10 Jul 2026 (Q&A)

0:00 It is the 10th of July 2026. I am Corey J. Mahler, and this is at any cost. This is episode 35, a QA episode. I don't really have any housekeeping, so I'll just get straight into the questions, except I will briefly mention for any eagle eyed viewers who notice I have a red line across I was wearing a hat working in the garden, so just to head off any potential questions about that. It's very warm here during the day right now and I am mostly bald, so hats are a must. Let's see, question one is is from the forum and then I'll go to questions from the chat or wherever else, maybe get into some of the backlog. The angel of the lord in numbers. Is the angel of the lord who appears before Balaam to slay

0:53 him with the sword on the way to Moab Jesus? And so this has come up a number of times this topic. But the angel of the Lord sometimes in the Old Testament is Christ. Sometimes it may not be Christ, it may just be an angel. And basically how you can tell the difference is if a human being interacts with the angel of the Lord in a worshipful way by worshiping the angel of the Lord, or the angel of the If he is God, those are the two ways you can pretty much tell it's Jesus. And I already know the answer to this one because I know the passage well, but I'll pull it up in numbers and read it just because it's good to actually read the text. So let me pull up. And that of course numbers 22. I think the nets will be fine for this.

1:50 So let us start with let's see What verse? We'll start with verse twenty two. And God was angry with wrath because he went, and the angel of the Lord rose up to a to oppose him, and he himself was sitting on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. And when the donkey saw the angel of God standing opposed in the road, and the sword drawn, Then the donkey turned away from the road and kept going into the plain, and he struck the donkey with his rod to direct it in the road. And the angel of God stood in the furrows of the vineyards, a fence here and a fence there. And when the angel saw the and when the donkey saw the angel of God, it pressed itself against the wall and squeezed Bayland

2:40 to whip it again. the angel of God proceeded and went on and stood still in a narrow place, in which it was not possible to turn right or left. And when the donkey saw the angel of God, it settled down under Balaam, and Balaam was angered and kept beating the donkey with the rod. And God opened the mouth of the donkey and said to Balaam, What have I done to you that you have struck me this third time? And Balam said to the donkey, Because you have mocked me, and if I had a dagger in my hand, I would already have stabbed you. And the donkey said to Balam, Am I not your donkey, on which you would ride from your youth to this very day? What have I done to you? And he said no. Now God uncovered the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of God

3:29 standing opposed in the road, and a dagger drawn in his hand, and he bowed down and did obese to his face. And the angel of God said to him, Why have you struck your time? And behold, I came out to oppose you, because your way was not pretty before me. And I'll stop there because that gives us our answer, and for those who are wondering, the word pretty there, I'll pull it up in the Lexum so we can just look at that. Let's see. Lexum translates it as appropriate, which the word there is indeed a styos which can mean pretty or handsome in the Greek, but really in this case it's more in the sense of good or right or appropriate. The Nets just decides to translate it as pretty. But the angel of the Lord says that Ba is before him.

4:22 So he's speaking as God. This is God. This is Christ here in this particular case. And that's how you can go through these instances in the Old Testament and figure out if it is Christ or just an angel. And the reason that you have angel of the L is serving as the messenger here of God's message. He's God himself, but he's also serving in the role as the messenger. And of course the underlying word there for angel is just messenger in the Greek, so they made a translation choice, and I would say it should be capitalized in the cases where it's very obviously Christ. Just didn't do that. The Nets, like I've said before, is kind of academic. They do some things that are a little weird here and there.

5:07 But the brief answer to the question is yes, that's Christ. So much for the pacifist Christ that some modern Christians would prefer since he's here with a sword in his hand. Question two is on the resurrection. And I did not have time to go through these before I started streaming today, so I'm reading them for the first time along with All of you. Hello Corey, I am twenty five year old man from St. Louis, Missouri. I recently lost my dog and one of my guinea pigs. My mother was told in church long ago when she was a child that animals don't go to heaven and that has affected her. She's Christian, but I believe others have been told this and are wounded spiritually. I want to know the church's teaching on heaven and the final

5:57 resurrection. Will everything be restored to life, and human beings are judged. Does Christ triumph over death mean that death is destroyed utterly in the second coming, and its consequences are undone? Does behold I am making everything new according to Revelation, apply to everything that has ever existed. have read Paul's writings of the resurrection fifteen forty four. It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body there is also a spiritual body, And it would comfort me and millions of believers to know that we would see our animals again. So scripture does not explicitly state one way or the other. I'll go ahead and start there. But is that scripture does not explicitly Explicitly state, and yet we can

6:44 draw out what we should actually believe about them. I do believe that animals will be there in the resurrection, and I know there's a little bit of a light on my face, the sun came out from behind the clouds. And I haven't installed my new blackout curtain yet. That which is good cannot be destroyed because Because destroying it is evil. And so God does not destroy that which is good. Incidentally, this is the reason that hell is eternal. Because annihilation can't be true because to destroy a human Essence in terms of what he actually is, would be evil because that would be destroying something that is good. So God cannot destroy something that is good, to speak in human terms, of course.

7:30 I think the same thing holds for animals. God's creation is good. He will restore them to what they should have been, to what he intended that won't have the problems they have here in time, they won't be mortal. All of the various things that plague us here and now. I had a dog that died of cancer, one of my golden retrievers. I believe that I'll see him again, and he won't get cancer again, and he won't die again, because all things will be made new. And we can also see this in how speaks about the resurrection, the restoration of all things. First it's the restoration of all things, which certainly includes animals, plants, everything else in God's creation. And you see in many places in the old testament and elsewhere,

8:15 creation itself is spoken of as groaning, desiring, or celebrating the restoration of all things and God making all things new, making things good again. There are times where you'll see individuals in the Old Testament saying, This rock is going to testify against you because it has hurt everything you swore you would do for God and then you didn't. You can think of Joshua the end of the book of Joshua doing that. So all of creation will be renewed, and I think that does include our animals. I firm Firmly believe that. Like I said, it's not explicitly stated in Scripture, but I believe that we can draw that out from what Scripture actually does say. And I think that ultimately those who are Gnostic in their beliefs, they don't really believe in paradise.

9:05 They believe that we're going to spend eternity in heaven, some spiritual realm with God, and that's not what we're made to do, because we are not just a soul. We are body and soul and also mind, not to get into that topic right now. Our final destination, our eternity is spent in the new creation, and that will be a renewed version of this creation. Because this creation still is a shadow of what God wanted it to be. It's not something totally alien alien, something totally different. So we will have a perfected creation in which we will spend eternity. And certainly that includes animals and plants and everything, since God made those they're good and he wants them to exist. So yes, I do believe that we'll get to see our dogs

9:54 again. Without all the the problems that some of them have. I've so other than the one that got cancer and the fact that they're all mortal, they haven't really had or caused any problems. Other than Gizmo of course for anyone who follows me on various places and sees the Gizmo updates. He is the only other than I inherited one other dog non-golden I've ever acquired intentionally. Question three is about miscegenation. If someone is half African and half European, should they marry an African European, does this decision depend upon if the person the mixed person in this case is male or female. My typical advice is that you follow the father's line as a general overall rule.

10:55 However, in the case of half African, half European European durations. And I see this as started making the rounds on X and some other places. The genetic distance, and there are various different ways you can measure genetic distance, and this is very commonly used in animal studies, for instance, and human beings are animals, right? Our physical body is mammalian. You can use the same tools. Genetic distance between Europeans and Africans is greater than that between like a wolf and a domestic dog. It's a big difference. So it's something that you'd even be tempted to call a difference in species under some circumstances. I don't prefer Use more of the classical definition of species, which

11:43 essentially I know that they're edge cases, so before someone comments on it in the chat, I'm aware of the edge cases. But the classical definition is if two individuals can can reproduce and the offspring is itself fertile, then they are the same species. Definition recognize that these definitions are human inventions. So kind of like verse numbers and chapter numbers and scripture, we've added these things. God created the types, and within those types, then you have subtypes and things like that. For our purposes, we've created terms and a hierarchy that for us to categorize and deal with things. But in the case to get back to the question, in the case of someone who is half African and half European, I would

12:27 say go at the African line. Because by and large those differences are so significant it is going to be difficult for that individual to fit into European society, into a Europe And the person is always going to feel like a bit of an outcast. It's going to be true in the African context as well. The difference being, In the African context, you're going to be the top of the pile, right? You are going to be in the upper echelons of society, you're going to be the one who gets to rule over the others. And be an easier position to deal with the consequences of your parents' decisions. Not saying the questioner in this case is necessarily the one, but ask in the hypothetical. Probably going to be an easier case to deal with that when

13:14 you are at the top of the pile because of it than at the bottom. So say for various reasons, some other ones as well, someone who's half African and half European should marry back into Ham's line and continue on with that. Question four I guess is kind of tangentially related. My standard living fossils. Where do you stand on reports of dinosaurs living in Central Africa and Papua New Guinea or any other so-called living fossils? So this So this this is sort of a specific use of the term living fossils. The more common use of that specific term refers to animals that are very supposedly in the constructed timeline of Earth's past and yet still exist. So that's what someone usually calls a living fossil like crocodiles or

14:09 living fossil, you know they haven't changed in a very long time. So part of that is Darwinian evolution, part of it's wrong, part of its right. I've gotten into that before. Like cryptids or the equivalent uh I guess natural cryptids as it were. creatures that are sort of out of time, according to that timeline, but yet living. I don't think there really are many, if any, living in, say, the jungles and things like that. Most of those would have died in the flood, just as a practical matter thing that was out of the ordinary and survived that humans would have hunted to extinction because it kept killing them in the night. That's why there are no lions in Europe now. There were lions in Europe.

14:51 There aren't because they kept killing people in their beds. So So as far as this kind of or guess type of maybe there's some in the ocean. We've explored vanishingly little of the ocean and we have no idea what's down there. We just recently relatively speaking, figured out that colossal squid are actually a thing, and that the sailors who were telling these tales of squid that destroyed ships weren't lying. In some cases they were exaggerating a little but not So there could be all sorts of weird stuff hanging out in the ocean, the deep parts, because we haven't mapped it all, and we certainly don't have live video feeds of the entirety of the ocean. But as far as land creatures go, I'm pretty sure most

15:32 of those are just dead. I don't think there's anything too particularly interesting hanging out in the forest. And I've spoken before anyone who does sort of tangentially related your question, anyone who does a lot of camping, hiking, etc., you will eventually run into something weird in the forest. And sometimes it's an animal whose call you don't recognize, sometimes it's something else the best advice I can give you is anytime you go on camping or hiking forums or anything like that and talk to people, you'll notice that there's a pretty significant number of individuals who have said I felt weird and I turned around. I still haven't seen anyone say I felt weird and I kept going. I think the takeaway from that's pretty obvious.

16:26 So, you know, God gave you some amount of common sense, just make sure to exercise it. There are big animals in the woods, even if there's no cryptid or anything like that, bears exist. Bears are dangerous, even the black bears that are less dangerous than certainly grizzlies. I don't prefer hiking in places that have grizzlies even though they're beautiful. Although bear spray works. Always carry always, always carry bear spray. Bear spray works better than a gun. So tangential advice advice, but it works for this. Get into some of the questions from the chat here. Someone asked about some verses that the Aryans used historically to try To try to justify things, so I'll go ahead and copy that

17:21 so I don't lose it. Okay. Says I am new to the faith. My question in light of 1 Corinthians 8 6, 1 Corinthians eleven three and John one eighteen. How are these not Arianistic? Could you explain the exegesis and philosophy there? So I know which verses the uh the even pull them up, but I'll pull them up so we can all look at them. There are times in scripture and in the early church where you see many of the references being to God the Father and Jesus the Son and sometimes they leave off the Holy Spirit. They don't always speak of the Trinity in full. In some cases, they emphasize the position of God and Father, and so they'll use God instead of saying Father, and they'll speak of the Son, and they'll speak of the Son as Lord instead of

18:10 God. They're not saying that Jesus isn't God, because there are plenty of places that explicitly say Jesus is God, right? Not only that, but Jesus says I am So not all of these places are going to be sort of high-level or rigorous doctrinal examinations because some of this stuff is telling you about the faith. It's speaking about the faith, but it's not a theology textbook in all cases. You have to know scripture in context, which is always the rule here. So let me pull this up. The first one is first Corinthians eight six. So first Corinthians eight six and for some reason has decided to shrink. So let me fix that. Make it easier for all of you to read. So

19:10 yet for us there is one God the Father from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we are who through whom through whom we exist. So it is still speaking of Christ here as God because all things exist through him, right? It's not wrong to say that all things are from the Father, because the Son is begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. So it's correct. This is correct to say this. What's being emphasized here is something different though. This is an emphasis, and you can see this earlier on, right? Because it's speaking of idols and false gods and other things. This is a condemnation of idols. So it's recognizing the Father, God the Father.

19:56 Actually this time it does say God the Father specifically. It wouldn't have to specify if you didn't have different persons, right? It would just say God. And it does that in a few places, but not all places, like here where it says God and specifies God the Father. And Lord. Lord is interchangeable with God in some places. So what do you call him? We call him the Lord God. That's what he is, that's who he is. And so it is affirming the godship of Christ here. It's also emphasizing that Lordship of Christ of Christ in terms of his intercession and his interaction with creation and the fact that all things were made by and through Christ. Let me pull up the Corinthians eleven three But I want you to understand that the head of every man

20:49 is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Again, this is this is actually this one's more heavily theological because He is lower than God the Father. And let me pull up the one of the creeds here. Obviously the Athens the fourth paragraph's what I want here, so. And just so you know, if you want to pull up one of the creeds, you can go to the bookofconcord.org and then slash C12 and 3 are the three creeds in the normal order they're given. In Athanasian. So the Athanasian Creed and Paragraph 4 equal to the Father as touching his Godhead and inferior to the father as touching his manhood.

21:51 That is just standard of course the I see that OBS is being weird and not showing the full page. Let me try that again. There we go. Again, equal to the Father as touching his Godhead and inferior to the Father as touching his manner. This is the standard teaching of the church, of scripture, of Christianity, all along. With respect to his humanity, Christ is lesser than God the Father. With respect he is equal to God the Father because they are of one essence. Let me pull up the next one here. We have John, what was it? 118. Let me swap back over to Logos. I need to set up some keys here to make this a little easier to swap back and forth. No one has ever seen God, God the only Son, who is

22:54 at the Father's side, he has made him known. So right here in the verse it says, right? It's in the verse. And again, this is God is spirit. The Holy Spirit's also spirit. The Holy Spirit occasionally appears in scripture in, for instance, the form of a dove, right? But no one has seen God the Father. No one that's how God operates. Because God the Son is incarnate. God the Son has taken the humanity into himself, and so we can see God the Son. We don't see God the Father. The Son can see the Father because the Son is also, as it says here, God, God the only Son. So this is also this actually one of the teaches that the Son is indeed God, just explicitly states it. So So the Aryans would not be particularly wise to use that

23:47 one. They tried to use a lot of arguments for that, because the Trinity is something that is beyond human reason, right? The Trinity is something that as human beings we cannot fully comprehend this life or probably also the next, right? But we don't have to understand everything. In fact we should be concerned if everything in our faith were completely understandable To human reason. Because God is infinite and we are finite. And so if we as a finite could understand everything that is taught about the infinite, that should make us question whether or not we're speaking of the actual infinite. Because we are limited in ways that he is not. But those verses are very easily explained within the standard bounds of

24:30 Christian theology. Pull some qu another question here from the chat. Advice for how question six advice for how a white man should navigate advocating for his nation politically while also having non-white nephews and nieces. So this is going to depend in part in a terms of nuance, but not in terms of really the overall approach. Really two things. Are these nephews and nieces adopted aliens? Because that matters. Now there's a distinction there that I would draw. The former is good, the latter is bad. So if they're adopted, you have less of a concern to just be sent back to their homelands. That's the eventual goal. And it doesn't matter that they've been adopted.

25:40 Goes back to the earlier question, right, about are we dealing with an individual who's half Japanese, half Chinese versus half African? There will be different ways to deal with that. I haven't drawn up, you know, Nuremberg Laws 2.0, no one has done that as far as I'm aware. I don't really intend to do that in the near future. There will be some sort of line drawing that will be necessary at some point in the future, and it will take into account that certain peoples are in fact more compatible with us than others, right? Someone who is half Japanese and half white is going to have some trouble picking aside and you know, integrating full but much less so than someone who is half African. So I'm not saying that someone who is, you know, half Japanese

26:27 has no problems in life because as anyone who is mixed knows, your parents created problems for you. And they're very real problems, and the people who tell you you're perfect the way you are and nothing is wrong those people are lying because you've lived it. And so I get people who DM me all the time about this stuff, but it's going to depend on sort of what the admixture is there. And the best thing that you can do is in some way they are family, but they're less your sibling had married another white person, right? So if you have, say, white nieces and nephews, you should probably show them preference because they are more your blood. than those who are mixed. But that doesn't mean that you treat these individuals badly.

27:17 The goal isn't to, you know who's different as much as some people would like the it it's easier, right? That's an easier path. But that's not the goal. The goal is we want our own lands, our own culture, our own people who are protected from everyone else, and we don't want the problems that come with having other peoples in our lands, not to say nothing of the fact that it's a curse from God, right? So the ideal and it's actually a tragedy that there are so many problems, but the ideal would be and we have to deal with things as they exist. It's realpolitik, right, instead of wishful thinking. But to some degree I can't give you exact advice because it's a fact specific analysis, right?

28:19 There it's it's a legal term of art, but in in the law there are really two kinds of questions. There are purely legal questions where it's you know, is this a violation of the law? And it's one of those where you don't need to know the facts of the case, you just need to know the thing and the law. And there are things that are fact where the actual facts specifically what happened to this instance truly matters. And that's sort of the analysis that needs to be done here. So like I said, you don't treat them poorly, but I think preferencing if you have full-blooded relatives, I don't think it's wrong to preference them because those are those circles of which we've spoken so many times. And those who are more genetically related are closer to you and

29:06 you have a greater duty. Obviously, yes, this creates problems, right? Because if you advocate for deporting everyone who is not actually racially American, you are nieces and nephews potentially. But you didn't create this problem. Your sibling created this problem. And yes, it's going to cause strife for you. That is just the reality. Sometimes that's unavoidable in this life. So it's a matter of wisdom and you know have to bring the squabbling and the fighting home, or at least not to the same degree that you would engage with it in public or social media or whatever else. But that again also partly depends on the reality, right? If you're dealing with a sibling who has miscegenated and the be

30:00 with this individual and the individual is African, that's probably going to cause much greater problems in your home life and in the tranquility and all those things. And everything that we know comes along with that. And so in that case you should behave differently. Maybe you need to sort of push that person out of your life a little bit for the sake of the others entrusted to you. So it's not an easy question to answer and it's certainly not an easy situation in which to live, but you apply the wisdom that God has given you, you recognize those concentric circles of duty and the greater duty to those who are closer, and do the best you can with the situation to which you not of your own will.

30:47 A second question from the same individual but sort of in a Let's see. A couple notes for myself here before I continue. Okay. Per Luke sixteen eighteen is it always sinful for a non virgin woman? So Luke sixteen eighteen. Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. The answer is yes and no. So cases and this pops up all over the place. There are times where sin leaves everyone in a position where there's

31:47 no good solution. There's no perfect solution. So this is going to depend on the sort of government under which under which you live and then again a divorced woman. Why is she divorced? That matters. Did her husband abandon her? Did her husband have an affair? Is and you know there's a difference between a man having an affair and a woman having an affair, right? Gone over that many times. Neither case is it good, but in one case there's actually in the other case there really isn't. Other than reconciliation, but if reconciliation doesn't happen, there's no solution. So if the woman is divorced for a reason that is morally permissible, right? Again, adultery, abandonment, basically, adultery and things that are tantamount to it.

32:40 She's divorced, but she's divorced for a reason that you're permitted to divorce. The husband's the guilty party. The former husband is the guilty party. Now let's say that she is the adulteress. Right, that's sort of the the hard case as it were, or the easy case, depending on how you look at it. If she and so her husband divorced her because she committed adultery. If you live under a society that actually enforces the moral law, adultery is a capital crime. And so the issue never arises. If you live under a society that doesn't punish adultery, that's where this becomes wandering around who the state should have punished and yet they've committed this grave sin and now they are in a position where what

33:33 do they do and what do other people do in response to them, right? Should they never marry? Probably. But that Is that going to lead to greater problems if they don't marry? Also probably. So we as a society have created this problem for ourselves by not addressing the underlying crime, by not punishing criminals.'s the harsh truth. The harsh truth is you should punish adultery so harshly that it doesn't whether or not you should marry an adulteress. Under the present circumstances where that has not been done, do I think it's always a sin to marry a woman who is divorced because of adultery? I think that it's not always so. Is it ideal? No. But let's say for instance, she's the adulteress, right?

34:20 She can't be reconciled to him now because he's remarried. There's also the, you know, polluted field thing and all of that. So what is the best solution if the state doesn't punish her? Well it's probably for her to get married and then not cheat again Is this wise on your part? Probably not. Because a woman who once will probably do it next time as well. So is it always sin? I don't think always. Is it just But if she is divorced because her husband committed adultery, then it's fine. It's not ideal, right? This is a situation that should never arise. He did something evil, but it's not her fault. The same thing is, you know, a woman who is a widow, right? She's not a vir because she's a widow.

35:21 That's not her fault. Her husband died. So we live in an imperfect world. We live in a fallen world. Sometimes things are always things are not going to be perfect or ideal. We do the best that we can. So, like I said, you run the basic analysis, right? Is she divorced because she did divorce because he did something? Is it something that permitted divorce? And then is what you are trying to do wise? And again, we should have a Christian prince who obviates these questions, makes it so we don't have to talk about this stuff because he did his job, which might be difficult given that we have a leader in this country. Question eight. Do you read the day of the Lord in the prophets as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem alone, the end of the world

36:15 alone, or each of them depending on the context, which is to when Peter quotes him in Acts 2. So the answer to this is both, because generally speaking, God likes typology. I've mentioned this many times and I'll mention it many more times. God really likes typology. It's all over the place in scripture. And really it's kind of all over as well, right? In a very real sense, for instance, each person, right, we're an icon, we're an image of God that's a type of God in creation. But without getting too deeply into that, the day of the Lord is prefigured by the destruction of Jerusalem, the wicked city, and then obviously then becomes the image of the wicked city that is ultimately destroyed on the day of the Lord and the harlot and all of

37:05 that. It's all symbolism, it's imagery depicting the wicked world passing away being destroyed in fire. So you have the minor fulfillment of the day of the Lord, the typical fulfillment with regard to the destruction of Jerusalem, the burning of the temple. It happened multiple times as well. This has not happened once, right? The Babylonians did it, Rome did it, Rome is sort of the one that really did it. And then God will do it at the end of time. So the ultimate fulfillment, the ultim The one that is meant in the fullest sense when it is mentioned is of course Judgment Day, the actual return of Christ, but they are both in view because it's typology. But if you want to read it certainly today, you should be

37:56 reading it and yes, keep in mind that historic sack and the destruction of Jerusalem, but it's really looking forward to the judgment, to the last day. That's why it's the great and terrible day of the Lord, right? I mean sure if you were a a Jew, it's a pretty terrible day of the Lord to be in Jerusalem when the Romans destroyed it. It's a little worse the final day, and also worse to be Jewish, so the next question I'll go ahead and translate it into English since it's in German here. Let me copy it first. If I can get there we go. Firefox to cooperate. Question nine, which for some reason copied with HTML markup.

38:58 Let's see how g the translation in the Septuagint Deutsch I read English fluently. Is it worth the effort and cost to get the Septuagint Deutsch? And so the answer I'm going to say is go ahead and get it. It's great. Is one of the better translations of the Septuagint that I have found so far. I'm glad my mic is not fix so that I can do this. Grab this book over here. This is the Septuagint Deutsch. I do usually have it on my desk. I just have it on my other desk over there right now. It is a good translation. I so far where I've disagreed with anything. I haven't read through the whole thing yet. I do most of my reading in English. It is my first language, it is the one I know the best. But I do like to read the Psalms and some things

39:53 in the Septuagint Deutsch, and I it's great that it exists. At least one European language has a good translation available that is an actual functional modern language. It's German. The English one doesn't exist yet. I hope that comes around soon. But if you speak German, if you want to learn German, go ahead and grab this. It's great volume. Something's gonna fall off my desk now that I moved that though. Ten. Let me make another note for myself here before I continue. Hey, question ten.

40:53 I have seen a lot of Eastern Orthodox who are sympathetic to and even supportive of white national socialists. It appears to me that they are willing to prioritize prioritize the white race over their churches religious beliefs. Are any of them trustworthy or should they be treated as enemies? I've listened to the SC episode on the EOSO. There are good men in the EO churches. I think that I've stated this bluntly before so I've no I think that many of the men who convert to Eastern Orthodox in a Western context are psychologically damaged in some way. And I think if they're being honest with themselves, they know that. Because you don't go looking for something that is that fundamentally foreign

41:34 and alien unless there's something lacking in you. So there are those who convert and then just become absolutely insufferable. Those men are going to be a problem. They already are a problem, but they're going to continue to be a problem. But are there good men? Absolutely. I can think of a few right now. I've spoken with them. I've met them in person. They are doing good work on various projects. Some of you listening, you may be thinking of the same one I'm thinking of now. There are good men in the EO churches. Just the same as I believe there are good men in the Roman churches, right? I am a Lutheran. I strongly, I vehemently disagree with what the Roman Church teaches. I think that what the Roman Church teaches with regard to works

42:19 But part of justification is abhorrent. It is heresy of the highest order. But I think there are good Christians in the Roman Catholic churches. We've gone over this many times, and it is called felicitous consistency. Inconsistency, rather. It's called Felicitous Inconsistency is the tech friends use for this. And I will put this into the show notes because it's a good thing for people to go and read what it is that we mean by that. And just to explain it briefly, we look at it as there are many churches out there that teach falsely. They have this doctrine wrong. They teach something about the faith that is wrong. In some cases very big. Right? In the Roman Catholic case it's justification they get wrong.

43:07 It's the core of the faith. It's the article on which the church stands or falls. It's not to say other things aren't important, but it's literally the core of the faith, and they get it wrong. But Felicity says that despite the false teaching of those churches, ultimately in their hearts, due to the fact that God has given them the free gift of faith, they rely on Christ and His completed work, and the false thing that their church teaches is not going to damn them because ultimately they rely on Christ. That's what we believe of many of them. All of them. I hold the same thing about the EO. The stuff that Palamus teaches is rank heresy, and I don't know how anyone can read it and make any other conclusion.

43:50 I hated reading his stuff. It was like reading something that was written in hell. But I believe there are good men in those churches, and I believe they're Christian, and I will see them again in paradise. I would prefer that they convert to some other traditional form of Christianity, instead of that, particularly because it's such a LARP in the Western context. It's alien to us. Yes, I know. We've had some of them up in r you know Alaska for a while. Fine. It has never been a in the United States. It has always had at the most a very tiny presence. It is alien to the West. It's called Eastern Orthodoxy. So are they all enemies? No. Are some of them enemies? Yes, because they have decided to be so because they have decided

44:40 entire identity, this adopted alien version of Christianity, and they just constantly attack their previous beliefs, their previous faith, and all of the good Christian men in those churches. So So the answer is that it's mixed. But many of the I would be glad to have them on our side and I hope that they stay that way. I again I would prefer they convert to something else, but as long as they are Christian, it's better than the alternatives. Even if I don't think that certainly their church is ideal. Let's see. A related question, a difficult one. Question eleven, and there's sort of a little follow-up here before I'll copy and save that as well. Navy and state churches, and certainly this will apply to some of

45:43 our other brothers and sisters over in Europe. It's not just the Scandinavians, the Germans, for instance, have some of the same problems. Regarding Scandinavian state churches, because so much of the apostasy is directly imposed by our wicked governments, what would you suggest? I'm really reluctant to just abandon the state churches and some of the things that they impose, for instance, is noted here, forcing the churches to accept female priests and homosexual marriage, so-called. And they do that even against the independent churches. In so the German context, you have Selk, right? Or Selk, however you want to pronounce that. Okay. But it's not perfect, it's better than a lot of others,

46:24 it's made some compromises, but that's sort of the best option for those in the German context. I'm sure there are equivalents, I know there are in some of the Scandinavian countries, but not all. I think that in many cases you're going to have to do the same thing many times for those in the American context. Start a home church. And the goal would be, it's maybe a little more difficult with state churches, but the goal here certainly is to have the home church grow enough that you can take over a building from a collapsing false church. Because for makes a lot of their money for their budget by selling old buildings. Huge opportunity for a faithful church to get a nice building at a decent price.

47:10 In the European context, and particularly with regard to state churches, that's going to be more difficult because you almost have to take over the state churches. So I think that the home churches may be a longer term solution out of just sheer necessity in the European context. I don't think that you're going to be able to avoid that. So if you can find one of the relatively independent smaller churches that is faithful, that's great. It's always better to have the camaraderie and the decent sized church, don't forsake the gathering together of the saints, so on and so forth. But if the church is going to burden your conscience, if they are going to force you to accept things that are wicked

48:10 Question twelve. Is this a heretical statement? Race mixing is sin per se via the fourth and fifth commandments and destruction because it is the destruction of one or more bloodlines, and so I don't know precisely which numbering you're using, but I assume you're going for honor thy father and thy mother, and thou shalt not commit murder. I presume we're using that numbering. I mean you could also bring up theft realistically if you wanted to. I don't think that you can call it a gone over this before. However, I think it comes with the enormous caveat because usually when I've been answering that question, it's been just abstracted out to a purely theological question. Under present circumstances, I think that miscegenation is virtually always a sin.

48:56 And that is because it is virtually because at least one of the parties to that marriage, and we'll be generous here and say it's a marriage, is doing it out of hatred for his or her own bloodline, for his or her own race, and that's sinful. And so the desire to do the thing is sinful, the thing is sinful. I think that's virtual these days. So like I've said before, give the sort of the easiest example, right? Abstracted out historical if a European man had decided in you know, whatever century you want to pick, not modern, but centuries ago, that he really wanted to convert the To Christianity. He really wanted to convert the Koreans to Christianity. And he went there and married a local woman, and then his

49:48 line continued to marry back into that population. I think that would have been morally permissible. Should you Should you do it today, given everything that we know about genetics and incompatibility and organ and mental illness and psychological problems, and the list just goes on and on and on. No. I think today is utterly unjustifiable and should not be done. And that is particularly true when you're talking about greater distances, right? So for instance the African and the Europeans, that's the greatest distance. I think that it is always sinful. I don't think you can find circumstances under which it is not going to be sinful. It is more wicked in some cases than others, but I would not be willing to say that it is per se sinful, because

50:30 I don't think the thing in itself absent the circumstances is sinful. And so right the difference here is per se versus per quote. sinful, but in reality as a practical matter, it's basically always sinful today because of the reality of the circumstances and the intent of the individuals who would be doing it. See, question thirteen, and then I need to renumber some things here For non Europeans who have been in America for generations, do you recommend they stay and marry within their own race to the country of their ethnicity? Because we should live among our own. That is how God designed us to live. It's how He it's obvious from the fact that's how things work.

51:34 If you just reproduce naturally, you're going to reproduce people who look like you, you're going to create a society. And it is harmful to have aliens in your presence because there's just a thousand different things that are harmed by having people who are not your people in your lands. And living in lands of a foreign people is also harmful to the individual. The pages of scripture. When God punished we'll say for instance, when he punished Judah, right, with the Babylonian exile, having to live among foreigners was a curse. Having to have foreigners live among you is a curse. And And so those who are living in nations of foreigners their home lands and live there. That's how it should be.

52:23 That's the way that's the goal. That's the way things should be. Now obviously there are some considerations, right? You can't just pick up and leave tomorrow. There's logistical concerns. I recognize that. But given the way that things are trending, I think it's better to do it later because the amount of time to plan it and do it in a way that is orderly and optimal may narrow as the political landscape and the political discourse changes. But yes, people should return to their own homelands. I don't think it's wrong to have you know tourism in some cases. Depends on you don't you don't want tourists from certain areas, but some from other countries are certainly fine. But yes, we're people should actually live should be in their own

53:08 lands among their own people. I do not know if I will get to all of the questions in the chat this week because there are a lot of them. I will try to copy them into my ongoing and lengthening notes. But Answer a a few more questions, I think. Fourteen. What are your thoughts on financially supporting missionaries who are outside traditional Protestantism? And apparently in this case he's actually asking about Baptists. And I know that makes Baptists mad sometimes, but Baptists are not traditional Protestants. You are the the edge of the radical Reformation. I think for supporting missionaries generally, it's going to depend on what it is they're doing and why, and you know, could this be

54:09 done in a better way by someone else? So historically, and the reason to bring up the same thing I mentioned in the previous question really more question twelve than question thirteen, but the man historically, the European man, who went to some Asian country and worked as a missionary there and maybe intermarried among the people, et cetera, et cetera, part of the reason that he did that is you just logistically couldn't bring say Japanese over and train them or send them materials or set up a university for them. That's not a problem today. We should be supporting if we're supporting these individuals working to convert people to Christianity, we should support their own people in doing that.

55:00 A Korean missionary should be trying to convert the Koreans to Christianity because there are Korean missionaries. There are Korean Christians. A Japanese Christian should try to convert the Japanese to Christianity. It should be their own people doing it these days. Because we just don't have to send our people to do it, and it's not even that anymore. It causes problems. So as far as supporting missionaries go, I wouldn't even support most foreign missions at this point because I think by and large it's a tourism industry and it's doing more harm than good. It's reinforcing false beliefs about racial differences, about the reality of about how we should interact with foreign peoples. It just causes a lot of problems.

55:45 I don't think it's something we should still be doing. Incidentally I also think the Great Commission was already fulfilled. So and that is a traditional Lutheran belief. believed it was fulfilled in the time of the apostles. It was certainly fulfilled during say colonialism. So I don't think we even have that obligation anymore. Should we still want other peoples to convert to Christian of course, because we want everyone to convert to Christianity. But we can do that by training their own people. The exception would be there are obviously races, there are groups of people who can't produce their own tea. They need to be colonized, if anything. Don't send foreign missionaries, so in this case our people over there.

56:28 That's not going to work. It's going to cause problems. Don't do that. So I would not I just wouldn't support foreign missions at this point, period. unless you're talking about foreign missions of foreigners who are evangelizing their own people of but that's not really a foreign mission, right? That's a domestic mission in a foreign country. So that I would support sending our people over to other countries? No. Unless of course you're calling it say, you know and you're saying it's a foreign country because it's France. I I would be fine with that, support a French missionary. But again, you could support French Christians and have them do it. You don't need to send Americans over to do that.

57:11 The French are perfectly capable of teaching Christianity, as are the Germans and the British and the Scottish. Question fifteen if the new earth is just a recreation of the Eden situation in the new resurrection as it clearly existed in Eden. So I don't know if I want to just direct you to my previous comments on this, but I guess I'll go over it again because it's a question that comes up a lot and it's worth revisiting. Christ speaks of marriage, right, in the new creation. First off, remember that he's speaking to the Sadducees and also

58:15 Christ enjoys sarcasm and he enjoys people. So, you know, people who think that mocking someone is always wrong, right? Oh, you can't mock someone, that's what Christ mocks people. So God mocks people. If you think you can't mock someone, you better get over yourself. So he's what he says specifically, right, is that they are neither they neither are given in marriage. Does he say there is no marriage? The answer is no. He doesn't say there's no marriage. He says that they neither marry nor are given in marriage. So there are two ways you can interpret this. And I think that it's completely ridiculous when I may as well p I've got it on my screen so may as well pull it up. I think it's completely ridiculous when people take from this that marriage

59:05 doesn't exist because the creation of male and female doesn't make any sense if marriage no longer exists. Why would you have male and female? Now granted, there were some very weird cultic groups in the early centuries that will become men, and that's why marriage doesn't exist. They were carrying that over from the ancient Greek philosophers who thought that women were basically just extremely damaged men and that everyone in their version of paradise would be male But at any rate, right, you have the this question trying to trap him, right? We have the the brother who dies and then his wife, lever at marriage, you have the second and the third and blah blah blah on down down to the seventh.

59:48 They all die I and then you know whose wife will she be? Christ mocks them with his answer, like I said, You are wrong because you know neither the scripture God, for in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. As for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God? And so on and so forth. So I think marriage still exists. I think you just don't marry and you aren't given and there the distinction there is a man woman is given in marriage, a man marries. We should maintain that distinction. It's a good thing to maintain. It gets people in the right mindset of understanding the distinction between men and women, the difference between the sexes, particularly with regard to

1:00:32 marriage, where it's sort of salient. But I think marriage exists, but I think that it is the person who is perfect for you, you're married, you don't marry, you aren't given in marriage because that is the state for eternity. I think that is how it's going to be. Because I think that lines up with marriage being a good thing, it lines up with the design of male and female. And God isn't going to something that was so important that when he spoke of Adam in the garden, Adam who walked with God spoke to him face to face. God said it's not good for man to be alone. That's how important having a wife and how important God viewed marriage. So I don't think it's going to pass away. I think he's just mocking the Sadducees.

1:01:18 And high in what he said, but you have to work for it a little bit. So I think the people who try to take this and say, oh well there's no marriage in paradise are completely insane and don't understand anything about God or human nature. I think they're ultimately Gnostic. I think that the kind of people who think that like sex is ick and so they think that in the resurrection we'll just be genderless or something. it's completely absurd. It's ultimately Gnostic and I think it's wicked to believe that way. So Obviously yes, it requires some exegesis. It's not blatantly bluntly or blatantly stated, but I think it's pretty obvious. You read scripture enough that you kind of understand what Christ

1:02:03 is doing when he's replying to different groups. Uh I'm going to collect a couple questions here for next time because I don't think I'm going to answer them this time. Let me see if I can pull out something that's a little shorter. Answer a few more maybe. Just trying to add things to my list so that I don't miss them for next time. Question about Vlad the impaler. I think I'll save that one for next time.

1:03:04 That's always fun to discuss, but I I don't think that I know enough about the specific question to answer it right now. Someone asked about actually paste this into my show notes. Question 16. What are your thoughts on the July 4th Patriot Front footage going viral? I think it's a good thing. I've said before, I think that they are doing good work. I think that they are a good group. I think that they have a good approach. I think that folks the Americana, as it were, is an essential part of any successful movement in the American context. I recently published an article about on july fourth of course, about symbols and the importance of symbols and things like that. And so I'll add that to the show notes and go read

1:04:01 that since it touches on this particular topic right. There are symbols that are that matter that we need to have, and one of those is indeed the American flag. And I think it's very important to I don't know why OBS refuses to load it always There we go. I don't know why it has that problem resolution, but I think that it has to be part of the American nationalist movement. I don't like the Christian flag that much, but you know, they're

1:05:03 the symbols of Christianity are still used by wicked men. It doesn't mean that we abandon them because wicked men are using them. It means we reclaim them and we stop the wicked men from using them. So I think that they're doing good things. Which state's system is not based on common law. And of course it's Louisiana because they inherited their legal system from the French. So but I don't know if that was for the chat or for me. I won't make that one up. I've answered this one briefly. What issues do you have with Wells and someone who's not

1:06:04 happy with the LCMS and yeah they'll they're both a mess right now. For those who don't know, the two really conservative synods of Lutherans in the American context are the LCMS and Wells, WLS. So So the issue with well issue. They get the doctrine, the theology of the office of the ministry wrong, and they do that in part for historical reasons. It's one of those things where groups split. Sometimes they say it's for this reason and then they double down into error because they want to have some sort of split, even though their split wasn't a good one. Wells did that with the office of the ministry. I think the EO did that with the Filioque because the fact that the Spirit proceeds from the Sun is obviously true from Scripture.

1:06:53 They didn't like the way that that was added to the Creed, because the Western Church just them and involving them. So was there a sort of structural issue with how it was done? Sure. We didn't do it the right way through the right channels. But the doctrine's still right, and that's what ultimately matters there. But for Wells, the issue is going to be that if Wells goes off fully and they will do it faster and more thoroughly than the LCMS. So maybe you find a good congregation. It's kinda like the LCMS, right? There are good congregations, there are bad congregations. If you have a good one near you, great, go ahead and attend. The fact that they're wrong in the office of the ministry, the theology of that really

1:07:40 at all. They probably won't even teach on it. That's really a question for, you know, pastors and theologians and the seminary, so I think it's fine attending at a Wells Church if you happen to have a good one near you. Take a sip my drink, actually. Since it's since it's sitting over there, it's not just window dressing. I'm going to leave the question about communism until next time because that is going to be involved. I know that I am collecting a list of questions, but eventually I will make time to answer them.

1:08:44 Let's see. Okay, I'll answer. Uh the chat scrolled. Okay, there we go. I was copying a two-part question and the chat scrolled on me, and I couldn't find the second part for a second. Question eighteen. My church consistory is trying email voting for the election of office bearers. In their opening argument, they have denied that election is an exercise of authority, and say that election is only advisory for consistory, not binding. Is this legitim? It's absurd. So how could one argue against it? So your fundamental problem here, right, is that they get headship wrong. And if they get headship wrong, they are not going to agree with you on really anything. And I assume that you probably have a lot of baby boomers.

1:09:37 This is generally how this goes. So, can you mount a strong argument? Absolutely. There are quite sound arguments, easy to follow logically, against permitting women to vote in anything in the church. And And is are they going to be persuaded by reason? I think the answer is probably no. If they can be persuaded by reason, then by all means you can bring up any number of things, right? What does God tell women to do in the churches? Be silent. Does that permit them to vote? No. So what when you elect a leader? You're electing the person who will exercise authority on behalf of the group. Well, if you are voting for him, then all you are doing is abstracting that out one step. And so those who vote for the leader are exercising that leadership

1:10:36 by proxy. And so, yes indeed, you already wrongfully if you are a woman and you are voting in the church. Now if your church now as an aside, if your church has voting and permission And permits women to vote, then by all means you should vote exactly how your husband tells you because otherwise you're throwing away a vote that could otherwise be spent usefully, right. In politics, wives should follow their husbands when it comes to voting because if they just abstain, that's foolish, you're throwing away the opportunity. At least at the local level, right? Local elections can matter. So the arguments against it are sound can be taken directly from scripture in most cases, but thing is really the core of it, but you have to explain

1:11:22 headship, so maybe go listen to the Stone Choir episode on headship to But like I said, it's going to come down to whether or not they are willing to listen to reason and willing to listen to scripture. And I think the odds are very likely or else they would never have put forward such a resolution. That doesn't mean you don't make the argument. You make the argument, you give them the chance, and maybe you are giving them the chance to condemn themselves, right? To deepen their sin, to refuse to repent. That's the case. A follow up question for the question about missions the person is asking about domestic missionaries, but they have anabaptist view. I would probably try to find someone who is a domestic missionary

1:12:25 whose views align with what you believe about the faith, so that you're not troubling your conscience by funding something you disagree, something you think is false. So Find a group that is doing domestic missionary work with whom fund them instead. Your tithe doesn't have to go to your local church. Your tithe can go to some other Christian institution, some other Christian teacher, and that's great news these days because many churches are faithless and maybe you don't want to fund your local church because it's doing evil things. Copy a few more questions for the future before I lose them. I do see I want to make note this time for the person who asked. The question about why have you forsaken me, I have that in

1:13:25 my notes. I will try to address that next time. It's going to take a little bit of time to address it, so I don't wanna do it tonight. Think I Think I will answer one more question for this episode. And it's another question twenty's a good number on which to end. So the chat cut off the end of your question, but I have the core of it, so I think I'm probably good. I have been thinking about submitting an application to Patriot Front since I heard you recommend it as a good organization.

1:14:29 Paganism. I get the sense most of the members are Christians, that is definitely correct. But what do you make of this less than ideal aspect of Patriot Front as a nationalist? And then whatever your second question was, the something, I don't know if it's the chat, the plug-in, whatever, something cut it off so I don't. So I'll just answer the the portion that I have at least. Yes. Patriot Patriot Front is not necessarily I know that their material what their materials say. I have a copy of it here somewhere. I went to their national gathering. That's I guess it's pretty much public knowledge at this point. I spoke with him. We didn't really discuss religion. However, I think he'd be fine with me saying that I gave

1:15:18 him a challenge and I said that the string attached was at some point in the future we're going to have a discussion about religion. So maybe that'll give you some hope for the future. But I understand why he's doing what he's doing, right? It's in the vein of many, many men down through history. You know, Hitler basic the Protestants and the Roman Catholics keep your squabbling somewhere else. We don't need it in the political movement. Bismarck told the Protestants and the Roman Catholics Keep your squabbling somewhere else, we don't need it in politics. The Prussian Union was him telling the Lutherans and the Reformed to stop squabbling. Religious infighting is a very difficult thing in a political movement, and

1:16:05 it can send things off the rails very easily. So I understand why men who want to focus on the political don't necessarily want to deal with religion, right? So I don't think that it is something that you can entirely avoid. And the reason for that is very simple and also very complex. But I'll give the simple answer. The simple answer is this a nation is blood, soil, myth. Part of myth is religion. Your nation and your religion are identical to a certain extent, so you can't actually ignore the religion issue, the religion question forever. I recognize again what these men are doing, what Rousseau is doing wants to do that. I don't even think he's necessarily wrong. But

1:17:07 eventually the matter will have to be decided. Now the goal, of course, is to win politically and then we can, you know, go back to having our infighting because that will that's just humanity. There will always be divisions among you brothers, right I don't think that ultimately the nationalist movement in the U.S. that is successful will be able to avoid religion entirely, and Patriot Front doesn't. They had a crucifix for their march. They're not But like I said, I I do know that most of the organization is Christian. Most of the members are Christian. Many of them are Stone Choir listeners. Many of them are probably listening to this as well. They follow me on X and elsewhere. I think that ultimately the Christian portion, and it is the major

1:18:00 the nationalist movement will win out, and I think that the pagans will come back into the fold as they see a more masculine, traditional Christianity take over from the moribund wicked organizations that are all dying out anyway. So I think that the problem will by and large solve its diehards here and there, but that's inevitable. There are always individuals who are outliers in that way. So I think join the organization, I think it is a good thing, and recognize what you're doing. As a Christian, you're just tilting that scale a little bit further in our direction. So that's a good thing. But like I said, it's a discussion that at some point it's not something can be avoided. It is important.

1:18:44 I'm actually writing an essay on it right now. It's in a notebook down here, half written. Hopefully I'll get that published this coming week. But I don't think that it's going to be a big deal that they write now religious pluralism as it were, I don't think he's going to permit, you know, Hindus and Muslims, right? He's basically just saying, I recognize that a certain percentage of white men are fed up with the current state of the churches and have opted instead And they're still white men, they're still my brothers, they want what is best for their nation, and they're Christians as well, so he's just not dealing with the issue. I don't have that luxury, right? And I don't want to get into it too mo too much

1:19:34 more deeply because like I said I'm writing an essay on it and I'd rather just publish that. I Because I'm a theologian and a teacher. And so I am going to answer to God for the things I say and the things I fail to say. I don't get to be the above the fray politician. I'm involved in politics too, so it's a bit of both in my case, but that's why I don't avoid the issue even though I would prefer if I were ecumenical and just dealt with the politics instead of dealing with the religion as well But like I said, join the organization, tilt it further in our favor with regard to the Christian membership. I think that's a good thing to do. But I think that will be last question I'll answer one more because I see it here.

1:20:26 This always happens, doesn't it? To the person who said that two hundred and fifty is a better number to end on, I think my voice might actually give out if I tried to answer two hundred fift Obviously. Maybe I shouldn't have used this one since it's potentially involved, but at any rate we'll pull this up. Come on, Logos. Concerning the matters about which she wrote, it is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman note that that's a quote from the letter. But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a limited

1:21:28 time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer, but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self control. I think that's probably sufficient because really the Try to pull out is that the husband doesn't have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Which is true. Part of marrying is that you have conjugal duties to your wife, and you do not get to say, you know, I have a headache. At least not too many times. This almost never happens that way. It's usually the woman, not the man, who's doing this. Happens sometimes. There are men who do this. You don't have the option if you're married. You have duties to your wife that are physical duties, and you

1:22:06 have to fulfill those. God's very clear about that. It's right here. But earlier in this very same episode, we read a verse that said the head of every wife is her husband. The husband is the head, he is in control, and it likens it to Christ being the head of the church, right? That's another verse from the one we read, but there is a verse that says says that as well. Does the church get to tell Christ what he gets to do? No. Does the church new rules, and Christ has to obey them. No. Christ is the head. He's the final say. He has the veto. He makes the rules. The same thing is true of wives with regard to their husbands. They submit in the way the church submits to Christ. And it's very obvious.

1:23:07 Well, if you're supposed to submit as a wife to your husband the same way that everyone is supposed to submit to God, I don't think that there's any real way around that. It's not egalitarianism. This is just saying you're not allowed to your wife. That's literally all that it's saying here. So the husband doesn't have the authority to do that. And the reason he doesn't have that authority is because when you married, you handed over that authority. You gave it up. You had the option to be celibate. I mean, you don't really have the option, right? It's in this hypothetical sense. Like, once you marry, you've given up part of that autonomy to your wife in this specific s in this very specific case, this

1:23:51 very specific sense. That's all it is. So anyone tries to use this for egalitarianism or anything like that or for feminism It's just saying you can't withhold sex from your wife. That's all it's saying. But you know, those people are going to obviously hate the passages that say wives submit to your husbands, particularly when it's all things as unto the Lord. I think I've probably answered that I've definitely answered that many at this point. If I'm I don't know, a averaging around fifteen to twenty per week, then we're, you know, five, six hundred questions by now, I think. At any rate, thank you for those who contributed questions and for participating in the chats. Always great to be able to answer these.

1:24:48 Try to do it every week, don't always make it every week, but winds up being Thursday or Friday, depending on how my week goes. It's been a busy week, so wound up being Friday this time. And I hope that you all have a good weekend, go out, do something. Hopefully go out and go out in the outdoors and don't meet the aforementioned bear from earlier in the episode. But go out and enjoy God's creation and then go to church on Sunday. So until next week, may God bless you and state all the ways you can submit questions because you've all heard it dozens of times by now and you can find it in the show notes. But God bless you and keep you safe until next week and go to church on Sunday. I will see you all on Thursday or Friday, depending on my

1:25:33 week goes. God bless. you.