don't, but maybe you do. You need to define your terms. And people can get weird about defining terms, but you can't have a useful discussion if you don't have a shared language. And part of that is defining your terms.

20:06 For instance, by way of example, if you say Jew, and by Jew, you mean the very limited hypertechnical sense of the verse that says he is not a true Jew who is one according to the flesh, right, but one who is a Jew according to faith, which would mean Christians are the true Jews. Well if you say Jews and you mean Christians, and then you're talking to a man who says Jews and he means ethnic Jews, Jews by blood, literal lineal descendants of Abraham, you're not going to have a very productive conversation because you're talking about different things. It is the equivalent of and it's hard for some men to understand this intuitively, but if you think about it in this way it might help, it is the equivalent of say, if I speak

20:58 German to you and you speak French to me, I don't know French, and and for the sake of the hypothetical, you don't know German, how far are we really going to get in our discussion? It's not actually better to use the same language if you aren't using the same definitions of the terms. Particularly with something as fraught as Jew. And so, first off, you have to know what you mean by Jew. So So, is Christ a Jew? My answer has always been all along no. And the reason for that, I've explained it in the Stone Choir episode and elsewhere. But the reason for that is that to the modern mind, particularly the modern English year, the word Jew imports a lot of things along with it. It means ethnically, you're Jewish, right?

21:47 You are at least part Jewish because obviously there's admixture there. That's part of their curse, miscegenation. But you are at least partially Jewish by blood. You are Jewish religiously. Even if you're an atheist, you can be a religious Jew because their religion doesn't actually require you to believe in God, because as I pointed out before, their actual God is them. They are their own God. But it's all of these different aspects that the modern mind hears when you say Jew, even if you don't think it explicitly, you are importing it implicitly, it's in your subconscious. And someone said Talmudist in chat. That's also right, it's correct. That is their religion. But the Talmud is basically their experience expression of their belief that

22:30 the Jewish people are themselves their own God and the only people who exist. That's sort of the the bookmark version of Judaism. But in that sense, Christ is not a Jew. Because obviously, being God, he doesn't think the Jews are God. Pretty clear on that one. The problem is, then you have to say, okay, what do we call him? What do we call those who are ethnically descended from the twelve tribes, or realistically in this case, from one of two tribes, because those are the ones that remain, the ones that survived, two and a half. Which is to say Judah, Benjamin, tiny tribe, and Levi, right? But how do we term those who are descended from the surviving tribes, but not a Jew. I would just say Hebrew.

23:23 He's not an Israelite, because an Israelite is really a term for a member of ancient Israel, right? And well, ancient Israel no longer exists. So Israelites no longer exist. Hebrews still exist. And so Hebrew would be the equivalent of any other ethnic term: German, French, English, Chinese, whatever it happens to be. In that sense, absolutely, he is a descendant of Judah. He is the lion of the tribe of Judah. He has some admixture in his line from those who are not descended from Abraham. There's some points there for another time, but is he a Hebrew? Yes. But it's important to make that foundational point that he is not a Jew. The modern Jews are a different thing, and you pointed out correctly

24:16 rabbinic Judaism, because of course when you had the destruction of the temple, it transitioned to basically worship worship in the synagogue, it is worship just of a different god, lowercase g. You have the rabbinic formulation that is Talmudic Judaism focused on the synagogue and the rabbis instead of the temple, because the temple worship was destroyed by God. Very clearly. The curtain was rent when Christ was crucified, and then God brought the Romans in to burn everything and knock literally every stone off every other stone. Incidentally is a tangent. The Wailing Wall so called is part of a Roman complex. It's not part of the temple. If you believe it's part of the temple, you're calling Christ a

24:59 liar, because he said not one stone will be left standing upon another. So if you're a Christian, you have to believe that's not part of the temple. But at any rate, the temple is gone, they can't worship at the temple, they can't follow the ceremony of the Old Testament, which of course Christ did away with that, but they can't follow it. So what do they do? They make a new religion, rabbinic Judaism. It is an outgrowth of all of their demon worship down through the centuries, including in Egypt, during the particularly the Babylonian captivity, in this case Babylonian exile, all of these things they have distilled into their modern wicked religion. And so Christ wasn't part of that, it didn't exist in his

25:42 day. There was a proto version of it, but just a proto version of it. Incidentally, when you see Galatians three twenty eight, I've pointed this out before, including into the ep the Stonequire episode on that, is a polemic against one of the prayers from Talmudic Judaism. So the people who try to say that Christianity is Jewish don't know anything about Judaism or Christianity? Because there is nothing the Jews hate more than Christianity. Why do you think they've tried for centuries to destroy Christianity? They don't care about Islam. They don't care about Buddhism. They don't care about atheism. They don't care about anything except Christianity. When is the last time you saw the Jews or any of

26:34 their puppets, their marionettes, go after paganism, neo paganism. Never. They don't care. They go after Christianity because Christianity is the only legitimate threat to them because it's the true religion. They hate Christianity, they hate Christians. Look at the pages of the New Testament. One of the things for which Paul and others explicitly condemn the Jews is trying to keep people from converting to Christianity because they hate Christianity that much because they hate God. Because their whole religion, their whole self-identity, their national identity, was built around believing that they were chosen in some way and that only they were part of God's little club, and you got into heaven

27:21 by being a Jew. And then God came down in the flesh and told them, No, you're wrong. It's never been that way. That has nothing to do with it. And he started it with John the Baptist, of course. God could raise up from these stones sons for Abraham. It does not help you to be a Jew by blood. Christianity is abundantly clear on that in many, many passages. And so when someone tries to object that Christianity is Jewish. Really what they're doing I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt here. I'm going to say this is someone who is objecting in so far as it is possible to do so in earnest. Those men are doing it because of the state of the churches today. They're not doing it because of anything inherent in Christianity.

28:11 They're not doing it because of the reality of the religion, what is actually taught, the historical truth, the historical praxis, any of those things. They're doing it because of weak churches led by men who aren't even Christian. That's another fundamental point. When you see the church with the rainbow flag, those aren't Christians in there. What does Scripture say about sodomy? Capital punishment. Do you think anyone in the rainbow flag church agrees with that? Well they aren't Christian. And I know someone will argue and I discussed this with someone earlier, discussed as charitable here, but you know, no no true Scotsman, right? They claim to be Christian, so they're Christian even though they

28:51 d no true Scotsman is something that is inherent. And so you can't say no true German and then find a German who does it. Because he's German by blood. He's German by essence. Ideology is a set of tenets. If you do not adhere to those, you are not a member of the ideology, because ideology is something that is not inherent. It is something that is elected, or propagandized depending, but it is something you can be a member or not a member. And it's not a matter of your blood, it's not a matter of, you know, where you were born, anything like that. It is a matter of whether or not you believe the things the ideology exp espouses, right? And so Christianity has a set of beliefs. If you don't believe those things, you aren't a Christian.

29:42 And so those weak, self-proclaimed Christians that your friend rightly despises that's another worthwhile point, he rightly despises those weak, disgusting men to abuse the term men. They are not Christian, because they do not hold to the things that are taught by Christianity. In many cases they don't even hold to the core tenets. Many of them deny the divinity of Christ. They're not Christians. And so using those men to try to say that Christianity is a problem is absurd. That would be like finding someone who is a man but says he's a woman and then condemning women because he looks weird. We all recognize that's insane. It is identically insane to say that Christianity is bad because you

30:29 have weak men who aren't Christian claiming to be Christian. In some cases deliberately to make Christianity look bad. Those men are evil they are not Christian But to address the part of your question that asks for specific sources, I've sort of gone over the basis of the response to your friend, and then from there you can build on that. Depends on his questions. By all means, ask a follow-up question if you're so inclined. Some of the resources you can use, and there are actually quite a few, I probably should have left Logos up because I can pull up one of them. But one of the most obvious ones is going to be Luther on the Jews and their lies. That's probably a good starting place for him.

31:12 Let him know what historical Christians have taught about the Jews and thought about the Jews. And there are those who will say, well, Christ you know, Luther is in the fifteen hundreds, right? Luther is far okay, fine. Look at Tertulian at Versus Udios against the Jews. Or you can look at another great example would be the eight homilies by John Chrysostom, again at Versos Iudius, I guess Greek, so Kata Yudion in his case, but against the Jews in English. So Incidentally, those are not included in the Nicene and post Nicene Fathers because well of course they're not. But anyway, they are freely available, translated in English. A great resource, read through those, to see what Christians have thought

31:57 about the Jews all along. Chrysostom says that the synagogue is worse than a brothel. That's the Christian stance on it. So Christians are not pro Jew. Christians are not pro Judaism, certainly. We're not pro Israel, so called. All of that all of those are modern aberrations and should be condemned by all Christian men So those are some good resources. I'll link to those in the show notes. Make a note of that for myself. But all of those are good resources for your friend. Read through those things, get an actual grounding in what Christians teach, what Christians believe, not what the modern world tells you Christians believe, because that's absurd. Why would you listen to the modern world on Christianity when the

32:50 modern world tells you that men can be women, women can be men, race doesn't matter, and all of these other things that we all know are deeply evil, not just insane and nonsensical, but evil. So don't listen to the modern world about Christianity either. Listen to the historical Christians, listen to what they said. They've all been very clear all along about the nature of the Jews, the nature of Judaism, and the relationship between Christianity and Judaism, which is one of enmity. They are a perverted version, at best, of Christianity. More realistically, they are a demonic, separate religion that has roots all the way back in Egypt and Babylon. It is demon worship of the highest order, and it has nothing

33:35 to do with Christianity. They're not chosen, they're never chosen They are a totally separate thing, and Christians should have nothing to do with them. But definitely have your friend read through those resources. They're pretty quick reads, so you'll probably enjoy it as well. Luther's always entertaining, and Chrysostome's actually also quite entertaining, so think that pretty much covers it for this one. And if you want to just read about historical thinkers who've commented on the Jews, there are tons of those, obviously. You know, Henry Ford, many, many others, I could make a long list of people here, Cicero, you can go all the way back to the Roman Republic. But that's probably a good place to start for your friend.

34:19 If he has additional questions again, follow-up questions by all means. And I think I will look at the chat quickly before I get to these next two questions. I think one of them is going to be a short answer and the other one maybe a little longer. I will take a sip of tea before I answer actually. Actually Question from the chat is recognizing Christianity's social utility a valid basis for faith, choosing to believe versus believing outright? If faith is a gift, how can one seek it earnestly without merely shopping for a useful religion? I don't think there's anything wrong with believing that Christianity has social utility. And I don't even necessarily think that it's wrong for, say,

35:21 the government to push it for that reason. I don't think you can push it solely for that reason, because obviously that is it's not amoral. It would be wrong to call it amoral because order and hierarchy and in this case, incidentally truth, all have moral value, even if you are not necessarily pushing them for, say, an entirely or optimally moral reason. You're still pushing that which is morally true and True and morally right. And so it's still a good thing. Could you do something better? Of course. But just because you can do something better doesn't mean what you're doing is bad. So Christianity has obviously more social utility than edi any other belief system. There's a reason that Europeans built Christendom under the cross, and not

36:13 under some other symbol, whatever you want it to be You know, insert your symbol of choice here. And so is there social utility to Christianity? Absolutely. In the personal case, is it wrong to participate in Christian ritual, even if you do not personally have faith? I think the answer again is no. And part of the reason I think the answer is no, is that I think if you earnestly do that, God will give you faith. That's one of the ways you're going to receive the faith because what are the means of grace? How do you receive the free gift of faith? Well, one is the word. And if you are participating in Christian ritual, well you're going to hear the word. You're going to read the word, assuming you're also doing that part.

37:01 God promises to be present in his word. God is never going to be found to have lied or not fulfilled his promises. And And so if you participate in Christianity, even if when you start out you do not have the faith, I firmly believe God will come alongside you and will give you the gift of faith. It's not because you merited it because of your works, but rather you are doing the very thing God has promised will receive a reward. And so by all means participate in Christianity even if you don't personally yet believe, because I believe the end result of that will be that you will believe. And so one day I'll get to meet you in paradise, which is a bonus there. Are there any good attorneys out there?

37:51 This is the next question, obviously. Are there any good attorneys out there combining resources to combat liberal policies that threaten white Americans? I don't know of any groups that are pooling resources for that. There are small groups here and there, but this is asking probably about something larger. I am not aware of any large groups doing it. It is certainly something that would have utility for our side, would be useful, but there is also the fact that if you set up that sort of organization, you are immediately going to be a target and you are going to be a priority target. And this is not to discourage anyone or you know, black pill or anything like that, but it's just to point out the reality

38:35 of the situation. You have to be prepared for what is going to come your way. If you if you set up that sort of organization. Because they're going to use lawfare against you. That's just the reality of it. And they're going to do that to pretty much any group on the right, if they can. You know, Patriot Front gets attacked legally from time to time. They happen to have an attorney. Now that's not a group, so it's not an answer to your question, but I've I've met the man and talked to him. So you have to you have to plan for those things because of the structure of the system under which we are living. Does that mean that you can't go out and participate in any activism whatsoever because you don't have a giant legal war chest?

39:20 I think the answer is no. There's going to be a degree of risk involved in some of these things, and that is unavoidable. And I guess that's sort of a separate question, so I don't think I'll go into that now about you know activism and different groups and things like that. But insofar as groups for pooling resources for the lawfare aspect of this struggle, I am not aware of any actual group, just a handful of individual attorneys and sometimes two or three attorneys working together, which is not really an answer to your question on that sense, but the core answer is no, I'm not aware of any group. It would be great if we had one. And I would be willing to work with people on that front. I don't know how much utility I would have personally in my

40:12 capacity as an attorney, because I have a California bar card and California's probably not where we want to be focusing our activism and probably also not where we want to be dragged into court. But, you know, if that happened to be the case, I can certainly help to some degree. Obviously I'm living in Tennessee now, so it's quite a bit to commute for hearings and things like that, but By all means, I have no problem lending expertise and looking things over, giving my advice. Have another question from the chat here. My church, Methodist, due to lack of Lutheran around, had an organization called Chosen People Ministries. Always one of those names that you know you should probably run. An entirely Jewish organization come speak about the importance of Hanukkah last

41:04 year. I'm not much for confronting a man of the church, but I feel it is necessary in some sense to show him how bad of an idea that is. Do you have any advice on how to bring this up to him? This is a similar question to others that have come up before. And the first thing I would do is give you the warning that they will probably kick you out of the church. if you pursue that. In fact, if you just bring it up, they will probably try to kick you out of the church. Does that mean you shouldn't do it? No. Because sometimes you are called on to pursue the truth, even if it comes at a cost. That is part of the reality of being not just a Christian, but part of the reality of being a man. There are going to be times where you are going to speak

41:50 the truth. It is going to come at a personal cost. It is a question of wisdom. It is a matter of weighing the costs and really duty here, not so much benefits. If you are single, it's going to be a different analysis from if you have, say, seven children and they've all been baptized in this church, right? That's you're going to run a different analysis there. The calculation is not identical. It's one of the reasons to I guess make it personal, but it's one of the reasons that Woe and I could do some of the things we have done and it's why we could do Stone Choir without having to run the same sort of calculation, at least with the same weights as other men would, because I'm not married, he's not married, neither one of us has children.

42:39 And so we don't have those who depend on us who would be harmed by us you know becoming unemployable or at least employable in a different capacity from the one in which we were before. Right? So it's a different calculation. I'm not saying that you get an easy out or you know get out of jail free card, whatever you want to call it, simply because you have other duties. Rather, it is that you have to weigh those things in your calculation because it is a matter of wisdom. So when it comes to your church bringing in a Jewish group to talk about Hanukkah, at least it's Hanukkah, so it could be worse. It's not good, it's bad, but it it could be worse. But how do you confront your pastor on that?

43:34 I think what you could do is go and talk to him and just ask him a few questions to feel out his stance on it. You know why did you invite this group? Maybe don't ask it that bluntly, but you can get around to it in a conversation over coffee or whatever. You can You can kind of feel out where he is on this, and partly what you're trying to do is determine if he is just a rank and particularly staunch Judaizer, or if he just had no thought process whatsoever, and someone said, Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we had someone come talk about Hanukkah and he just said yes? Two totally different men. You have to deal with them in a different way. And so if he's the staunch Judaizer, you should probably find a

44:20 new church. Because he's just going to kick you out. He's going to most likely have elders or however your church happens to be run. Those men are going to be handpicked or they are going to have handpicked him, depending on the church, it could go either way. And they're just going to run you out on a rail. That is simply how it is going to go. And so if you feel that it is your duty to do that, and you think that it would be wise for you to do that, because not in all cases is it good for you to say wind up on the news for being the guy who doesn't like Jews and gets kicked out of his church, right? That may not be beneficial. But if you run the analysis and think that that is something you need to do, I'm not going to say you shouldn't, but

45:08 I'm not going to say that you have to do it. That is partly a matter of conscience and again partly a matter of wisdom. But you should probably leave a church in which you have a staunch Judaizer as a pastor because unless you can get the elder board to remove him and replace him with someone faithful, you're just not going to get anywhere that sort of man. But if he's the other kind of man, if he just doesn't think about these things, he's never paid any attention to it. Maybe he doesn't know anything about what Jews believe. Right? He could potentially be that kind of man. There are, for better or worse, a lot of A lot of Christians like that who know absolutely nothing about what the Jews actually

45:50 believe. They all just think that oh they believe the Old Testament, they just don't like Jesus yet. That's what most Christians think about the Jews. If he's that kind of man, maybe you can teach him. Maybe you can inform him of some of these things. And, you know, don't do it personally, because that's going to have his guard up. And what I mean by don't do it personally is I mean don't go and be the one who lays out the totality of the case. Talk to him, feel out where he is on these issues, and then provide him with a resource. You know, buy him a copy of Schaefer's Jesus in the Talmud. Maybe he'll read that. It's by a Jewish professor, by a Jewish academic. It's simply running an academic, somewhat dry analysis of the instances of

46:42 mentions of Jesus Christ in the Talmud. And no Christian can read that and come away with a positive view of the Jews. And how he responds to reading something like that is going to tell you pretty much all you need to know on what you need to do from there. So that's the basis of my advice, and that applies to anyone who's in a similar situation, and many men will find themselves in a similar situation. It's a matter of wisdom. Feel out what kind of Judaizer he is. Is he a staunch one or just an ignorant one, basically? That's sort of the spectrum there and then proceed from there. Try to make him better, try to correct him gently as a brother, if he is the ignorant man instead of the evil man.

47:29 Because the evil man will seek to destroy you. And you're probably not going to benefit anyone by going after it in that case. Because he will poison everyone against you and kick you out of the church. Someone asked about the Textus Receptus and So basically I assume this is asking just about the New Testament, given it's the Textus receptus. Anyway, the argument is verse the eclectic text, so called, or the received text, which is all textus receptus means. And you have the text that has been used for a long time, the Greek of the New Testament, versus the eclectic text, which is

48:35 the Textus Receptus, it's worth pointing out that it uses that as well, plus all of the other resources that we have acquired over a cent many centuries, and so it finds the best version we have preserved of each book and then creates the fullness of the text of the New Testament. It's the difference between basically source criticism versus higher criticism or historical or text textual criticism, whatever term you want to use for the other one. Higher criticism is the critique of the content of scripture. Those are the people who try to say, well, Jesus wasn't really born of a virgin and he didn't really die, and that's heresy. Those men are evil. Ignore that. Textual criticism is a perfectly legitimate pursuit.

49:29 That is how we figure out the best version preserved of a text. And we do this this with everything. We don't just do it with scripture, we do it with other texts as well. I don't think it's inappropriate to apply this to scripture. It is something that we have done down through the centuries. We simply have a lot more in terms of the available resources today that men from previous centuries didn't have, and that's fine. I don't think we're going to really find much more at this point. I think we've pretty much exhausted archaeology in terms of finding the resources that are available. So I think we're pretty stable now in terms of say the Nestle Alan twenty eight. The twenty nine is coming out soon, I believe.

50:11 I don't remember exactly when. So I think that's pretty stable at this point, but I would go with the elec the eclectic text, instead of the textus receptus. I think that we have a better version of the text, a more complete version, a more reliable version, than men of previous centuries. And I think those men would have agreed because they did the same sort of thing with fewer resources that we're doing with more resources. And so the very men who made the textus receptus and passed it down to us, all of those men in the chain, were simply doing the same thing they did. They would have done what we are doing, they would have used the eclectic text. They would not have used the TR. So there's a sort of irony there for the men who argue

50:54 for the T R. The very men who created and passed the thing to us wouldn't be using it today. They would they would be overjoyed to have something like Logos, where you can simply view all the papyri and other things, where you can look at all these resources showing us exactly what we have in terms of Scripture and how we know that the words of Scripture are what they are, because we have more than those men had in their day. They would they would find it unbelievable the wealth of resources that we have available, and they would find it ridiculous that any man wouldn't want to use them. I'm not saying everyone has to learn Greek, of course, but academics should be using these. The men who are actually involved in that part of the faith.

51:41 I think I will go to my fourth question out of the initial five I prepared. Obviously, not the fourth question for the episode, so for someone who is going to go through in the future and make points about timestamps, I do have someone helping with that, thankfully. Not the fourth question of the episode, but are all children a blessing from the Lord? This was a question from chat in a previous episode I said I would get to this. I answered it briefly, but I want to touch on it a little more deeply. Not necessarily thoroughly or exhaustively, but a little more deeply than I did before. First off, the answer the easy answer is yes. All children are a blessing from the Lord. Then the other aspect of it, because I think the questioner was asking

52:34 something deeper. Now, I could be uncharitable, I didn't look into anything behind it, and I don't know if the person was asking it in relationship to my comments on race and miscegenation and you know trying to trap me or something like that. But I'll answer it as if the questioner was earnest. And so I think one of the ways that you can look at this in terms of are all children a blessing from the Lord, is that not all children have faith, ultimately. Some, if you raise them up in the way they should go, they will continue in the faith. Does it mean that absolutely all children, even those raised in the faith, will persevere to the end? I think the answer is no. There are those who opt to be wicked, who choose to walk

53:23 away, who apostatize. And yes, apostasy is possible. I don't want to get into the once saved, always saved debate here, it's not the point. But scripture is actually very clear on this point for some men, and we can actually say for all men who end up in hell, it would be better had they never been born. For them, it would be better. And we know this, of course, because I just quoted Christ. He says it of Judas, but it's obviously true of all men who will spend eternity in hell. And so there's not necessarily a logic, but there's an impulse there for many men to try to say, well, if my child is going to spend eternity in hell, that child's not a blessing from the Lord. It's really something that you almost have to hold it in tension,

54:19 these two separate things, because all children are a blessing from the Lord, and yet for that man himself, it would be better for him had he never been born if he does not have faith at the end, if he is damned for eternity. I don't think you can necessarily fully resolve those two things. You can simply answer both of them in their own sphere with regard to the person on the one hand and with regard to the child being a blessing to you on the other hand And I think the best way to look at it is to take it as a warning, as an admonition, to make sure that you are raising your children in the faith, to make sure that you are actually catechizing them, to make sure that you are giving them a real A real deep faith that will keep them through the

55:08 entirety of their life, despite what the world and the devil throw at them. So read it in that way. Make sure that your children are raised in the faith with a depth of faith that will actually see them through, not the weak, shallow faith that is so common these days where it's like, I sent him to Sunday school for twenty minutes on every Sunday? Obviously no, that's not sufficient. How many hours does he spend in school? And then you sent him away to college for four years, where he was indoctrinated day in and day out. Did you give him a faith that was sufficient to stand up under that sort of testing? You need to make sure that you do. And also probably don't send your child right into the mouth the

55:58 lion's den. I don't know that I want to get into the nature of hell here and why hell is eternal and things like that. I think it's sort of it's obviously related, but it's tangential, so I don't know that I want to get into that here because it would be a little off topic and it would probably take a while. I do read the chat for the person who asked on X. That is an assumption on my part to some degree, because I have the chat, the concatenated chat, right, the blended chat, open in OBS, so as long as all of the platforms are syncing correctly, and as long as I manage to read the chat as it is going, it's not too active right now, so I can read all the comments. I I will see your comment, regardless of the platform on which

56:49 you post it. There are a lot of assumptions in that, but as long as the assumptions are true and they probably are, then yes, I will see your comment. And someone said I should do more collaborations and debates. By all means, I am still definitely open to collaborations with our guys. I'll probably still do hostile interviews from time to time. I made a blanket sort of open invitation last year and said until the end of the year I would take any invitation to have a debate or an interview. Maybe I'll be a little more selective this year. I don't know, but I'll probably still take hostile interviews. Undoubtedly there'll be more of those in the future. But yes, I have no problem with debates to some degree.

57:34 Mixed bag on debates because the utility of debates could be debated, which I think is there's sort of irony there, but some of it's entertainment. But entertainment for our guys, I have no problem with that. I think that's a good thing. And I don't mind sort of filling that niche. But how much do they actually move men's minds? I think probably usually not a lot. There's that occasional man who is in the right position, the right mindset, and you make the right argument at the right time, and so There's that one guy you nudge. Maybe that's worth it. Maybe that's valuable. But I don't think that you really sway large groups of men, regardless of the debate. Because most men come in believing something and having already decided they

58:20 support the man who is going to say the things, or at least they think is going to say the things they believe. But again, there's the entertainment aspect, and I don't object to that. Another question here before I get to the the fifth one. I can answer a another quick one here. On which platforms am I streaming? It's not a an in-depth question here, it's very easily answered. This is on X, YouTube, Twitch, Kick, and Rumble. Took a short memory test there. But those are the platforms on which it's streaming, and according to OBS, they are all active. So all those platforms. Obviously, not all of them keep the show in perpetuity afterward, so the the restream as it were can be found on I think

59:07 it's at least YouTube and X and I believe Rumble. I don't know for certain if the other ones say them. I think they purge things after a certain number of days. But at any rate, there are platforms where you can find it afterward. I will try to keep the links updated on the website, on the forum, and in the RSS stream, so that you can find those in the future. But I'm not going to promise those will be 100% updated. If anyone wants to help updating those, by all means, if you are a trusted member of the forum, which basically just means that you've been a member for a while and posted, you will have the ability to edit the wiki for each episode, so you can add those links, if you're so inclined.

59:45 But the question I wanted to get to before the fifth one that I prepared as it were I was raised atheist, but of late I'm thinking God does exist, even in a materialist framing, albeit as a concept within our biological minds, even then Even then as this concept prevails over time, then it would be true by a Nietzschean view of truth that which benefits life. Curious what your thoughts would be. So the question there would be on It's not really necessarily the nature of God, it's more an expansion of the earlier question about the benefit of Christianity, and particularly of course Christian morality, hierarchy, order, all of those things that are indeed necessary for society. So even if God didn't exist, you know, almost a horrible thing

1:00:36 to say, but for the sake of the hypothetical, arguendo, if God didn't exist, would we still need a system roughly equivalent to Christianity in order to organize society around that system, around that principle, in order to avoid chaos? I think the answer is yes. But the other half of the answer, perhaps the greater half in this case, why? I think ultimately the problem with materialism, why it falls down, for many reasons, and I will expand on this in the future, I've been thinking about doing so, but I'll give a a brief answer in the same vein here. Ignoring even things like Gettel's proof of the existence of God or the in the problem of the infinite regress, the first mover, all of those things, which I think prove the existence of

1:01:30 God, not saying the Christian God, but the existence of a God, and then from there you build up to the Christian God. But even ignoring all of those, I think there is a fundamental argument with regard to meaning. Life has meaning. We all know this, and I know there are those who will try to say, well, that's just psychology and it's built into humanity and it's a convenient delusion that gets How does that make any sense in a materialist framework? Meaning is absurd in a purely material universe. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the mind exists and qualia exists and all these things that are clearly immaterial. The fact that we all recognize meaning is a thing, and that not only is meaning a thing, it is a vitally important thing

1:02:18 because if you lose your sense of meaning in life, you probably die pretty shortly afterward. In fact, that happens incidentally with a lot of men when the if their wife happens to die first, many men just give up and die. That doesn't make much sense in a purely material framework. Get another wife, right? But this sense of meaning that we all have, I think is very clear proof that there is something beyond the material. And so could God simply be a construct of a biological mind. Well you have the problem of getting to a biological mind. And then you have the problem of getting to a biological mind that can sustain the concept of God. And then you also have the problem of how do you wind up with a concept like God?

1:03:07 And there's just all of these insurmountable problems along the way. So even if we could make the argument that it has utility at the end of this chain of impossibilities, you never get there. Because you can't surmount all of the problems. It's the same sort of objection with some additional steps that I have to Darwinian evolution. Now of course it's these days it's NDE and other things like that, but the problem that I have with it is fundamentally there are points you cannot pass, you cannot explain them in a material framework. You have to resort to the immaterial, which means you've just defeated the Darwinian system. And of course there's also the problem of the the math just doesn't work.

1:03:58 But there's n you can't go from non-life to life. That's the first one. And then you can't go from life to intelligent life. And then you can't go from intelligent life to sentient, self-aware life, human beings. And then this additional system here, you've got the additional steps of a biological mind sufficiently complex to host, not only host, but generate and then host the concept of God and then sustain it down through many generations. It just I don't see how you can possibly surmount those. And of course, as a theist, I don't have a problem here because I recognize, well, God is the one who set the conditions, he created life, he created intelligent life, he created human life, and so of course the mind created after his image recognizes the reality

1:04:54 of God. So from a non materialist framework, I have answers to all of these questions and I don't see a way to answer them within a materialist framework. So I don't think that the conclusion is wrong. I just don't think that you ever get there if you start with the assumption that the material is all that exists. I don't think I missed any chats, any questions in the chat? So I will go to what is probably the last question for this episode. I am not getting hit by the storm yet here, so and by by the way, everyone should say a prayer for those who are in the path of the actual nasty part of the storm. There are some who are probably inadequately prepared, so say a prayer for them that God would preserve them through the worst of the

1:05:53 storm assum assuming that it is actually a bad storm, which it looks like it will be for certain parts of the country. For European or other listeners, we have a particularly nasty winter storm coming through part of the US right now Starting pretty soon. The final question is actually a pretty easy question, but I think I will expand on it a little bit because there are some related questions that are important because they come up frequently in our circles. This is also from a previous chat. Were Adam and Eve the only humans? And so in order to answer this one, first I want to go to scripture because that's sort of where you should go when you want to answer this sort of question. And I want to go to, of course, Genesis.

1:06:44 Genesis three. Is in Genesis three, and there are a couple of things to pull out of this particular passage, but in Genesis three, Adam names Eve. The name that we use in English is Eve, of course, and I'll comment on that as well. And Adam called the name of his wife Life, because she is the mother of all the living. Very short passage there, just the one verse. And I would actually like to pull that up in the lekim now because the lexem will actually give us the Greek. Unfortunately the Nets does not give you the Greek in logos, they haven't done that yet, but at any rate we want to have the Greek here because the interstitial does not show in OBS. At any rate, I will just tell you what the Greek is

1:07:32 then. The word there, and you can see obviously that it's a different term. She's not called life in the Lexum translation, they just call her say it however you want, Zoe Zoe. It's Zoe. And so Zoe, of course, is life. Literally Eve is named life. And the reason she's named life is because as it says here in the verse, she is the mother of all the living, Za'ul, of all those living, which is very clearly to say that Eve is indeed the mother of us all. Adam is the first man, formed from the dust, he is the father of All humanity, of all human beings. He is the Father of every human being who will ever live. Except for Christ, of course. Obviously the exception there, right? Because Christ has God the Father is his Father.

1:08:28 Ultimately, of course, we also have God the Father as our Father, just more direct in Christ's case, because Adam is indeed in the genealogies called the Son of God, because that is what he is. And so Adam is the first man, and Eve or Zoe, whichever name you want to use for it, I don't think it's wrong to use the name Eve. So we've just sort of called her for many, many years in English but perhaps in the ultimate translation, the canonical translation of the Septuagint that we have in English we'll just call her life, or we'll call her Zoe, the Greek word for life, or Zoe, however you want to pronounce that. But she is the mother of all the living. There were no hominids pre existing humanity and God uplifted one.

1:09:19 I say that because that is an argument that has been used by some to try and explain away the creation narrative, which is ultimately anything that denies Adam and Eve being the first two humans, no others existing, God didn't make others, He didn't make a whole bunch and then just named these two. They're trying to explain away the creation. They're trying to make it consonant with all of the secular theories of how man came about. And Christians don't do that. Christians read the text and accept what God said. And God said he created Adam and Eve, and Eve is the mother of all living. And so no, there were no other human beings. There were no uplifted primates or whatever theory has been expounded by

1:10:09 other men. And the other part of this, sort of an expansion that I want to touch on here, is related to those who will look at some of the other races of men on the planet and then derive almost precisely the wrong lesson. There are some in our circles, and typically it's those who are either very shallow Christians, I will say, or not Christians at all, and what they'll say is that Europeans are more evolved. That is exactly the wrong conclusion to draw. It is that other peoples who are very clearly degenerated, which is the ultimate point here, communed with demons, and were so far separate from God, and so deeply involved in wickedness, that they have devolved because of the loss of information over time from their genome, the

1:11:09 corruption of that information, due to many factors, not least of all inbreeding. And so the actual lesson to take away from the differences between and among the races of men is that if you commune with demons for too long, you become something less than what man was supposed to be, what European man largely still is. And so the takeaway is that devolution, degeneration, those are possible. You don't become better over time. We are not better than our ancestors. Look at the things, the great works produced by our ancestors, look at their literary works and their philosophical works and other things like that. Do you really honestly think that we are better than they are? Do you think that we excel the ancient Greeks, the ancient

1:11:59 Romans, any of the ancient thinkers in all of these things? We excel them in trinkets. We excel them in material science because of the accretion, the accumulation of knowledge over many years. But the reality is the fact that we can produce a USB cable, even if it's a really neat little USB cable that has a whole bunch of different little adapters, doesn't make us more evolved, doesn't make us more intelligent or more capable in an ultimate sense than our ancestors. So the takeaway, when you look at the differences across human groups, is is not that we are more evolved, but rather that there are consequences to communing with Satan, to rejecting God, and to acting wickedly, and those compound over generations.

1:12:58 And so it is a warning. If you go down that path, if your people, if your race goes down that path, that's the ultimate result. And there is no returning from it. It's not to say they can't be Christians, because certainly they can. But there are very real challenges for them that we, as men who have not gone down that path, whose ancestors did not devolve and degenerate in that way, we do not have those challenges. For instance, one that comes up all the time, and I'm I am personally tired of the topic, but it is simply unavoidable. IQ. If you are dealing with a population that has an average of 100, you are able to teach them things that you cannot teach to a population with an average of 70.

1:13:51 There are very real challenges to trying to teach the Christian faith to populations with an average IQ of 70. They don't understand a hypothetical. How do you teach the core of the faith to those men? This is a challenge for Christians to try to spread the faith to them. And in some cases you knock the dust off your sandals because they've rejected it and you no longer can. But in the case where you still have a duty, so a hypothetical case here, where you have a duty to spread the faith to those who are incapable because of the wickedness of their ancestors and biological degeneration, how do you teach them about a hypothetical when they can't understand a hypothetical? How do you teach them if you believe in Christ, then you

1:14:34 will be s that's a hypothetical. If you don't believe in Christ, then you go to hell. It is more difficult to teach them, and the faith will always be shallower in those populations, they will never produce theologians, they will never produce great teachers, they will only be Christians so long as they are managed by better men. There are very real consequences to demon worship and communion with demons, particularly when you engage in all of the wicked behaviors that demons promote, not least of all again, inbreeding. Look at the practice of the ancient practices of the pagan Canaanites and others like that. All of the things God condemned in Scripture, all of those sexual sins, there's a reason that demons push those.

1:15:20 Because they cause real and lasting consequences that make it much more difficult to preserve and in order to spread the faith than it would be otherwise. A population with an average IQ of 70 that has that sort of burden from generational demon worship will never be able to preserve the faith on its own. That's a victory for Satan. And that's the lesson that we should take away from the From the racial differences between and among men, not that we are better in the sense of being more evolved, but that we have not degenerated in the way that they have, and that is a dire warning to us. Because it is possible in our case as well. The state of the worst countries, the worst racial groups in the

1:16:08 world is exactly where our progeny, exactly where our descendants could be in six thousand years, assuming God lets the world go that long, in six thousand years if we did the same wicked things that those groups did in the past. That should terrify us. That should be something that drives us to ensure that we adhere to the things God has told us to do and avoid the things God has told us not to do. Because there are very real consequences, and not just for us. But there are dire consequences for our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren down through the generations after us. Excuse me. So the short answer to the question is that yes, Adam and Eve are the first humans. Eve is the mother of all living, but

1:16:58 that means that we should look at the reality of the world as we find it and the differences between people groups and act accordingly. Because if we don't, there are very real costs. I think that I will end this episode here. The storm's not supposed to hit here for about fourteen hours, so it's that's not a concern, but again, I would recommend that everyone say a prayer for those who are in the path of the storm. There's no need to worry about me if you are so inclined. I'm here sort of in the foothills in Appalachia, and some of the worst of the storms tend to pass by just because of the geography, so I'm sure I'll be fine. But pray for those who are actually in the path of the particularly nasty parts of the storm and those who are currently getting

1:17:47 negative sixty wind chill in some places, which is certainly threatening both to man and beast. So just include those people in your prayers tonight. Thank you to everyone who submitted a question, and for those who have submitted questions on the forum, if I have not answered your question yet, I know it's there. A couple of you gave me reading homework, so I have to do that. I've just been very busy the last couple weeks. So I have to do that before I get to your question and answer it. But if you would like to submit a question, by all means you can do so on the forum. That is the preferred way, simply because again, I don't want to repeat myself on every episode, but it is the preferred way for

1:18:28 a number of different reasons. I've gone into it before. So if you are capable of doing it that way, please do. If not, by all means, submit it in the chat or on X or wherever else in the Telegram chat. I will try to find those and collate them and make my own list so that I can answer them in the future. But again, thank you for those who submitted the questions and for those who participated in the chat and for spending your time here. I look forward to the next episode and I hope you all have a great weekend. Stay safe from the storm if you are in the path of it, and may God keep you and bless you. See you all next week.