Christian Nationalism Is Better For Society Than The Liberal Status Quo | Debate

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

[Music]

Yeah, here's what actually happened and the foundation of all knowledge. Stop. The deregulation of the industry is obviously going to cause more of that industry.

>> And to lubricate the trust connection between people until they have enough.

>> Yeah, we can still look at biological reality in determining who's a female even if there are. Why don't you denounce feminism the same way you're denouncing capitalism? If you don't. For something to be objective it needs to be verifiable and you can't verify. If I make a claim as a political pundit, it is true that I definitely could be wrong. You're promoting, right?

>> Ideologies are the makeup of politics, right? This is my ideology.

Yeah, but. So, 2015, anyone go back and watch the footage, the first GOP debate. Oh, they. Okay. We're going to pray for our leaders.

[Music]

And good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am Sarah the Raging Tomato here bringing to you live another debate. This afternoon I have with me Andrew Wilson from the Crucible and John Fugelsang. Both of them are here to debate the topic Christian nationalism is better for society than the liberal status quo. If you enjoy debates, please make sure to make your way over to Modern Day Debate for our Debate Con coming at November 15th, 14th and 15th, I believe, down in Nashville. Type in Raging Tomato to get your discount code there. Andrew, would you like to begin with your opening statement, please? You're muted.

Sorry. Yeah, thanks for for having me on for the debate today. I appreciate it and John for showing up. Um, let me start with two quotes from John's book, Separation of Church and Hate. Quote, Paul is a Jesus conservative PR guy who corrupted the Bible and says, but after Rome co-opted Christianity, things didn't really proceed according to Jesus' plan. You find this on page 51. Second quote, Saul would later become Paul, missionary to the Gentiles, one of the most significant figures in early Christianity and one of the most contradictory. If Jesus was the game-changing rock star, Paul was his hard-working, deeply uptight, conservative PR guy. Most of the sexual hang-ups of the New Testament come from Paul who believed the world would end in his lifetime and generally felt that everyone should be celibate like him. Everything that passes for homophobia, misogyny in the New Testament comes from Paul, not Jesus. For better or worse, he is the person most responsible for organized Christianity as we know it and that's from page 43.

Here's why those quotes are important. For those unaware, John has created with his own body of work an an epistemic pincer, a logic trap of his own making and he couldn't even see he was doing it when he wrote it. If Paul corrupted Christ's message as John claims in his book and the church also corrupted it in 300, 380, 380 AD as John claims, then how can John trust that words attributed to Christ in the Bible are even accurate? He can't. Additionally, Saint Paul didn't just write the epistles separate from the other apostles, they were aware of him and his teachings and approved of it. Saint Luke wrote the book of Acts, for example. If they couldn't distinguish between what Jesus wanted and how what Paul was doing went against Jesus, they were either completely useless and ignorant or they were in on it. Either conclusion destroying their writings including the quotes of Jesus. If he thinks the Bible isn't accurate and is corrupted, then he can't claim to know what Christ even taught or believed. If he does believe the Bible is as the preserved word of Christ, uh, then he has to believe that Saint Paul was a proper and right representative of Christ's teachings and cannot disparage him as a quote homophobe. He also would need to believe that the church body that preserved and compiled the Bible held onto the intent of the Bible and that church body all are homophobic, conservative, non-Christians according to John's own claims. Either way, he need to reject the Bible and Christianity, at least his made-up version of it.

Because John likely may not even understand what I just said from a logical point of view, uh, what the audience will see today is what's called cognitive dissonance. The reason John has this is due to his Trump derangement syndrome. John doesn't care about the Bible or Christianity, he cares about the progressive left-wing elections and carrying out talking points against Christians. It's about power and John doesn't want you to have any. What's objectively hilarious here is that this debate isn't even about the Bible at all or even John's failed epistemology and Christology. This debate is about Christian nationalism being better for society than the progressive status quo.

To contrast this, the Christian nationalist society is a proposition which which states that Christian ethics should remain the dominant force in the United States. The emphasis here should be on a strong central family unit based around a man and a woman and all propaganda should be moved to the state promotion of that family unit. It proposes abortions be outlawed with some small caveats for the mother's life being placed in immediate danger of pregnancy. It proposes that mass migration be stopped and replaced with manageable immigration policies for the purpose of managing integration without putting the cultural burden on an already burdened domestic population. It proposes that Christians in governing positions are generally better than non-Christians and have every right to govern using Christian ethics as their guide and always have. It proposes the elimination of gay marriage, trans ideology, pornography, sex work and an educational revamp to stop the glorification of such activities in public school systems. It proposes the potential elimination of no-fault divorce or cooling period before marriage is allowed and further that marriage itself is a domain of the religious and not secularists or the state. It proposes that children belong to parents and not the state. It proposes that Marxism is a threat to humanity due to its secular militant ideology and needs to be removed from the national discourse. There are many things which Christian nationalism as a worldview proposes as political changes to keep Christian ethics as its front end worldview. It proposes an end to feminism to be replaced by strong patriarchal systems, for instance.

John's worldview, on the other hand, is more of the same. Mass migration, pro-choice and particularly he believes the Bible's pro-choice against the fundamental teachings of the church fathers before Rome supposedly corrupted it in 380 and have all their quotes. Uh, gay marriage and the celebration of homosexuality as an identity, part of the status quo of John. The promotion of trans ideology, part of the status quo of John. The promotion of feminism and female clergy, status quo John. The promotion of uh uh, sexual liberation, status quo John. And essentially all other progressive views, he's a status quo progressive, nothing more. John basically wants to use the Bible to promote progressive values, but in order to do this, he has to take out the pesky parts which he doesn't like. Which is why he sees Paul as a corruptor. Hilariously enough, he admitted to me he thinks Jesus is God, which if true means that Jesus nuked Sodom and Gomorrah, flooded the earth, endorsed slavery and all the other great sins in his book that he attributes to God. Yet another contradiction considering he says Jesus was quote a groovy dude. John is a progressive operative and though perhaps no longer paid by any DNC group, but he is an ideological operative nonetheless. It's also ironic John says he's tired of people trying to pervert his parents' religion when his parents' religion didn't hold that Paul was the conservative PR manager in a failed Christ messaging contest.

Now, I have given the parallels between the ideologies and the advocations. Note here, this isn't about a debate of the Bible itself. This is a debate about the effects of having a Christian nationalist society as opposed to having a progressive society which John wants. As we go through the effects of both of these societies, just note the effects of mine. Practicing Christians are less likely to divorce, report greater happiness levels. In fact, the more rigorous they are, the happier they are. Virgins, for instance, report, especially Christian ones, the most long-lasting term of marriage satisfaction rates and the highest happiness levels compared to the rest of the population, putting a lie to sexual liberation. Children in married homes with a mother and a father have the best long-term outcomes in their lives and if they're practicing religious rigorism, have even more success in life and are less likely to be prone to drug abuse and criminality. Religious individuals 24% less likely to be involved in criminal activities. Religious participation is associated with 20% reduction in recidivism even among offenders. Higher religion correlates with lower attempts of violent crime with a decline 15% or more of religious teens 30% less likely to engage in delinquent behaviors. These are just some of the benefits of my worldview being pushed on society. But I can give you the stats for all of them. Everything I just listed. Note no data is perfect and these stats may vary a bit pulled a poll and depending on the study, but what isn't questioned to any significant degrees if religious religion itself and Christian the Christian religion operates as a deterrent to criminality and makes for a better society cuz the answers most certainly yes it does. I can justify each of these proposals I made during the both Christian ethics and I can use secular data talking points to prove both sides of it and I'm happy to do so. John on the other hand can't. And the reason why is simple. The society he proposes which is secular in nature has no foundation for ethics at all. None. Zero. It's totally arbitrary and that's what will be exposed here today in this debate. Thank you Andrew and John to you please.

Thank you so much. Well, thanks for having me. Hello everyone. Thanks for all your lovely comments. So I was invited here to talk about Christian nationalism. I hope it's okay that I didn't prepare any insults or slights or taunts at Andrew. I wish Andrew nothing but love and good health and a wonderful life and joy. And so I I hope it's okay that I I I I I didn't prepare any you know middle fingers for you. Thanks for having me. I listen I I just go by the Bible and the words we have. That's the Bible we have and so I base what we have based on what we have there. Jesus treated women as equals. He was not a misogynist like Paul. Homophobia is the opposite of the Sermon on the Mount and it is not possible to follow the teachings and the Beatitudes in the sermon and think you're better than gay people. Now Christian nationalism doesn't work. It could work as a society. I'm not here to say it doesn't. I just say it doesn't work with our Constitution or with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It's not compatible. You can't do it. The movement is about power. And across history we've seen every time Christianity tries to fuse itself with nationalism it always betrays Christ. It always self-destructs and it's always about one group of people who think God likes them better and they are elevated above everyone else.

So I go by Jesus who fulfilled the Old Covenant and brought the new one, right? His message is love, not fear. Jesus brings a new covenant and that is why Gentiles get to have bacon. That is why you don't have to keep kosher. That is why you can drop the homophobia and it's why nobody actually follows the book of Leviticus unless they're trying to weaponize a Bible chapter they themselves don't believe in or follow to hurt a gay minority that Christ commands us to love. Jesus was a peaceful radical non-violent revolutionary. He spent his time in the poor communities around lepers, hookers and crooks. He wasn't English. He never spoke American. He's never spoke I'm sorry. He wasn't American and never spoke English. He was anti-wealth quite thoroughly. Anti-public prayer Matthew 6:5. Very anti-prayer told us not to trust the folks who pray in public to be seen. Never anti-gay. Never mentioned abortion which is never specifically prohibited anywhere in the Bible. In fact the Bible never at any point says to punish poor women with greater poverty. Never says men can force women to be pregnant against their will. That governments of men have the right to force teenage girls to be pregnant by a rapist against her will. Quite the opposite. The Bible does not have any prohibitions for terminating a pregnancy. That is because the Judas the religion of Judaism does not ban abortion. Abortions are legal and free in Israel right now. Jesus was against the death penalty. Never mentioned abortion just like God and Moses and Paul and all the prophets. Judaism doesn't ban it. So he was never anti-gay. Never anti-abortion. And he never said torture's okay sometimes. He never said you're better than anybody else because you believe in me. He never fought for tax cuts for the wealthiest Nazarenes. He never asked a leper for a coat pay. And he was a long-haired, brown-skinned, that's in Revelation, homeless, open borders, Middle Eastern, Palestinian, unarmed, anti-slut shaming Jew. But that's only if you believe what is actually in the Bible. And again he fulfilled the Old Covenant. So Jesus brings a new covenant. He reduces the 10 Commandments to two. He challenged or overturned many Old Testament rules including the death penalty. Which Jesus overturns in Sermon on the Mount with turn the other cheek and ends the concept of retributive justice and says now the focus is on love because Christ is about transformation. Not domination. Going beyond what your religion teaches to a deeper kind of love. Not some passive permissive statement. Not just mere affection. A real action verb love. With all of the discipline and challenges and healing that can come with that. And again every time Christianity fuses itself with empire it leads to the opposite of Christ's commandments because Christian nationalism is not a form of Christianity. It's a political ideology that uses Christian language to sanctify power and it generally contradicts Jesus's teachings at every major point. Jesus lifted the lowly and prioritized the least of us. Matthew 6:5 my friends. Matthew 6:5 he gives his marching orders for individuals and nations. Judgment of nations. Are we okay on time?

You're No, I just want you were cutting out for a second. Thank you. Oh, thank you. So that's where Jesus says he he will at the end of time judge individuals and nations. Gather them all and judge them on certain criteria. You all know his criteria. It's Jesus's most famous speech. I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink. I was naked and you clothed me. Jesus's four criteria for what will get individuals or nations into heaven or hell are you care for the poor, you care for the sick, you welcome the stranger, you're kind to people in prison. Nothing about how much you hate gay people, how cruel you are to trans people, how much you persecute the Christian refugees at our border that we've been brainwashed to call illegals because we need to have a dehumanizing slur cuz if we see them as human and our fellow Christians these inhumane policies would trouble our consciences. So again Christian nationalism protects the powerful. It's about control. And Jesus was all about humility. Modeling servant leadership. The last shall be first. Satan offers Jesus all that he can see. Offers him all the world. All the power. Jesus time and again refuses the power. That's not his movement. It's about love and service. And again Jesus is offered he's he's he's offered multiple times to be a king and he withdraws into the wilderness. He's not about power. He welcomes the stranger. God of the Old Testament commands the Israelites to welcome the stranger and treat the alien as one of our own. Jesus says individuals and nations will be judged by how we welcome the stranger. It's like his instructions to the Heritage Foundation. And Jesus says the ones that are going to hell are the individuals or nations who talk a good game about following him but don't care for the poor. Don't care for the sick. Don't welcome the stranger. Don't care for those in prison. So he preached love. He opposed domination. Christian nationalism excludes outsiders. It preaches fear. And I also don't accept that the current status quo is liberal. Republicans control all branches of government. Labor unions once the backbone of liberal democracy which built the middle class are broken. Our health care system is abominable. It's an insult to Christ. Americans deserve the same access to health care as all of our capitalist allies overseas, but our health care system is a death sentence for poor people. Civil liberties that are being curtailed in the name of freedom. I mean there's a myth of a liberal establishment because it serves power and I get that. Try to find someone who's anti-death penalty who'll be elected president. Again Christ was everything that is derided as woke. And he commands us to pick up a cross and follow him. It's not about being on top and it's not about you winning all the time. Jesus's ministry is not about what you get. It's about what you do and what you give and how much deeper you love than you thought you could love before. Faith to Christ has nothing to do with being nice to trans people. Supporting gender. I don't care. It's got nothing again nothing in violation of the teachings of Christ. He's very specific about how we should treat the least of us and cruelty is not a Christian value. Thank you so much.

Thank you John. And as a kind reminder to the audience we will get through our debate then we will do closing statements. Read and respond to your kind super chats. And unfortunately we will not be doing open panel this afternoon. So we will shut down after that. Gentlemen I leave the floor open to you.

Yeah John, let's talk a little bit about Paul if you don't mind and the logical epistemic pincer here. Do you do you are you saying that Paul was wrong? And that the apostles were mistaken. Wrong about what? With Paul. They wrong about the teachings of Jesus Christ. In what way? When he was laying them down as the foundation for the church in Acts. I think in some areas he wasn't Christ-like. Christ treated women as equals. He was the greatest feminist in the Bible. Christ broke the laws of his own faith to teach women.

>> Christ broke the laws of his own faith to teach women and allow them to touch him. Paul's misogyny is at odds with Jesus' equality.

>> So can Paul be trusted? Well, we don't know because in many cases. Look, you see.

>> You see that Paul says that women must be in submission and must not speak in church, but a few chapters later he talks about Phoebe who's ordained as a deacon. So which one is it? Was Paul writing different ideologies to different church communities?

>> I'm trying I'm trying to do is many people rewritten his letters over the years. What I want to do here is just establish if your epistemology is sound. Okay, well. If it's the case that we have. If it's the case. Yeah, if it's. So if it's the case that we have apostles who are working with Paul, which they are, okay? They. You do. You do agree that at least they had contact with Jesus, right? I'm saying Paul doesn't supersede Jesus, my friend. I'm not saying it. I'm not saying you did. I'm just asking you basic the basic epistemology here. If these guys were wrong about their teaching. Hang on. Hang on. Let me ask the question. If these guys were wrong about their teachings about Jesus Christ and laying down the foundations for his church, they got him wrong. Why should we trust their words about Christ at all? Why should we trust anybody's words about Christ at all? Why? Well, we're just going by. We're going by the book we've got, okay? Now, Paul, again, in some letters he's saying that women must be submissive, have never have authority over a man, must be silent in church, and then he's ordaining women as deacons. So which one is it? There are inconsistencies within Paul as well. But the thing is, Paul's movement caught on because the actual apostles were all being murdered by Paul's old buddies back home. So that's one of the main reasons. The other reason is Paul's movement caught on because Paul, unlike the apostles, was a Roman citizen and a Pharisee. So he could travel through the empire and preach his gospel. And once Paul was converted, his experience was, you know, "Look, it's like Judaism, but no circumcision and and and have all the bacon you want." And he led to the church having this incredible rate of conversion.

Sure, I'm not I'm not even disputing Paul. The apostles were all murdered. But I I feel like you're not really answering my question. Peter and James worked with Paul. Do you agree that that's true? Yes, that's. Okay, were Peter and James mistaken about the teachings of Jesus Christ when they were working with Paul? Or wouldn't they have corrected Paul?

>> Is the brother of Christ. What have I said that you specifically dispute? So. So then the question here is, if James and Peter are both confirming what Paul's laying down in Acts, why shouldn't we trust what Paul's laying down? Why? Cuz Paul's a man and he's not Jesus or God. What have I said that you specifically dispute?

>> Well, why shouldn't. Why wouldn't his apostles correct him? About what? What do you. What do you mean?

>> About about his about, for instance, telling women to be silent in church like you see in Timothy. That was an example that you gave. Why didn't they correct him when it came to laying down in Acts that about homosexuality and his marriage clauses, for instance? Why didn't they correct any of that?

>> They were dead, my friend. They got stoned and martyred and Paul went on to set up the church. Help me out here.

>> Paul's version stuck. Help me out here. Should we trust. Should we trust. Should we trust that Peter and James who worked with Paul, right? That they would have corrected Paul, that they would have corrected Paul if Paul was incorrect. You haven't told me what I've said that you specifically dispute. In. Whatever you think you say that Paul corrupted. In your book, Paul corrupted the Bible, right? I think that's the word you chose, but I will say that Paul had a lot of hang-ups that Jesus didn't have.

>> Shall we use your words? The homophobia is antithetical to Jesus' message, and Paul's misogyny is the opposite of Jesus. I think Paul's great. There's a lot we can learn from him, but the whole point of my book is Paul is not Jesus and he's not God. And 300 years after he died, the Council of Nicaea decided his letters about scripture were now scripture, and that's led to 2,000 years of people using Paul talking about God to say that Paul is speaking for God.

>> Paul. So Paul. Hang on. Quote quote Paul is Jesus' conservative PR guy. Paul is quote his PR guy who corrupted the Bible, quote. You. You, sir. You said he corrupted it. What do you mean who said that? You said that. What are you talking about? Then why did you just SAY YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT? I asked you if I used the word corrupted. If I did, I'll eat.

>> Yes, you used it. Page 51. Page 51. Separation of church and state. Yes.

>> Is anti-Jesus. The homophobia is anti-Jesus. Gotcha. So. So Paul. Paul was incorrect. He corrupted the Bible. So the version of the Bible that we should be reading we should believe. No, listen. So why shouldn't Christians leave Paul out of the Bible then? Why? Because we also have to give Paul a break. He was just a guy doing the best he could to set up a church. Paul had no idea when he was writing these letters to the early church to help set up their hierarchy and who's going to do what and how we're going to build a Christian community of people who love each other cuz that's what the religion's about, my friend. Am I right? Paul had no idea.

>> That Christianity's salvation's about love. He had no idea when he was writing these letters that one day his letters would be used by bigots to justify by being mean to trans.

>> You think that that was in the. Wasn't that within the providence of the Holy Spirit? Isn't that how the Bible came together? If you believe in the Bible, don't you have to believe in the providence of the Holy. Hang on. Stop. Stop. Stop. Hang on. Let me ask the question. Let me ask. Let me ask the question, John. Yeah. If it's the case that we can't rely on the fact that it's divine providence and the Holy Spirit which allowed for the Bible to get put together in the first place, why should you trust any of it? Why? I don't even understand that question, man. I mean.

>> Do you believe the Bible's true or not, John? I believe the Bible has a lot of truth, not necessarily a lot of facts. And being a Christian, I follow Christ. I'm not a Paulist.

>> Yeah, but how do you know what Paul what Christ is saying was correct if you can't trust the sources? I'm going by the book we're all using, and I go by the teachings. But you're also disputing the sources of those. You're also disputing the sources of those books and saying that they're unreliable.

>> Isn't Paul. Isn't Jesus. He's not as good a man as Jesus.

>> The Bible? Is the Bible corrupted or not? I think Paul putting his homophobia and misogyny into the movement is the opposite of Christ and that's.

>> So the Bible is corrupted, yes? No, I think Jesus' fan club was corrupted. What are you talking about? The Bible is a collection of books by a lot of different guys.

>> Here is is whack-a-doo. So Paul. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Yeah, help me out. Help me out here. And when the Bible gets put together the Holy. Dude, your whole thing. Your whole thing is hating me, bro. Your whole thing is hating me. Your whole thing is trying. I haven't said anything hateful to you at all. Dude, your whole thing is trying to make me look bad. I'm not interested in the meta debate. I'm interested in the debate. Genesis chapter 1, God creates man and woman in his image side by side at the same time. Genesis chapter 2, God creates man first, can't find a suitable mate, later goes on to take his rib and make Eve. You can't believe the Bible. You can't believe Adam and Steve.

>> It wasn't. Why wasn't it Adam and Steve?

>> You're making it a gay thing and it's not a gay thing. There's two different accounts. So which one is it? I don't really care because I follow the teachings of Jesus, and literal belief in one Genesis chapter or another has no bearing on Christ's directions on how we're supposed to treat each other. So to get this. I don't follow Paul's homophobia. I follow Christ's love.

>> Was correct. Cuz he corrupted. Cuz he corrupted the Bible, right? Paul made women deacons and he had hang-ups. So he corrupted the Bible? There was no such thing as a Bible when Paul wrote his letters, dude. Uh, quote Paul wrote his letters to the one more time, quote from you, John. As did Rome, and Rome did much worse. Listen, I give Paul a lot of credit. Paul did a lot of great things.

>> Paul is Jesus' conservative PR guy who corrupted the Bible, quote. End quote by you. Page 51 of Separation of Church and Hate. So did he corrupt the Bible or did he not corrupt the Bible, John? I'd say he corrupted Christianity. How's that? Okay, good. He. So if he corrupted Christianity, why should we listen anything he has to say? You try to hate, bro. Paul's misogyny is the opposite of Christ's love. Christ elevated women, taught women, which was illegal. He allowed women to touch him, which was illegal. The longest private conversation he has with anyone was with a Samaritan woman at the well he wasn't legally allowed to talk to. There were three women that went everywhere with the apostles, but the men who wrote it said, "Oh, it was 12 apostles, three groupies." The women are the first ones Jesus appears to.

>> So they all got that wrong, too. So. Hang on. They were all. So they were misogynists, too. Let me finish, bro. You just can't let me finish. Weren't. Weren't they misogynists, too? The women are the only. The whole culture was misogynist, and Jesus. Why are we taking the word of a bunch of misogynists then? B- I follow Jesus. He was the reformer.

>> But the people who are telling you what Jesus said were misogynists, John.

>> Is your point that Paul should carry as much weight as Jesus? Cuz if it's not, I don't know what you're talking about.

>> You. You're making the claim right now that women.

>> I follow Christ. Okay, yeah, yeah. So. Let me ask a question. The apostles, the initial apostles who were with Jesus Christ, you you say the reason that the the women weren't counted as apostles is because of the sexism of the people who who went ahead and wrote the books. Yes, I know a thing or two about the Holy. So. So I just want to make sure. So I just want to make sure that we're supposed to take the words of Jesus Christ from you from the corrupted source of a bunch of misogynists. Is that right? And Mary Magdalene was never a prostitute, either. That. That Pope Gregory who made that up. Yes.

>> I totally with you that he that she wasn't a prostitute. Men have corrupted Christ's ministry for 2,000 years.

>> The very apostles who were writing about it? So so if I could just offer something.

>> Does not justify.

>> Paul. We're talking about Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They they didn't count anybody any women as being apostles. Only John counts them as being apostles.

>> Jesus was such a radical revolutionary reformer because he treated women as equals and he talked to the people he wasn't allowed to talk to. Why didn't he make any of them apostles then, John? Whoever the culture told him he was allowed to despise is who he reached out to.

>> Then why weren't any of them apostles, John? I believe they were apostles and I think the men who wrote the book decided they were apostles.

>> So they are corrupt, too. They they were corrupt misogynists who can't be trusted, John. Dude, what's your hang-up? Jesus treated women as equals. Paul did. They're corrupt. They're corrupt misogynists. You can't be. Their words can't be trusted. With respect, Andrew, with respect, who's right?

>> To offer a translation error just to ensure we're on the same page. I believe what Andrew's saying, correct me if I'm wrong, is you follow John, you follow Jesus Christ, but but the the authors of what Jesus Christ is teaching are the very people that you're saying corrupted or did all of these. Yeah, John said here's the contradiction. I'll I'll put it simply. Here's the contradiction for me, John.

>> You attacking me. This is your whole.

>> Attacking. I'm not attacking you at all. I haven't attacked you at all. I haven't attacked you once. I I've not attacked you a single time. Let's get back to the. What are you talking about?

>> Reel on that one, Andrew. Go ahead.

>> Yeah, pull pull the pull the highlight reel. I know. Let me repeat what I said. I want to know. Christ treated women as equals. Paul said women must be subservient and submissive and beneath men. Who's right? No, I don't think so. So why didn't Christ make any women apostles? You say that because the apostles are lying. You say the apostles are lying. Okay, name one. The women were the first. The women were the first ones. Mary and Martha, the sister.

>> And show me show me anywhere in the Bible where they're where they're apostles. The women were the only ones who didn't abandon Jesus when his friends ran. The women were the first ones he returned to. Christ taught. The the whole scene where Martha's mad that Jesus is. Can you show me a single Bible passage? Teach a woman. My point is Jesus treated women as equals. Christ. Okay. Okay. Christ treated women as equals. Paul said women must be subservient to men. Who do you follow? I follow Christ. So, John, right? Can you show me any biblical passage that names them apostles of Jesus? No, the men who wrote the Bible don't name them as apostles. Because you made it up, John. You made it up because it suits. Yeah, you made it up, John. But who's to say because there's. Who's to say it's not all made up, too?

>> Then why should we trust any of the source, John? Because I'm going by the book and the women that went. You're not going by the book. You you you keep on adding to the book. Women actually financed Jesus's ministry. Magdalene was one of the ancestors in his movement. Show me an apostle biblically from that's a woman. Go ahead. I don't care, man. Yeah, you don't. I know you don't. But listen to. Okay, so Andrew, please tell me what you believe. Hold on. Hold on. Let's reset. Get to a question. Treated women as equals. Paul said women are below men. They were such equals that there wasn't a single apostle that you can point to biblically. Who Christ treated women as equals. He broke the laws of his faith to let women touch him. He taught women to speak in church. Women were the first ones he returned to after his death. Paul says women must be subservient. Who do you follow? Is Paul right that women should not ever hold authority over a man because Paul also Paul also makes women deacons. So Paul contradicts himself. Yeah, so anyway, when you say this, you claim that there's some sort of equality going on between the sexes according to Jesus and yet you don't have a single biblical passage which points to any of them being. Hang on. My turn, John. My turn, John. You can't point to a single biblical passage by your own admission of a single woman being an apostle Jesus Christ named. Your entire excuse for this is because the original writers of this were such misogynists that they just conveniently left that out. Isn't. Hang on. Hang on, John. My turn. And isn't it convenient, John, that they happen to leave this out so that you can have your presentism worldview that Jesus was a big old family. He was a big old feminist. Even though you can't actually show me a single. Hang on, John. Calm down, John. You can't show me a single female apostle and you just made up that they are apostles. You just made it up and then you claim that we can still trust those same sources about what Jesus said, John. Does God love men and women equally, Andrew? Yes, so ontologically men and women are equal, but we have hierarchies established by God. No, he's not. That's not what feminism is. Feminism. That's not what feminism is, John. Feminism means equal access and equal rights.

>> No, it doesn't. I'll tell you exactly what it means. Feminism means egalitarianism and the deconstruction. Let's go where where we're starting to get our words crossed over here. There's a lot going on. So what happens when you guys interrupt each other, we actually can't hear anything either.

>> Then just time it. Time the debate. Make it 1 minute back and forth. I can go back into timers if I need to, but let's listen. Let's try to be mindful when the other person's talking.

>> Is John's a filibuster machine, so just put 1 minute on the clock. That's. Yeah, it is, John. You're a filibuster machine. Andrew, may I ask you, do you believe that women should be in subservience to men as Paul says? Does. Are Are men better? Yes. Are men better? No, not ontologically better. Why should men. Why. Why should women live in.

>> You see how you won't even let me answer the question you asked me, John. You see why we need a timer? You won't even let me answer the very question you're asking me. Why should men.

>> Down. Calm down. If you calm down for 2 seconds, I'll explain. Okay, so so the way that it works is I don't know why God does this. You don't know why God does this, but he sets up hierarchies. God works within hierarchies and we. That's what we have is hierarchies. Yes, that is indeed the case, John. And so the thing that's really interesting here is when we're talking about the ontology of men and women. Do I think that they're equal morally? I do. But do I think that inside of hierarchies they have very different roles than men? Yes. What's my proof for that? Well, they can reproduce, John, and men can't. And so that's why within within. You know what I mean? You're a filibuster machine. You don't want to hear the answer, John, cuz it blows out your worldview. Feminism is actually not just about egalitarianism. It's about the egalitarianism and the deconstruction of patriarchal systems. Otherwise, how could they be oppressed if there's no oppressor? The oppressor's the evil men, John. They're the oppressor. They're the evil ones. The evil patriarchy has to be the oppressor, otherwise what would you need feminism to equalize you against? It's going to be against the evil patriarchy, John. Can I speak? You're using the Bible to claim that women are inferior and then you're making fun of people.

>> Claim. Tell me how I said women were inferior, John.

>> Okay, why should. Why is there a hierarchy? Where does God say women must be submissive to men?

>> Because John. Yeah, we. It's. It's. It's lit. It's literally said in the New Testament. You've been quoting Paul yourself. What do you mean?

>> Where does God say it? Not Paul. Where does God say.

>> Oh, woah. We We can go through the Old Testament as well if you want to see what women's roles were. Yeah, so here's Here's the thing that's really funny. What What do you think that Christ needed to say when he's talking about the equal ontological value of men and women? I agree with that statement. But the hierarchical structure of how. Because human societies, John, still work better when men are in leadership roles and dominant roles and physical roles and women work best when they're not in those roles. And that's why you establish these hierarchies in society and move society towards those hierarchical roles, John. So submission. That's not. It's not submission. The word is submission. It's cooperation, John. So do you agree with Saint Paul that women should not hold any authority over a man? I think women. I think wives should submit to their husbands, yes. I agree. But it also states. But it also states, John, you conveniently leave this out that husbands are supposed to submit to their wives. Doesn't it say that, John? But it also says that women should be in submission to man, that a woman should. Yeah, what's. This is what's interesting. In church, yes. In church. Do you agree with that, Andrew? Yeah, in church, yes. Yes, in church. You know what's really funny is that Paul seemed to be following Jesus Christ just fine. Jesus Christ did not give any women the authority to be apostles. The only way that you could prove that, John, is to just make it up. So Paul makes Phoebe a deacon, but says women can't have authority over men.

>> A deacon? What. And what's a deacon, John? A deacon is a leadership role in the church. What what specifically was this deacon supposed to. A leadership role in the church. What was this deacon supposed to do, Phoebe? I Paul doesn't say what Phoebe does. What I'm saying to you is. No, I'm going to tell you. Now I'm going to tell you, John. In In one line Paul is misogynist and in other passages Paul is a. I'm not going to fight you, bro. I don't hate you. In other passages Paul is uplifting women. In other passages Paul is celebrating women. He talks about how certain women saved his life, how certain women funded his church. Just like certain women helped fund Jesus's church. What I'm saying is why do we believe the parts where Paul says women are should be submissive to men, but then don't take the parts where he ordains women to be in authority over men? I'll explain. I'll explain. Jesus does none of this. He doesn't. And Jesus breaks the laws of Judaism to treat women as equals. Yeah, so I'll explain this to you. So early deaconship, right? If you go back through Orthodox church history and Catholic church history, uh, nudity was a was a way that that people used to be baptized and early female deacons were there so that the men didn't have to be exposed to the female nudity when they were doing baptism. They did not have positions of authority over confessionals or over men in the traditional sense of clergy, John. You're wrong, John. So, women have to be.

>> Didn't. How come you didn't. John John, how come you didn't do that, John? My mother was a Catholic nun. Well, she didn't teach you very well, John. No, she actually did because you're following Paul instead of Christ. I'm following both.

>> Saying that women should be submissive to men. I follow Christ who does not say that. Christ broke the laws of his own Jewish faith to teach women and hold them as equals. He allowed women to touch him. He allowed women who were not Jewish to talk to him. But that's not what's in contention here.

>> You just want to fight me, man. But what I'm saying is I don't follow.

>> Your worldview, John, not you.

>> Paul's hang-ups got poured into his letters and I give Paul a lot of slack. He had no way of no way when he was setting up the early church that his hang-ups about dudes hooking up with dudes would one day be used to justify so much cruelty that is forbidden by the love of Christ. And again, homophobia is an insult to the Sermon on the Mount and anyone who claims to follow Leviticus is lying to you. It's just a book that people pick and choose to justify their cruelty. So again, man, I go with the love of.

>> This is just rambling. It's not contending with what I'm saying. You're not contending with all the stuff I'm saying. Yeah, okay, we'll bring it back to Christian Nat. Do. You'll see it in National Review.

>> It back to Christian Nationalism. Hang on. Groups are better than others. Well, let me tie this off with this. Of Christ ministry where some groups are elevated and it's not about humility. It's always about power and it's always about we are the ones who should be in control.

>> Gue- guess what, John?

>> Of Christ's message. Yeah, here's here's a really funny thing here, John. Besides the fact that you have an incoherent epistemology which I just pointed out and it makes no sense at all. Well, let me point out. Well, let me just. Well, let me just point this out that what you just said is true of every political ideology which has ever existed ever. What exactly? That the what happens with political power is that it gets consolidated in the hands of often bad people at some point in which cripples the whatever that political power is. That every form of it which has ever existed, John, including whatever secular ethics you propose.

>> Nationalism doesn't work. Hitler proved Christian Nat. Then no ideology works, John. Always winds up. But no, I'm sorry. Whenever you fuse Chris- Christ movement with power, it always leads.

>> Whenever you infuse any ideology with power, it does not change. Whenever you merge. When you merge Christ movement of humility with authoritarian power, it always leads to someone telling you why this group is above this group. Can you tell me any authoritarian power that that's not true of? Any authoritarian power?

>> Power sucks, man. I think authoritarian power is a racket hoodwink. So no law, John? No law, no government, no none of that? Communist utopia? Trust me. No, I'm not a communist. You really need to make me a bad guy all the time, bro. I'm not even trying to make you. I'm just saying that you don't know what you're talking about. This is why we need 1 minute. Just just do 1 minute. Otherwise, they'll filibuster to death. I think uh let me to clarify. When when Andrew is attacking, it's it's the argument. It's not you personally. Uh, so let's kind of keep that clear uh in terms of he's not attacking you. He's just attacking your arguments and what you're saying. Oh, okay. Thank you. People can't. People People often can't tell the difference, John, because their ideology is so scuffed. They don't. They don't know the difference. Bro, I wish you love. You're never going to get me to hate you back, bro. Keep trying. Well, I don't know you. One One day. One day you'll demonstrate I hate you. But anyway, back to the ideology. Back to the. Back to the debate. John, if you can't name a single ideology that it's not true of, that it doesn't consolidate in the hands of a few after X amount of generations of running because it's how nepotism works socially, intersocially, there's not a single ideology that you can say has won or has not failed. So, what is the counter ideology that you propose that you think isn't going to fail when Christian Nationalism will, John? What?

Is it? Personally, I'm a I'm a big fan of living in a free democracy where we vote based on the teachings of Christ. I'm glad you asked that question because I find that if you actually prioritize the things Christ told us to prioritize, if we as a society stop giving massive tax benefits to the wealthiest Nazarenes, if we stop getting tangled in the hatred and and deals that only enrich the obscenely rich already, but we focus on the margins as Christ commands, if we as a nation voted the teachings of Jesus in the ballot box, we would help the poor. We would fight poverty and poverty hurts all of us including rich people. And if everyone's doing better, everyone's doing better. We would fight for a living wage. We would fight for health care for all Americans because that is the gospel. Jesus commanded his followers to heal the sick. That's why so many churches built hospitals because that was Jesus's marching order. I mean, when you look at the fact that Can we just get back to the democracy part first? Yeah, I'm telling you. I would vote the teachings of Christ to take care of the least of us because that is also sound economic policy.

>> Do you agree with me? Okay. >> Billionaires will still be fine, but imagine if we voted based on what Christ told us to do and not the stuff we think he told us to do. Well, G John, Paul talked about or the Old Testament. Voting on Christ values giving to the So, John John John, just back to your Just back to your system of democracy, a voting democracy for for Christ values. I am assuming that non-Christian secularists and people who hate Christ can vote inside of this democracy you proposed, right, John? Oh, some of the best Christ followers I've known are are atheists and some of the most godless heathens are very loud, proud Christians. So, can you answer my question? Are all of those people going to be able to vote in your So So, John, how is this not just the status quo then, John? The thing about Jesus's teachings How's that not the status quo, John? Um because we're not doing it. We're not doing what? Everybody goes in and votes through their whatever they want to vote for. Well, I'm say- What Yes, my my utopia, if you will, is not a nation where we violate the teachings of Christ and violate the Constitution to have one class of people that announces we're better than everyone because God thinks we are. The spiritual narcissism is just It's going to kill you, man. For me, I believe in a society where if we really did follow the teachings of Christ who never had representative democracy. Jesus lived and died under European military >> not telling me how this is different than the status quo, John. It's just more rambling, John. Because voting to help the poor and end poverty, voting to help the sick. Can people do that right now, John? Can they do it right this second? Okay, so then it's the status quo, John. You're only proposing the same Your proposition for a system You know, your proposition for the system's the same exact system we have right now. Same one. No, actually it's not. No, my proposition >> single distinction then. Give me a single distinction. Progressive taxation like Adam Smith and Eisenhower taught us. Progressive taxation. So, power. You want power, John. Billionaires are laughing at hard-working white men. Billionaires are laughing at you and using Hunter Biden and brown immigrants to get you guys to vote against your own poor interest. This is how trickle-down economics has always run a con on working people and it's more hard-working guys who are being suckered by the plantation owners to go fight for confederacy that does not serve them. It only serves the rich. So, John, what you want is you want power so that you can stop all that, right? You got to make me a bad guy. That's the only thing you want. This whole conversation is about >> John? Isn't your system just a proposition for power to stop the bad people from doing the bad stuff? No, I want us to take care of each other. I want us to take >> the bad, evil, rich billionaires who are trying to import tons and tons of brown people or hurt uh the working class or convince the working class convince the working class that they're being hurt by them. You are proposing You're proposing a voting system in place in place with a voting block so that you can form a voting block for the purposes of political power to make changes, aren't you, John? Isn't that what you're actually proposing right now? Dude, you would like me so much. We would get along so well and >> Can you just answer the question, bro? >> Like I I'm like I'd be like so friendly to you, bro, and you'd be like so friendly to me. >> question, John. hate because I know that hate is important. That hate is so important Yeah, so anyway, the question, John. society. I think a Christian society is what Christ said it was. That if you pretend to be Christian >> Oh, yeah, where did Christ advocate for democracy, John? Hold on. Let him answer. He didn't have it. Exactly. When you look at the judgment Making it up. Judg- No, Matthew 25, the judgment of nations is Jesus giving his policy prescription to society. And he is telling you that his fake followers are the ones who claim they follow him, but they don't as societies take care of the poor, take care of the sick, welcome the stranger, and are kind to those in prison. Jesus is literally telling you what you need to do to earn the label of Christian nation. And his entire movement is about humility. But thinking you're better than someone else or that you deserve power cuz God likes you better, that's idolatry. Then John, all you're doing here is re- re- All you're doing here is refuting your own argument because what you're proposing right this second is your proposition is to create and advocate for a voting block which will then get into power so that they can implement your agenda. And you just laid out what your agenda is. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on, John. That's what you want to implement is your agenda via you- the utilization of a voting block. So, in my opening, remember when I said for John, this is actually about power. What you just admitted to, John, is that it is. It's just about a you wanting a power block to enforce your will and you don't want Christians to do the same thing back. >> No, it's really about you needing to do this whole stick of yours. Can you please tell me what teaching of Christ does the MAGA movement fight for? >> to do this again? Is this Is this debate about the MAGA movement? Yeah, but >> What teaching of Christ What teaching of Christ does right-wing Christianity fight for legislatively in government, please? Oh, yeah. Well, I mean, that's a that's a really good one. So, I think that the best way to uplift the impoverished of the nation is most certainly not to have mass migration from countries that hate Christians, John. Uh especially if they're going to bankrupt our social Hang on. And especially if they're going to I I just told you. If you want to uplift the poor, if you want to really take care of poor people, you don't do that by giving them money. That's not how you take care of the poor. You take care of the poor by uplifting them so that they can take care of themselves. >> Direct action. The Bible's not about thoughts and prayers. Read James, the brother >> I'll tell you about direct action. What What problem What I'm talking about direct action. Not passively hoping someone else will come along and help them. You know, you got to at least let me Can I get the Can I get the proposition out first before you criticize it? The truth is is that the very same the very same uh thing you're talking about with nationalized health care and things like this, the countries that you would point to who have the nationalized health care don't have mass migration, John. Because it it completely crushes your social health care system. All of the Nordic states you'd point to to utilize their model, they don't have mass migration there, John. They don't have it. >> It's about the brown It's not It's not there. No, no, no, no. No, no, no. It wouldn't matter. It wouldn't matter what color they were, John. What matters is that if You see how you won't let me even get it out, John? But at least at least let me get it out so that you can then critique it. So, anyway, Can you explain Can you explain Yeah, so they don't have mass migration for a reason. The mass Because if you mass migrate in people and then they're getting free medical service from me, somebody has to pay for it, John. It's either going to be the state It's either going to be the state or the private sector. So, the thing is is we already have John, I didn't say it was wrong wrong. I'm saying you're wrong in his in the implementation of the policies that you'd want to see from Christian ethics. The best thing for Christian ethics would be for you to uplift the current poor we have instead of creating new amounts of poor so everybody has a lot less instead of some people having more than others, John. What is the right-wing doing to help the current poor we have? Oh my god, let's start with the veterans programs. Let's just start with the veterans programs. Everyone, I'm I'm going to go ahead and and set a timer because you're we're getting a little out of hand and it's just becoming chaotic. Um so, I'm just going to do a 1-minute timer. I believe we left off and John was answering the question. I'm going to go ahead and start the timer. It should automatically restart after every minute goes off. Please be mindful of it. Follow through on it. Uh if not, I just I can just mute you. Um all right. Go ahead, John. So, I'm so sorry. I don't want to talk over anyone. When my clock is ticking, then I can talk. I'm just trying to get it right. My first time here. Thank you. What am I responding to? I mean, I asked you what teachings of Christ the MAGA movement or Trumpism fights for on a legislative basis. Right now, this budget calls for kicking 20 million low-income and disabled people off of Medicaid. When Jesus commands you to welcome the stranger, it sure doesn't sound fun to me. Sounds scary. Sounds very unpleasant. When he commands us to go to the margins and take care of the least of those, it sounds horrifying. Why is Trump right and Jesus is wrong? That's the only question. Thank you. That's it. I don't need more time. Yeah, so this So, the problem is is that That's 10 minutes, by the way, but the problem with this is that this is a This is a bifurcation. Neither option here that you have proposed is actually true. You ask, "How is Trump right and Jesus is wrong?" As though they're in contention with each other. They're not in contention with each other. You're saying that Medicaid is a social safety net, which is there. There's going to be possibly some people who get kicked off of it due to the new budget system. We have no idea if that's even the case. There's not a single person's been kicked off of Medicaid right now under Trump. Not one person, John, has been kicked off of Medicaid But John, I'm taking your my time, John. See how I Why I told you you're a filibuster machine? You can't help it. So, anyway, the point here is is that also all you got to do is look at the parable of the talents. Those who would return in spiritual wealth, right? What their master gives them. In this case, Trump made an office a spiritual office. Trump went on and he's declared that there's only two genders which are allowed. No more of this heinous mutilation of children, which has been going on in the trans from the trans ideological perspective. I could go on and on and on when we go on the bounties. There's no Democrat operatives you can point to who have any of the fruits of the spirit that you would be looking for. Not one, John. Name one. Go ahead, John. Thank you. I'm not a I'm not a Democrat. I've never belonged to a political party. Um I've never once belonged to a political party. Again, I ask you to give me one teaching of Christ and and again, how how how are you all helping the poor? Again, it's not a few. It's 20 million. This is why our government is shut down. I have never been a Democrat. I think they walk around in clown shoes and they are very far from the teachings of Christ. But on the issues of caring for the poor, welcoming the stranger, health care, opposing racism, treating women with respect, they are light years closer to the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels than the policies of Donald Trump, which continues to be the brazen junk-wagging opposite of everything Jesus commands of us. Um I don't really see how you can why those of us who've read the Gospels should believe that people who endorse Donald Trump respect the teachings of Christ. You are part of a movement that's trying to make the poor more poor and the rich more rich and that part has been done. It's ironic that you say that when considering Bernie Sanders said that it's a Coke mass migration is a Coke brother conspiracy because it broke the back of the very labor unions you want to see inside the United States, John. Broke the back of them. Used to be that Democrats were the ones who were anti-immigration because of that particular problem until they realized that they would get a voting block out of it. The next thing to point out here is you didn't actually give me any parables at all that any politicians or or a single teaching of Jesus Christ any politician that you would support follows. You claim that you read the Gospels, but you reject You reject so much of the very Gospels that you read. You claim that there's women who are apostles. You can't point to that. You claim that Paul was in direct contradiction to Christ's message. You can't prove that either. He All that you've done is make assertion after assertion. Your epistemology was completely devastated because it's incoherent. It makes no sense. You can't explain it. On top of that, when we get into the actual policy prescriptions, the best way to uplift people, John, is not to give them money. It's to create the conditionals where they can make the money for themselves. That is the best way to alleviate policy poverty. Not giving them free handouts. Your turn, John. Right. Um okay, we give billionaires handouts. We give oil companies $600 million a year just for being you. This is all a racket and this is how conservative men and women are brainwashed to be furious when we do direct action to help the poor and then turn a blind eye when we just shovel money to billionaires uh who already are doing just fine. Uh so, the immigration scam, the way you know that it's a scam and they're lying to you is that if they actually wanted border crossings to stop, they would start locking up the white people who do all the hiring. There is a giant help wanted sign at our border. Our economy is propped up by an exploited brown-skinned labor force and Wall Street doesn't want to see this labor force go away. Donald Trump is the only president to have hired undocumented workers in two different centuries. He did it to avoid having to pay a living wage to an American worker. It is a racist scam. If they wanted the border crossings to stop, they'd lock up the employers. The Republicans protect them. That's how you know. Yeah, it's really funny. Uh Democrats weren't locking up any employers at all, John, and in Kamala Harris wouldn't have either. Remember that woman that you campaigned for that you say even though you say you're not a Democrat, but you went and you actually went to a fundraiser and raised money on her behalf and called yourself a liberal Catholic. Would you like for me to pull that up again? So, the thing is really funny. The thing is Yeah, exactly. Don't tell me you're not a Democrat operative. You were operating on behalf of Democrats. On top of that, let's just point out very quickly. If you want to talk about millionaires and billionaires who are scamming us, right? And you bring up Trump because you have TDS even though this debate's not about Trump. The Christian right is simply saying that we can alleviate poverty the best possible way by creating the conditionals for people to take themselves out of it. Millionaires and billionaires are the ones scamming you on immigration. They're the ones who want all the cheap labor, John. They want the cheap labor as much cheap labor as they can possibly get. Why wouldn't they? Why would millionaires and billionaires be against unfettered illegal immigration when they're the ones who are the primary benefactors of it? We're the ones speaking truth to power, not you. John Teal. Well, Ronald Reagan, of course, is the one who wanted open borders and who gave amnesty. Um there are no Democrats who are fighting for that right now. And again, this all comes down to the fact that people don't want to welcome the stranger. They don't want to do what Jesus commands of us. They want to go around Jesus either back to the Old Testament or forward to Paul because Jesus is too inconveniently woke for a lot of people and and I get it. I I I understand how threatening that can be. Um but again, I I talked about immigration and and you didn't answer any of the points. Donald Trump has hired undocumented workers in two different centuries. Undocumented workers built Trump Tower here in New York City because he didn't want to pay American workers a living wage. It is all about exploitation. And again, if they really cared about the border crossings, if you start locking up these white people who hire lawn to work, you'll always see they arrested 400 illegals in the meat packing plant, but they never arrest the guys counting the money in the back. That's the fraud and Trump is protecting agricultural workers who are undocumented right now with the carve out. Wow, this is great. John says, "All these elite these billionaires and millionaires just want to get you to hate all the brown people." At the same time he points out a billionaire utilizing illegal immigrants for the purposes of exploiting their labor, which is really interesting that the Christian right who wants the billionaires and millionaires to not exploit the labor of illegal immigrants by locking our border down like we should, which would also stop drug trafficking, human trafficking. Most amount of human trafficking, by the way, John, especially if kids comes from across that southern border. No, we're supposed to welcome in the stranger with the fentanyl, right, John? We're supposed to welcome in the stranger uh with who's doing the human who's doing the human trafficking? We're supposed to just welcome them in or are we supposed to have laws within the confines of Christian ethics? We know that that's immoral and wrong and if we could do things to prevent it like lock down our southern border where you have a government who's giving incentives to their own people to do that by working with the cartels? Aren't we not do that, John? John says, "Well, no. No, we shouldn't we should just welcome them with open arms." It's insane and contradictory. Dude. I don't I don't say we should welcome them with open arms. I've never said that. Jesus says that. I've never said it. Jesus says that. Actually, I'm so sorry. Jesus commands that. >> wanted us to welcome them? And Jesus is not ambiguous. God of the Old Testament commands to welcome the stranger and to treat the alien as one of your own and to never mistreat the alien. Those folks are in this country because people like Donald Trump offer them jobs. The Republican Party needs you to not see them as human. So, they will call them illegals, which is a racist slur. You'll never hear anyone on Fox News refer to a white lawbreaker as an illegal. I Donald Trump has all these felony convictions. They won't call him an illegal. That word is specifically used as a slur for brown people who are more accurately called Christian refugees. I didn't say welcome them with open arms. Jesus did. I don't pretend to be as good as Jesus. I just object to criminalizing migrants by calling them mean slurs. You see You see how silly and contradictory this is? You didn't refute a single point that I put out there. I refuted each one of yours and I'll refute all these, too. The reason that they're called illegals and not white people who are here is because the white people who are here usually aren't illegals, John. It It's not They only call brown people illegals. Hold on. Because it's only the brown people who are here illegally for the most part, John. There's very few white people here in the United States who are here illegally, John. It's not even in the same universe. Most And here's why. It's really simple why, too, John. Really simple why. Because we border uh we have a border direct southern border with Mexico. We don't have a direct border with Europe, so they can't really cross in here very much. Almost everybody crosses in here comes in from Hispanic nations. And most of them who crossed in illegally crossed in from those nations. That's why they're called illegals. Not because people are trying to be meansy pants to them, but because they're trying to say that we don't want illegal immigrants in our nation because of all the problems that I just listed. Them working with cartels for human trafficking, drug violations, things which you say Jesus would support. He would support you welcoming those people with open arms. It's foolish, John. Makes no sense. John, to you. Um that's a lie. I wouldn't say that and Jesus wouldn't support that. The majority of fentanyl comes in through the ports. It is not carried in by people who are crossing the border. I'd like to think that if I were trying to escape the violence of our drug war, I would love my kid enough to take the risk and do the journey. Um but again, they only call the brown ones illegals. The majority of undocumented immigrants, and please folks, please don't believe me. Look all this up. Uh the majority of undocumented immigrants in this country are people who overstay their visas. Not people who cross the border. Uh there are over 20,000 undocumented Irish in this country. Do you hear anything about them? Anything about the undocumented Russians? There's thousands and thousands. No, it's it's it's only one kind. I don't see a lot of undocumented Asian people being hassled, either. Again, Donald Trump hired them in two different centuries. They need you to not see these people as people. Jesus commands you to welcome them and God commands you to never mistreat them. Well, John just lied to you multiple times. First and foremost, when it comes to fentanyl, quote, "Most fentanyl was smuggled into the United States via the southern border according to federal law enforcement government reports as of 2022, 2023, 2024." Now, I'm guessing that we don't >> I'm guessing that we don't John, please hold. The southern border, John. The southern border. You were trying to make it sound like that wasn't the case. Otherwise, what were you arguing against? What would you even have been arguing against? When I say it comes in through the southern border, you say, "Nah, it comes in through the port." You're Why would you even make the argument if you were agreeing with me that that's where it comes in? Makes no sense. Caught in a lie right there. No, it's not a lie. Let's point out Let us Let us point out that the majority of the illegal immigrants You when you're talking about the overstaying of visas versus people who are crossing in illegally, you're talking about two different scenarios. Again, we're the assignment of illegal immigrant you're talking to about Hispanics crossing illegally, they're not overstaying their visas, John. That's why we call them something different. Go ahead, John. You You so need them to be subhuman. It's like you need them to be this vulgar noun illegal, so we don't see them as human. And this is what Christian nationalism does. You'll have the leaders who will tell you that there's this tiny little powerless group has no power over your society, but they're an existential threat to our entire way of life and only I can keep you safe. Over 90% of fentanyl seized by US Customs and Border is intercepted at legal crossings or at interior vehicle checkpoints. This includes land border crossings. Drug trafficking organizations primarily hide fentanyl inside passenger vehicles where they co-mingle it in legitimate cargo on tractor trailers. Federal data shows US citizens are the primary couriers for smuggling fentanyl. From 2018 to 2024, US citizens accounted for 80% of convicted fentanyl traffickers in Southwest border districts. Again, it's so important you can't follow Jesus, so you got to make him evil. You just have to do it because Jesus is too hard. >> Yeah, nobody made made him evil. What's hilarious about this is sure there US citizens who have tons of Hispanic family members in Mexico who are often threatened by cartels. He leaves that part out, isn't that funny? Check out what the racial demographics are of those smugglers, John, and then get back to me. You said they were illegals The reason is The reason The reason is I'm going to pause you I'm going to just pause your time. I apologize. If you can't stop talking while the timer's going and it's the other person's turn, please mute yourself to add a little added peace and control, okay? All right, Andrew, I hand it back to Yes. So, anyway, what my point was is that the government of Mexico utilizes its own state apparatuses in order to work with cartels to push drugs across the border. Whether or not they're being pushed by people who are US citizens who happen to have family members in Mexico being threatened by said cartels has nothing to do with anything. Uh when I'm talking about illegal trafficking, it is also illegals doing this and it's also illegals who are doing human trafficking back and forth and gun running. So, the thing is is like we still have to have a border policy, John. We can't have open borders. I don't know why you think Jesus would want us to contribute to drug trafficking, contribute to human trafficking, things like this without having staunch borders. That's insane, it makes no sense, and it's never made sense, John. Go ahead, John. Release the Epstein files, right? We agree? We agree? >> Yeah. Yeah. Release the Epstein files. All the names, right? We agree? Yeah. All of them. It's kind of weird that Donald Trump is blocking it so hard and playing dumb about it after promising for years to release it. Cuz I'm with you on sex trafficking. That's quite the pivot, John. No, I'm picking up on your exact words. Only 8% of fentanyl seizures occur between ports of entry, typically involving border patrol stops or abandoned drugs. Eight 8% occurs for border crossings. The rest occur through ports, okay? So, that's that's what the fact was. And you know, again, I mean, I get that you really hate these people. Uh but these people are living here. They're paying taxes. Most of them are nonviolent and our economy would collapse without them. And Donald Trump's hired them in two different centuries. Y'all are still being played for suckers. They will never go after the employers. They won't. Yeah, got it. So, uh second class tiered citizen slaves. Got it. Uh that's what That's what That's what John's advocating for. After all, they're here propping up our economy. How are they propping up our economy? Because we don't have to pay any of the social taxes, right? They don't have to pay social security tax, the employer doesn't have to pay social security tax. They don't have to pay into the medical system, they don't have to do any of that. And so, what ends up happening is that's what creates the incentive for these employers to hire them in the first place. Yes, I agree. You should go after employers, but there's laws on the books to go after the employers. Biden didn't go after any of them and Biden proposed amnesty, by the way. And Kamala Harris Yes, he did. And Kamala Harris after him would also have proposed amnesty. She talked about it very openly, the very woman you campaigned for. So, all you're doing is bullshitting us, John. And you keep on saying that it's because I hate these people. Quote, "Andrew hates these people." Based on what? Me wanting to have staunch border policies for my fellow countrymen? That means that I hate somebody else? Based on what, John? Prove I hate anybody. Prove it. I don't care, man. Anyone standing on US soil is legally allowed to claim asylum here. And a lot of these people are fleeing from our drug war. You know, I I've done shows for the troops in Central America. We have troops in Central America cuz our drug war is still happening. And these people come here either because they're fleeing violence or they come here to work for white people. Those are the two categories. This is a tiny, powerless minority that holds no power over the rest of us. But this is what authoritarians have to do, right? 20 years ago it was Muslims. Now it's immigrants and it's trans kids. I do not support this exploitation. I think they should be paid a living wage. Ronald Reagan supported an open border. That was his word. He gave amnesty, his word. He supported open border because he said that they can come here and work and then go home when they're done. Undocumented workers pay state, local, and income tax. They pay billions, 4.5 billion a year in taxes. And they are not gang members, they are your nannies. They are often nice people. 4.5 billion dollars a year is a rounding error when it comes to our military budget, John. Give me a break. And by the way, the thing is funny is they avoid the ones that matter the most, which is the social security nets you want so bad for people. They're not paying those, John. That's what's so funny. They're getting around those. And this is why employers want them, they don't want to match the social security. They don't want to match any of these things that they normally would have to match. That's why they hire them under the table as illegals, John. Right? They even have these seasonal scams all set up. And the thing is it's like, yeah, we do need to shut that down. But the second we get anybody who's staunch on the border, you start making up lies about how South America suddenly war-torn and these people need amnesty. They need amnesty from war-torn South America where there's no wars going on. Right? So what are you talking What are they fleeing from exactly here, John? They're not fleeing from war-torn nations. You can't say they're economic migrants cuz you can't apply for amnesty cuz you're really poor. That's not how the law works. So what are they fleeing from here exactly? What, John? Gang violence, many of them. And many of them are coming here to work for white people. Those are the two categories. >> Gang violence? That's Yes, gang violence. >> people are just going to apply for amnesty because of gang violence, John. It is his time. Okay. Listen, they all have their different reasons. Most of them come here to work for white people, right? I mean, that's Those are the two main reasons. And if you're standing on American soil, you're allowed to claim asylum. Jesus taught a global version of God's love. It was not tribal. His message was not about one nation better. And God of the Bible does not seem to really give a damn about the invisible lines in the ground we create to separate our tribes. Do I think we should have restrictions on who comes in the country? Of course I do. I object to the criminalization of migrants. This need to have a a villainous underclass that again, oh my god, when I was a kid it was the feminists and then it was the gays who want to get married and then it was the Muslims. There's always got to be a minority that somehow you're convinced you're allowed to hate. Jesus had one of those, it was the Samaritans and he consistently makes the Samaritans the good guys in his stories to go beyond who your tribe says is good and bad. The God of the Bible did care an awful lot about borders and created promised lands. In fact, that's how much he cared about borders. I don't know what you're talking about there, John. Again, makes no sense during here in epistemology. On top of all of that, let's just point out that if it was truly the case that you cared about the poor and you wanted to uplift them from the curse of poverty, then what you would do is set up the conditionals in the nation to actually do that. And one of the ways you don't do that is by bankrupting our own medical system by flooding it with people who aren't supposed to be here in the first place. >> Round and round we go. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Same old place. Same old song and dance. Go ahead, John. I didn't call you Nazis. That particular regime did promote a very evil form of Christian nationalism called positive Christianity. And they tried to merge Christian symbols with their nationalist ideology. They rejected the Jewish parts of the Bible. They said Jesus was white. And they weren't really big on love your neighbor. They rejected that and they made it about purify the nation. And it deified the state. Because that's what Christian nationalism does. It's idolatry. It puts the state above Jesus's commands to love each other. And of course that then says, well, some people God likes better and some people God doesn't like, which always leads to hatred, always leads to violence. And that's how the cross turned into a swastika in that corner of the world. This is always the problem. Every time Christianity aligns itself with empire, you get the opposite of Christ's commandments. The Crusader states slaughtering pagans and Muslims and Jews. And they rationalize it cuz they were doing it for Christ. It was always about power. Same with slavery. They always make it about power, but the true Christ followers resist. Yeah, it's hilarious. And where meanwhile the secularist state of the Soviet Union killed way more than Hitler could ever have dreamed of, right? And it's constitutionally a secular state. Was constitutionally secular and a feminist dream, John. They loved it. Free abortions for all, John. They That was literally written into their law, to Russian law. Free abortions for everybody. What are you talking about? Secularist states have not solved for any of this. When China moved over to a more secular state, they implemented a one-child policy. It's monstrous. Secularist secularism and secular states do not solve for the corruption of power on this earth. And they don't do that. Because we're born in sin, John. There's going to be, no matter who's in power, you're going to end up having corruption. Doesn't matter. But the promotion of Christian ethics in society is the very same thing you claim that you want. You just want to do it in democracy at a ballot box. Okay, great. The thing is though is that that's still the status quo. That's status quo progressivism. All it does is breed power blocks and people doing infighting. People fighting against people. Your system advocates that, John. Go ahead, John. Again, I just want people to do what Jesus directly told us about how we should treat each other because I think that's good for the economy. I think empathy and love and reaching out for the less fortunate is good economics. It's good capitalism. It's good nation-building. It is how you build a middle class. We have 45 years of ironclad proof that giving more and more tax cuts to the rich has only succeeded in turning the middle class into the top of the bottom. America is a secular state with religious freedom. Our official national religion is all and or none. The founders were very particular about this and they wrote it down more than once. And they wrote it down in the Virginia statute of religious freedom. And in the Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by Washington, signed by Adams, the government of the United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion. And by the way, they owned slaves and they slaughtered Indians. They would have had no right to claim they were a Christian nation because slavery is the opposite of Christ. Okay, so first of all, that's all lies. We started with the Articles of Confederation. Every single state was allowed to have whatever religion they wanted to inside of the state. And by the way, after the Articles of Confederation were done, we signed in the Constitution of the United States because mostly interstate and intrastate commerce and along with a couple other things, you still, in order to vote in any of those states, guess what? You had to make a declaration of faith in many of those states, John. It was completely legal under the 10th Amendment. >> It was completely legal under the 10th Amendment to have religions inside of these states and you clearly omit that. You clearly have omitted that as though that's not the case. Bill, you're wrong. >> It was the case. And the thing is really funny here, John, is the world that that you want claim that you want, a world under Christian ethics that you want to produce, you say that that is the bad world and that the good world is the progressive secular ethics. It's the progressive secularists who are actually trying to save us by aborting all the children, right, John? Go ahead, John. I I I don't even understand what you just said, man. I mean, like what what what? I don't have a right to tell your woman what she does with her body. I don't have a right to tell your mother what she does with her body. And if pregnancy and childbirth are more dangerous for a woman than abortion, I don't have a right to tell a woman what she does with her body. And the Bible's clear about it. The Hebrew faith believes life begins with first breath. God makes it very clear in Exodus 21. You want to go there, we can talk about it. There's a reason why abortions are legal and free in Israel right now. Because the Bible never actually bans them and offers penalties for terminating a pregnancy. God gives abortion tips to unfaithful pregnant wives in Numbers chapter 5. In Exodus 21, God asserts that a fetus is property. Ask a rabbi about the translation and that a woman's life has more value in his eye. I'm not saying the Bible's pro-abortion. I'm saying Jesus is anti-death penalty and never comes out against abortion. They are legal and free in Israel. Google it. Israel's a secular state, sir. It's not run by Orthodox Jews. It's a secular state. Look it up right now how many are secularists versus how many are Orthodox Jews and then tell us the numbers. You don't know what you're talking about. That was >> Judaism doesn't ban it. >> That's the That's the point you tried to make during the Piers Morgan debate as though Israel, the nation, the secular nation of Israel, the liberal progressive nation of Israel that's not following Orthodox Judaism, bans abortion. So what? So do most of the Nordic doesn't ban abortion. Neither do most of the Nordic nations. Neither does a lot of the West. The thing is really interesting here though is that those are progressive secular values. The Soviet Union had the same policy under secular ethics. Okay? What do I I have no idea what you're even talking about here. Your translation of Exodus 21 is just as messed up. You're only getting it from one single source. And we can go through Exodus 21 if you want to. And the thing is is that we have multiple translations here which would prove you wrong when you're saying that especially when you're talking about miscarriages. Let's get into it. There are passages that will say when her fruit departs and people will say, "Well, oh, well, that just means it's not a miscarriage. Her fruit departed. She gave birth early." Well, if she gave birth early and it's a healthy baby, then why is there a fine paid to the husband? I mean, you should be happy about this. Just like in Texas, the woman still has no choice. Um if two men are fighting and one strikes a woman and her baby goes out of her. Uh and again, ask a rabbi. I've interviewed rabbis about it. Abortions permissible. Uh that's why that's the law. Again, Numbers 5. Look at it. I didn't write it. The only real mention of abortion in the whole Bible. In in the story of Tamar in Genesis when they find out that she's pregnant and they think it's from harlotry and Judah and everyone wants to burn her alive. That's because a fetus wasn't considered a person. I didn't write it. So, again, the Bible never has any penalties for ending a pregnancy. I'm not saying it's pro-abortion. Jesus is against murdering the sinner and it's still murder even if the government does it. Yeah, so John, should we trust you on abortion and homosexuality or should we trust the people who were the least displaced from the biblical interpretation who existed before 380 AD and when you claim that the corruption of the church came into play? Would you like for me to read you multiple church fathers who claim that at conception is when ensoulment occurs, John? Would you like for me to read those for you? >> who say at quickening ensoulment >> Show me any Show me any of the original church fathers who are in prominent positions who are saying that abortion was okay because I went through and researched that. Yeah, because none of them John, none of them did. They all said it was an abhorrent practice and they said the same thing about homosexuality. This is before Rome ever even got involved in 380 AD, John. And so, the thing is is you pick and choose like you always do for only the It's really funny how your interpretation of the Bible happens to just coexist with the status quo of progressivism, John. Isn't that really weird? No, I'm a liberal because of Jesus. I wish I could be a shitty little bigot and be mean to gay people and think women are a man's property. I wish that I could look down on other people cuz I'm so much better and God likes me more because I'm in the right God fan club. I wish I could smugly presume that I'm entitled to a place in heaven because I accept Jesus as my savior even if I don't give a rat's ass about following his actual commandments. Um but I'm not that good, man. I'm not. So, I try to live by his teachings and follow his teachings. Um and I don't hate you. This entire thing has just been about like you spitting venom at me and I get that that's the kind of Christian you want to be, bro. I'm not going to be that way back to you. I'm just not. I haven't said a word about you personally, John. You just made it up. >> is about how stupid I am and you're misguided >> you stupid. Oh, everything you've said. Look, folks, again, man, I just followed I am follow the teachings of Christ. Judaism doesn't ban abortion. Christ opposes the death penalty. Yeah, so note the sheer hypocrisy of John here. John John wants Yeah, you're a you're a you me calling your position hypocrisy, right? How is that a personal attack? It's a hypocritical position and it needs to be pointed out that it's a hypocritical position. You want voting intact for the purpose of political power and you don't want Christians to have it. You're making it very clear that you think if Christians if Christians themselves have some sort of access to a nation or they build a nation based around Christian ethics, that's going to be exclusionary. Too exclusionary for you, John, right? Yeah, at the same time, you want to be exclusionary towards Christian ethics themselves. If Christians, for instance, at the ballot box, they decide that and vote against gay marriage, which they always did. That was forced on us, John. We weren't given a choice. We Where was our democratic choice for gay marriage? We didn't get one. Right? And if the thing is is like I

would love to put some of that stuff back on the ballot, John, and actually have people vote on it, but that wouldn't go very well for you progressives.

You know, young people today I was raised to be homophobic and and and I was awful. I was just so cruel and and I thought, "Oh, Leviticus shall not lie with a man." Now, there it is. God said so. Uh of course no one follows Leviticus and anyone who says they do is lying and Leviticus 20:10 commands us all to stone Donald Trump to death for adultery. So, anyone who's citing Leviticus is weaponizing parts of the Bible they don't really follow to justify cruelty to a minority that Christ commands you to love. Um why should I believe that Trump supporters care about the actual teachings of Christ and would you please tell me again the specific teaching of Christ that the MAGA movement fights for legislatively?

Yeah, you remember how this debate's not about MAGA? That you're asking specific questions about the Christian right. >> it about me, bro. I thought we were coming to talk about nationalism. We are talking about nationalism. What does it have to do with MAGA? It has nothing to do with Christian nationalism, which is the proposition that Christians be the dominant force, the ethical force in the nation. That's what Christian nationalism is. So, Trump is the dominant Christian force in the nation. So, Trump is a Christian. No. That's his message. Oh, I see. It's his message. Christianity should dominate. So, please tell me >> And you think Christianity shouldn't dominate. You just want Christians to be at the dominant force at the ballot box, John. The question was, please tell me what teaching of Christ they fight for. Why should I believe Trump supporters care about the actual stuff Christ commands?

Yeah, because most of them are the Catholics. Most of them are the Orthodox. Most of them are the people who defend you at night while you're sleeping. And what these people do is they do follow in their ethical purview. >> One teaching, one. They do I already gave you the parable of the talents and explained how you can spiritually enrich people by having good policies for the nations that your people there aren't completely ravaged by poverty. So, you want me to There are no There are good What what what Are Are you confused? You know what the parable of the talents was? Yes, I do. Okay, great. Then don't tell me that I didn't give you a teaching of Christ. I did. Not only that, we can go through the virtues themselves if you would like to. We can go through cardinal virtues. You're a Catholic if you want to. We can talk about temperance.

But the thing that here that's so funny, John, really cracks me up and I'll just point this out. The biggest hypocrisy that you have is that you yourself are advocating for the status quo when it comes to these things. You want a status quo democracy where just everybody can vote, right? But you want them all to be You want You want Christian ethics implemented. Well, how do we get to Christian ethics if most of the people who are voting aren't Christian? If that's declining in the nation, how would we even get to that, John? You say because, "Well, secularists, they actually have the real Christian ethics." That was your argument. That the secularists were better Christians than the Christians, John. Yes, you did. I'll give you the timestamps. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

And before before John, you kick off, I just want to give you guys a reminder. We have about 10 minutes left and then we'll start wrapping up and go into closing statements and then we'll do the John, I think you have a hard out in about 30 minutes. So, I just want to be mindful. 10 more minutes and then we'll we'll go to closing statements. Okay, go ahead, John.

Oh, I'm sorry. What I just had said before was that some of the best Christ followers I know have been atheists and some of the most unholy heathens I know have been Christians. We've all known mean Christians and we've all known wonderful Christ-like non-Christians. Again, man, Christ's whole movement is about humility. You keep telling me all the reasons why your tribe is better than other people. Why men are better than women. Why why this this group is better than this group. I mean, it's so the opposite of the gospel and I get it. It's It's like this whole notion that somehow there has to be some kind of superiority. It's a Christian supremacy. This is a movement that with respect, I'm sure I I'm sure you're very nice to the people that you like. But this is not a movement about the teachings of Christ on Earth as it is in heaven. It's about conservative Christian power and conservative Christian domination of society. And as we've seen throughout history from Columbus to slavery to the Holocaust, every time the Jesus movement aligns with authoritarian power, awful anti-Jesus things happen.

Again, John, there's not a single political ideology that you can produce, it doesn't matter what it is, that when there's powerful people involved, there's not corruption and there's nothing you're proposing right now that would solve for that either. Oh, we're going to have a democracy in the status quo. Yeah, that's really solved for political corruption, hasn't it, John? Not at all. Not even a little bit. In fact, it creates voting blocks. It creates voting blocks who are pitted against each other because they're ideologically distinct. And so, that actually creates even more conflict, John, and you don't even know how to solve for it. You have no idea how you could even solve for that. Not only that, what's hilarious on top of that is the completely latent hypocrisy of you once again saying, "This is about Christian supremacy. Look, Andrew over here hates everybody." Hasn't ever been able to prove I hate anybody. Just throws it out there, right? But says, "I'm the insulting one." Which is hilarious. The hypocrisy here though is he just doesn't want Christians to be in positions of authoritative power. Only secularists. Only secularists. No, not at all. No, I I just like calling out hypocrites, my friend. That's it. I like calling out revoltingly revoltingly fake frauds who claim Jesus as all this public piety to show they're so much better and in reality they don't give a rat's ass about caring for the least of us. They don't care about going to the margins. They don't want to get their hands dirty with those unpleasant people. It's easier to just assume I'm better and the rapture will take me and the Muslims are bad. Man, whoever you hate, that's who God is. Whatever group you allow yourself to view as less than human is what God's going to wind up being. Maybe the spiritual test is not whether you're so much better than everyone else, but to look at the people you look down on and see the divine in them. I mean, I pray that you get like a transgender friend someday or or an undocumented immigrant friend someday just so you can see them as people. And I'm sorry, bro, but like I I used to be like you. I used to taunt and belittle and just try to hurt someone so much and I I can't do it anymore. So, you take your best shot, pal. I'm going to wish you love.

That's all you've done is say that I'm hate-filled, say that I hate other people, taunted me the entire debate as much you possibly could, try to make these various claims. You even made a comparison that the Christian right is like Nazis. They have a lot in in unison including the fact that they made a cross which by the way is not even true, came from an old Buddhist symbol. This is what's hilarious to me, right? Is that he's a the very thing he's accusing me of he's guilty of and then yet calls me the hypocrite. So, this is hilarious. On top of that, the true hypocrisy comes from the fact that Christians if they're not doormats, you consider them to be hateful. If they advocate for themselves in any way, shape or form, they're hateful. The same thing was used by Alinsky, okay? You can look at Alinsky's Rules for Radicals when you point at the opposition say they can never live up to their own standard. It's a rule three or rule four. Well, guess what? The communist tried to do this with the Tsar in Russia and they ended up killing all of the Orthodox Christians there because the Christians were pacifistic and refused to stand up for themselves. I got a great book I'll send you. It's called On Resistance to Evil for the people who lived in that time. Go ahead, John.

I'm not even sure what we're talking about at this point. I'm sorry. Like I I hate that this is so negative, man. Like I I'm I got nothing against you. I really don't. But I will say that authoritarian Christianity is always the opposite of Christ's ministry and throughout history, the great struggle of Christianity has been Christ's followers against authoritarian So, you got you got you got the Crusades and they're slaughtering Jews and pagans and you have the Christ followers like St. Francis who leaves the battle and preaches non-violence. You have the Crusader Christians and Columbus is slaughtering the Taino people in the shadow of the cross and it's the priest on his boat the on his last voyage, Bartholomew de las Casas, first white person to protest in this hemisphere. You've got slavery propped up by authoritarian Christianity and it's the Christ followers like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman and the Quakers who fight back. Segregation, it's Dr. King. The Holocaust, Dietrich Bonhoeffer martyrs himself for his Jewish brothers and sisters. The history of Christian activism is always resistance to Christian authoritarianism.

What a crock. What are you talking about? Christianity crowned great kings. We had the Byzantine Empire lasted way longer than the United States did, okay? Christian ethics spread globally, has done more to uplift people than any other thing. The Catholic Church literally went through and civilized most of the world. The people you're talking about right now who went in like Columbus or let's talk about Cortez. Oh, I'm sorry. Did they kill a bunch of human sacrificing heathens who were cutting people's hearts out on top of their temple? My God. OH MY GOD, HOW COULD THEY DO such a thing? Of course, that's what happened, John. That's what happens when civilizations meet with each other. And when you have one that's cutting the hearts out of their own people on top of a temple, you start to kind of consider them to be a threat to humanity. I understand why they thought that, John. I don't know why you don't think that because they were. But the thing that's really funny here is like again, you have nothing more than the status quo. You can't even refute that my epistemology for Christianity is wrong cuz you reject the Bible itself.

No, I I don't I don't hear any Jesus in your gospel. Again, those Aztecs and indigenous people who did human sacrifice or whatever you're talking about, they weren't claiming to be Christian while they did it. I'm talking about the grotesque fake Christians of history. Columbus was a sex trafficker. I'll say it again. Columbus sex trafficked girl children back to Europe for pleasure. >> Yeah, I was the age of consent in the Indian tribes. Columbus was I'm glad you find it acceptable, bro. Thank you for letting us know. Columbus was a slaver. He put people in chains. He would cut off the hands of boys as young as 14 if they didn't bring him a fistful of gold and it was the Catholic priest on his boat who called it out to the queen because even back then 500 years ago, Christ followers knew that committing atrocities in the shadow of the cross cuz you're forcing Christianity on the locals is an insult to the gospel. But please defend Columbus's sex trafficking if you need to.

>> Nobody's defending Columbus but pointing out that the Catholic Church encompassed of the entire known world to these people, right? Because it's such a massive political organization at point of course there's going to be sections of it which engage in horrendous activity, John. That's going to be anything that you look at including the United States itself. All we have to do is look at public schools. Public schools where the I would argue some of the most sex trafficking happens for instance. The thing that's really funny is like the more widespread the organization, that's how You're going to have corrupt sections of it and you you deal with the corrupt sections of it. But let's not pretend that the people that Columbus and Cortez and others were dealing with weren't a bunch of human sacrificers, that they weren't themselves essaying children because they were. They didn't have age of consent laws and they were themselves slavers, John. So, the moral equivalency here is hilarious cuz there isn't really one, right? You're just pointing out though those Christians over there, they were doing bad things and the people that they were killing were also doing bad things. Like yeah, welcome to history, John. Has nothing to do with the proposition of Christian nationalism now, does it?

So, let me let me just >> Gentlemen, I'm going to I'm going to let you do one more John and then one more to Andrew and then we'll move into closing statements and you'll start. Okay, go ahead, John.

So, let me just say again that those indigenous people that may have been committing atrocities on each other were not pretending to be Christian. Columbus represented Christianity aligned with empire committing atrocities. Columbus was a revoltingly fake Christian. Hitler was a fake Christian. If you are bragging of how Christian you are but you are enslaving people or ethnically cleansing the land of indigenous people, you are a fake Christian. If you are publicly proclaiming your piety but hating people and trying to hurt people, you are a fake Christian. And I'm here for all the Christ followers conservative to liberal who recognize that this movement of love should not be hijacked by a mean little self-serving tax-free click that's all about power over society.

>> Imagine the hypocrisy of sitting up here and piety signaling like John just did and then saying, "Oh, the piety signalers, they're the big problem." Do I look like I'm piety signaling, sir? I don't think so. On top of that, let me just point out to you very quickly that giving a historic standard that there was bad Christians in places is not something that we're even arguing about and I would concede to it. I'm just pointing out that doesn't take empire. It doesn't take empire for you to have heathens running around cutting each others hearts out, essaying children and slaving. That was all That was That was all over the world. On top of that, when you're talking about Christians who are in authority, I can point to you to many good kings, many good kings who were Christians and ran good nations. The thing that's really funny is like you just like to pick and choose. But every political system is eventually going to corrode and it's eventually going to be destroyed. But the status quo right now is untenable, John. And that's all you have to offer people, the status quo of progressivism and you're doing nothing for anybody except trying to create a power block for yourself while trying to say other people are trying to do that against you. That's it.

Okay. And gentlemen, I'd like to move into closing statements and then we'll get through a few super chats as quickly as we can. John, I will go ahead and hand the floor over to you for your closing statement, please. Thank you so much and that's 60 seconds, right? Oh, no. Forget about the timer. You take your time on your closing statements. Usually usually like a few minutes, whatever, but it's fine. Okay.

Well, thank you all so much for having me. I I I don't know if we accomplished anything. I hope we did. I'm always happy to come and talk about stuff like this because I'm not allowed to hate people. I'm not allowed to hate anybody and I'm not good enough to hate anybody and so I'm I'm grateful that y'all would have me. The prophets all warn against idolatry. Not only of false gods but of any earthly power set in God's place. And nationalism is that kind of idolatry. It It places a flag where the cross should be. And Jesus commanded loyalty to God and conscience above Caesar. And Christian nationalism is always about loyalty to Caesar cloaked in religious language. And and I get the appeal especially in chaotic scary times. I understand why that would be so attractive. It never works and it always leads to the opposite because fundamentalism of all religions is what's killing the world's religions, friends. It's not It's not the majority of religious people. When you hear that that that young people are giving up on religion and people say religion's responsible for all the violence and rape and oppression of women. No, it's the fundamentalist wings of all the world's religions. The extreme conservative Christians, the extreme conservative Jews, the extreme conservative Muslims. The overwhelming majority of liberal, moderate, and conservative Christian, Jews, and Muslims are getting along just fine right now all around the world. They're going to school together. They're opening businesses. They're forming families. They're film They're making communities. It's always the fundamentalists of all the world's religions that have the same hang-ups, right? Number one, women are always inferior. The more conservative your religious sect is, the more Oh, God made half the world just a little less good. Number two, the sex hang-ups. The more extreme your religion is to the right, the more they'll have all kinds of problems from the homophobia to the women, etc. Excuse me. Number three, violence is okay if my side does it. This is fundamentalism 101. I speak for God, if you're against me, you must be for Satan and God won't mind if I kill Satan. And that's why religious fundamentalism is always dangerous cuz they think they're allowed to kill people. Number four, fundamentalism is always a focus on punishment over healing. And finally, number five, there's always this pension for victimhood. This narrative of oppression that means we get to be as mean and shitty to other people because someone else has been as shitty to us once. The inconvenient problem about Jesus is he doesn't promise you anything for following him. He says you have to pick up your cross and follow him and it's going to be hard. When Jesus says I came to bring a sword, he's not talking about a literal blade for warfare. Jesus is the guy who says put away your sword, he who lives by the sword will die by the sword. He's saying that when you follow his inconvenient teachings of radical love and going against your society if it's being unjust and standing up for the least of us, that that's going to be unpopular and it's going to cost you something. That's what he means by that. So, I'm honored to be here and I say thank you to everyone who's here in good faith and the ones who aren't, I wish you guys love anyway. And thank you very much for having me. It's been It's been pretty interesting. Thank you, John. I appreciate that. Truth to you.

So, debates are about worldviews and the collision of these two worldviews that you saw today, uh John, what what he's done is he's engaged in something of the worst form of hypocrisy. His entire the entirety of his worldview revolves around the fact that Christians collectivizing for power is authoritarian and that that's going to have bad results. However, the only promise that he can give you is that he wants to collectivize people into individualistic ideological voting blocks from which they can fight with each other more. It's the silliest and he By the way, he never never actually refuted that, never showed us any better way. He just said that he wanted a democracy in which people all people could vote. The same exact thing we have right now. Same exact system. He never proposed He never proposed a single other system than that. And what does that do? It collectivizes power in the voting blocks which he's after so that he can legislate against your interest. That's exactly what's going on and while So, at the same time, he's attacking us for collectivizing for power, remember that he already outed himself as his system is doing exactly that. He wants to collectivize for power. It's just power not in your interest. What's hilarious here, too, more hypocrisy. John has called me hateful. He said I'm bigoted. He said that I hate brown people. He said all of these various things and when I asked him to prove any of these claims, he says, "Well, I don't know, man. I don't know, man. I just get the vibe, man. The vibe, man. My vibe check is going off and I just kind of vibe-ily think you hate brown people cuz I want to think that. No evidence, no evidence, no proof, no nothing cuz he never has any. No statement.

>> Also, Hold it. It's He also We also destroy his epistemology. He picks and chooses what he wants. He said, "I didn't ever say Paul corrupted the Bible." I quoted it from his own book. Okay, well, maybe I did say Paul corrupted the Bible, but that doesn't mean everything Paul said was wrong. What about What about female apostles? There were female apostles. Is that in the Bible, John? No, that's not in the Bible. I just happened to think that there were and they were so misogynistic, they just chose not to write it down. So, how could we trust anything John says about the very source of what he claims Jesus even said or his interpretation? He picks and chooses whatever the hell he wants. And so, the thing is his foundational his epistemology, the source of his knowledge makes no sense because he contradicts it himself. He says that there's things going on that he can't demonstrate are biblically true. He claims that the that Jesus wasn't against abortion. He was pro-homosexuality. The people who existed long before 3 A 380 AD when he says that Rome corrupted the church, we have quote after quote after quote of them saying, "No, that's not the case." I asked John for one the other direction. He said, "Why I never made the claim that early Christians were for abortion or homosexuality cuz they weren't." Exactly. Exactly cuz they weren't, John. They weren't. Your epistemology is completely flawed and it's been flawed the entire time. It's my It's my closing. It's my closing. Leviticus is reconciled by Acts, John. Okay, you can go to Acts 15. It's reconciled there. There's three laws for Gentiles. No No No strangled animals, no drinking animal blood, right, John? Does that ring a bell? It's reconciled in Acts. You have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what you're talking about. It's my closing statement. I didn't interrupt yours once, John. You can't even control yourself. I never called John a personal name once. I contended with his ideology the entire time. He became very embitered when he couldn't defend it and so it became very personal for him while at the same time he claims he's very loving and piety signaling. He was destroyed on every single point when it came to Acts as he asked, "How is it part of Jesus's message for Christian nationalism?" When I point out how you can actually uplift the poor and how the millionaires and billionaires actually would prefer to have illegals flooding in, he had no counter claim to that whatsoever except to kind of agree with it. On top of that, when I point out how you can uplift the poor the best possible way in the teachings of Jesus Christ, right? That's not good enough for John. We have to have some type of social health care or something like that cuz that's what Jesus would have wanted. It's like, "Where's that in the Bible?" Who knows? John makes it all up as he goes. No, Matthew 25 doesn't say universal health care for all paid for by the state, John. You made it up. You made it up. You'll never be able to demonstrate it cuz you made it up. In fact, you can't even get through a closing statement without your face going red and letting the other person speak even though he didn't interrupt yours once. So, anyway, you can see the contrast in ideology, the contrast in worldviews. And the thing is that I'm always prepared to defend mine with actual facts. John, not so much. And it's all about his hatred for Christianity. That's what I think. His hatred for Christianity and his and he's trying to get a coalition power block away from Christians who he knows are creating a resurgence in this nation. And with that, that's my closing. And I do and I'll I'll say this one final thing. I do appreciate your guts in showing up for a debate. You'll always have my respect for that. You'll always have my respect for showing up to do a debate. That's That's one thing you'll leave with no matter how much I disagree with you. At least you had the guts to do that.

Ooh, thank you, gentlemen. I'm going to read a few super chats and and John, when you need to exit, I know you have a hard out, you just say I got to go and and that's fine. I will continue on. Andrew, you're welcome to stay for some more super chats as well. Uh so, Caillou with a big 50 says, "I hate to break it to you, John, but Christ commands go directly to the individual and the church. You don't take from another and give to others then declare you're following Christ. Using someone else's money is pretty far from Christ." John, you're welcome to respond if you have a response to me.

I mean, Jesus endorses taxation for the purposes of redistribution. That is literally what render unto Caesar and that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which that which is God's is about. They were trying to trap him and he foiled them again and said, "No, that Pay the tax. That's Caesar's. Pay God what belongs to God." So, Jesus does come out and say go ahead and pay your damn taxes. And again, if you believe in democracy and the teachings of Christ, then you believe that we should fight for policies that uplift the least of these and don't put the powerful first. But we've had a very powerful propaganda system in this country and I do think the real root of our problems is big money in politics. No, no, no, no, no. That is that big money in politics is the square root of most of our social problems at this point because it's making sure that we're going to keep on having the government for the wealthy and the middle class getting smaller and smaller and smaller and middle class buying power is at its lowest point since 1968. That's not the fault of illegal immigrants or Hunter Biden or trans kids. That's the fault of you pumping the economy with money that you Democrats done. And by the way, let me point out that no, that's not what that means. The render unto Caesar doesn't say anything about a redistributive policy. You made that part up again. That's what taxes are. No, they're not a redistributive policy. You pay taxes and the government redistributes them. That's by definition what they do with them. No, a public When you're talking about public services, if you want to make the claim that that's redistribution, fine. But if you're making the claim that the redistributive services which are there are supposed to be specifically for the purposes of like your own personal health care and and social safety net and retirement, that's a whole different proposition, isn't it, John? It's redistribution of wealth by government. He says pay your taxes. >> Caesar can just sit on a pile of that money. If you want your money to go to the rich, then you know where to vote. If you want to try to help other people, try to build coalitions for politicians and I'm not talking about Democrats cuz I don't think the Democrats do a very good job of fighting for the poor. Although right now they are with the shutdown, but generally I don't think they are. Yeah, what he's saying is don't violate the law of Caesar, okay? And just go ahead and pay your taxes so you don't get any trouble. That's not where my kingdom's And by the way, yeah, that is going by Jesus. And by the way, the whole idea of the redistribution that you're you're talking about here, totally made up. You just made that whole part up because It's amazing It's amazing how your worldview just so happens that Christianity from 2,000 years ago just so happens to align perfectly with modern day progressivism, huh, John? Isn't that strange to you at all? So, again, I mean, you must hate Acts of the Apostles because the early church practiced radical communal living where all wealth and all resources were shared. I mean, that's what Acts of the Apostles is all about. >> There was no Yeah, so here's here's the thing. I get that you don't like me, but I mean, like that's all >> Was that all voluntary? And that was all voluntary, wasn't it? Let me move to the Wasn't that all voluntary, John? Let me move to the next question. >> Yeah. Yeah, John, it was all voluntary. Yes, it was all voluntary. And so here's the thing, right? It's like the individual was got to do they got to choose How do you vote for voluntary giving to to an authoritative body? How do you vote for that? What are you talking about? You're voting so that I voluntarily give taxation, John? >> to help the sick. Throwing 20 million low-income and disabled American citizens off Medicaid is the opposite of Jesus. No, you vote to steal my money, John. >> done. That's what is being done. >> me, gentlemen, >> Research the bill. It's the largest transfer of wealth to the 1% in the history of budgets. That's what you said. That's what you guys said about Trump's early the the TCNJ. That was a wonderful piece of legislation. That was a wonderful piece of legislation. He added more to the debt than any president in history >> Nonsense. Yeah, real wages went up under Trump. What do you mean? Like under Biden if we'd had a comparison for for for Biden, it's not even close. What are you talking about? If we adjust for COVID, Trump was one of the best economic presidents ever lived. Ever.

I'll get one more question in at the very least cuz I know John has a hard out and I I want to at least address the 250s. Uh Professor Zilch says Poland made Jesus Christ of the nation in 2016. It has 0% illegal immigration, has 2% crime rate nationwide, and universal health care, a Christian nation. Any thoughts, gentlemen?

Yeah, so I think I think that this is bringing in a good point, right? Uh so he says 0% illegal immigration, 2% crime rate nationwide, and universal health care. Remember I made this point to you earlier, John, that's usually the nations who don't have mass migration who can actually do universal health care. And the reason for that is their universal their health care system's not being completely decimated by people not able to pay their health care tab. Um that's that's why that's the case. If we had universal health care here, everybody and their brother who would come in here would bankrupt that system. There's no official religion of Poland. Um it is most of it is Roman Catholic my folks, but the Polish constitution guarantees freedom of religion. Um and as with most countries, the church attendance has dropped uh deeply over the past couple of years. Um and in this country we witnessed the same thing. About 90% of us identified as Christian in the '90s. Now it's down to around 65%. 2022 was the first year where we saw a participation in weekly services dip below 50%. And young people aren't leaving religion because they don't like God or they don't like Jesus or they don't like Noah's Ark. They're leaving cuz they don't like meanness. And they don't like the

>> Interesting how we're seeing such a resurgence of it then. An article just dropped yesterday that it's at the highest it has been in 7 years, a resurgence among Zoomers who are becoming more right-wing than ever. Well, I don't understand how you're right-wing and follow Jesus. I don't see how that works. I don't understand how you're left-wing and think that you can just steal people's money via the ballot box and that's following Jesus, John. Conservative religious people, conservative religious leaders aligning with authoritarian powers literally what killed Jesus, my friend. No. No, no, no, no, no. It's left-wing weasels who are terrified of the Romans who killed Jesus. And they stated specifically in John that they were terrified that the Roman authority was going to kill them if they started following Jesus. Left-wing weasels like you. The Pharisees were not liberal, my friend. Jesus called them out. Jesus was the liberal of that story. He was the radical reformer who brought a new covenant. And it's kind of what got him killed. The Pharisees were the Not all of them. Jesus was friends with many Pharisees. He may have been a Pharisee, some scholars think. And he he Nicodemus was his friend. But the extreme conservatives of the Pharisees, the one Jesus has all of his throwdowns with, those guys, the extreme conservative religious leaders aligning with imperial authority is literally what killed Christ. Really? So it wasn't the fact that they were terrified, according to the book of John, that Roman authority was going to come in and blame them for everybody following this man after he made his declaration as the supreme power of the world because he's God. And that they were going to punish them for that because they were terrified of the authority that they were part of, which was the Roman authority. Extreme conservative Pharisees

>> That was not extreme conservatism. That's not what caused that. But I do appreciate that you point out that it's the Romans who did it. That it was the Romans who He was judged in a Roman court, held in a Roman cell, tortured and scourged by Roman guards, forced to carry No, their fears were unfounded. Their fears were unfounded. Pontius Pilate tried to tried tried not to have him killed. It was definitely When Rome rewrote that way, they made Pontius Pilate off of the guy. Yeah, but the Jews Yeah, when Rome rewrote it. Yeah, okay. The Jews had no power. >> Okay. Give me a break. The Jews had no power over the Roman Empire. Christ was condemned by a Roman governor, had to carry his Roman-made cross to the Roman-chosen site At the behest of the Jews who were there, John. Roman soldiers drove nails into his hands and feet and mocked him for being Jewish with a sign that said this is the king of the Jews. At the behest of the of the of the Jews who were there. At the behest of the Jews. The Jews were occupied by military occupation by the Roman Empire. They had no power over the Roman Empire. And those rabbis had no power to make the Roman Empire kill anyone the Romans didn't want to. The Romans killed Jesus. Don't trust anyone who tells you it's the Jews.

>> At the behest of who? Who asked Pontius Pilate to kill him? The Romans are the ones who drove the nails. >> Who asked Pontius Pilate to kill him, John? >> of the Jesus story is that everyone killed him, my friend. His friends Who asked Pontius Pilate to kill him? I don't know the exact Pharisee name. I wouldn't know. Look, I know what you're trying to get me to say and I'm not going to say it because I don't I don't blame the Jews for killing Christ. And most Christians don't either. >> I'm not blaming the Jews, right? But I'm also I'm I'm being very specific I'm being very specific about the demands. It was It was a very It was the demands of a sex of a sect of Judaism which wanted him dead. Yes, that is factually true. Agree on one thing, that it was a Roman execution with a Roman cross and Roman soldiers did the nailing. The Romans didn't want to though. Pilate didn't want to. No, and the Romans had no power over these little rabbis. And Romans hung a sign mocking his Judaism over his head, right? >> Yeah, those little rabbis were working hand in hand with Romans. They were terrified of them. Extreme conservative religious authoritarian It's funny though. The Roman authority didn't want to actually kill Jesus. They did it at the behest of the Pharisee. who were fellow when they were scourging him, they felt so bad. They had These Jews, we're so we're just the Roman Empire. We have no power. The Jews that we occupy are just forcing us. Oh, and we love to Come on, bro. Think about it for more than 5 minutes. You think that the Romans You think that the Romans didn't want to keep the peace? The point is that everyone killed him. The cops, the soldiers, the religious authorities, his friends sold him out. And he comes back and he forgives everybody. And that's the point of the story. Yeah, yeah, I know well, I agree that the point is to spread the good news that Jesus Christ has come and conquered death. Jesus Christ Jesus Christ has come to conquer death. That is true. But the thing that's really funny here is that the progressive the progressive the the Yes, forgives the world. The as long as they come to him as long as they come to him through him only is that the case. Yes, through him only. Only through Christ. Only through Christ. Do Jews go to hell, Andrew? Uh well, I mean in in my Yeah. Do Jews go to Yes. Is Gandhi in hell right now? No, of course not. Is Gandhi a Jew? Gandhi. Is Gandhi in hell? Oh, Gandhi? Probably. Yeah, probably. Only through Christ can he get salvation. All the Muslims are in hell, right? They're all all the Native Americans Yes. Yes, probably. All the Buddhists are in hell, right? As an Orthodox Hang on, I'll answer your question. I can answer your question. Please. If I'm an Orthodox perspective, I can't say with surety who has salvation or who doesn't, okay? But the chances are pretty good that if you reject Christ as being the um uh your savior, you not only reject Christ, but can think of him a false Messiah, which is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, chances seem pretty good to me that you're displaced from the energies of God. Yes. I don't believe the Jews, all the Jews, are burning in hell. >> believe all the Jews are either. Thank you so much for having me today. It's really been an experience. >> the Jews are either. I never said that. Sorry, I got to run, but thank you so much. It's been a great 2 hours. >> John. I appreciate your time. Uh Andrew, you're welcome to stay. I'm going to go through a few of the super chats. It's up to I actually have to get going. I have another appointment today, but I appreciate you hosting the debate, Sarah. It's very kind of you. And I hope everybody comes over and sends you all of their hard-earned money. So, take care of yourself.

>> Thank you. Have a good day. Um All right. Uh okay, I'm going to read through some super chats. I will try to offer a response um for some of them. Uh let me do this and just kind of recenter myself. Again, I'm not going to do open panel. I This was a a very specifically timed debate. Um so yes, I had to plan accordingly. Um I'll just do 20 and up right now. Dooby came in with the big 20 and said it is in fact not okay that John did not come prepared with insults and vitriol. That is quite comical. Uh thank you, Dooby. That was funny. Uh Shade Master says almost 37. I don't know what that is. Um but I thank you so kindly. But you also Timothy says you are a beautiful tomato. Let's live happily together ever after. Hit me up. Thank you for the $20. The chat I'm sure will call you out on that one. Um enjoy. Uh Shade Master follows up again to say the father and the son have been homophobic and patriarch or patriarchal since Leviticus. Why are we dumping this on Paul? Yeah, I didn't understand the the uh that part kind of lost me a little bit because he kept saying that um he follows Jesus uh but it's based on you know biblical and scripture. But then again at the same time uh quoting that would be like it's uh Paul was wrong. Like Paul was confused and Paul went one way but then turned the other way. Uh so it's like you're you're discrediting the source that speaks to Jesus and who he is but but at the same time you want to utilize that same source. So that was very confusing for me as well. I understood what Andrew was trying to point out uh but John kind of lost me on that point um in in that aspect. Uh hi Rob. Rob comes in with 20 to say uh John never met my friend Larry. I tell him Larry is the smartest guy ever but John knows I'm a liar. Why would John go tell people how smart Larry is if the the only source for the knowledge of Larry is me a person he views as a liar. That's a good point. That's I think that's what I was referring to as well. Uh and it kind of gave more confusion there. Um uh Patrick says 2 Peter 3:15 to 16 uh records Peter calling Paul's letters scripture. Uh 2 Peter 1:21 says all scripture is written word for word by the word of of word choice of God and is not open to interpretation. God spoke through all Paul's letters. Yes, I believe um most Christians ex accept that. Um and that interpretation is not you know something we can just do. Um like for instance if I wanted to interpret a poem however I wanted to. So it's a very good point. Oops. Uh J.E. Kitchens. Oh, I need to get myself back into the kitchen. Uh y'all interrupted my dinner cooking. Uh Jesus' socialist woke views were for the nations of Jacob Israel not mixed multitude of the world. Sorry John, no Babylon 2.0 for subverters like you. Um Yeah, I mean I think Jesus was like a humanistic you know, to me he put kind of like the uh how would I say my like my thoughts on when Jesus came in was like he came in at the human level. And he of course preached good and so on and so forth but that doesn't mean that we like dissuade from all of the the teachings of the Bible based on that. Uh Turd Ferguson, love that name, comes in with a big 20. Sarah stop John. Hold John. Let Andrew answer John. John, it's not your turn, John. Please John stop John. John, why do you and Andrew hate me, Sarah? You know, I don't know if John is familiar with the specific debate sphere and how we operate uh in understanding uh the inter interruptions and even closing statements. Uh I'm not going to shame him for that. I think that that's just kind of uh you know, if you're going on like Piers Morgan, that's where this all stemmed from. Uh it's not quite as moderated the way we would moderate debates here. Uh so it's maybe just a lack of understanding in how we operate. Uh so no shame. Would love to have John back as well. Uh Zachary says in Judaism the sec the only sect that allows for uh shush torsions is the reform. Uh both conservative sect which is the majority and orthodox which is the most adherent to the Torah believe that shush morsions are ending babies. Oh. A a abortion. Okay. Okay, I'm tracking. Okay. Uh thank you. In Judaism the only sect that allows for abortions is reform. Both conservative sect which is the majority of orthodox which is the most adherent to the Torah believe that abortions are an Okay, got you. Thank you. Um yeah, killing baby bad. Uh His Grace Remains says with a big 20. This guy is misinterpreting Jesus' teachings so badly. He also contradicts himself saying Paul corrupted the Bible but we should give him a break. Uh you have no fear or reverence for God. I thought that was an odd point too. Like we should give Paul a break, you know, he was just human so on and so forth. Uh I don't know if it necessarily uh made sense sense to say that. Like because then we're interpreting to like give somebody slack for saying one thing and then another. Uh but the Bible's pretty clear in how it operates. Uh so yeah, I don't I didn't understand that that point. Uh but thank you. Uh His Grace Remains. Mason Miller says it's nice to know this guy believes Christ would want guns pointed at me to pay for criminal aliens to come into my country with no regard for laws or our land. Truly a paragon of virtue. Yeah, that uh you know, my thought process to that was uh we still need to protect our what's ours and our people, right? Uh even if you went in a biblical biblical aspect of it. Um we still need to protect ours, right? And it's not necessarily that you hate others but you love your people so much that you will do everything possible to protect them. And I I feel like that would be a still a biblical standpoint uh to do so. Uh we saw a lot of like battles and wars still in the Bible. Um even God rained down and and and took people out uh for purposes of doing that. So uh it's and it's not amount of like hate, it's amount of I love my people so much I will protect them. So I don't know. That's my understanding and and thank you, Mason. Uh I don't want to go too long um only because uh the the debate's done and I know that I don't really have too much to add to this and I don't want to waste your time. I think there's a lot of other great places to go and watch more content. I'm sure uh maybe people are covering this debate. Uh feel free to go find them. Uh maybe Rob is covering it. I don't know if Jim Bob's still live. I know he was live earlier. Uh Jake the Rattlesnake I'm sure will cover it as well. Uh but ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining me this afternoon. Uh rare rare afternoon occurrence uh to have this debate. It's it's took a little bit out of me to do a day stream but we're here. So thank you so much for tuning in and joining. Uh please feel free the the links for both debaters are in the uh video description. Please feel free to go check them out. Say hello and do what you need to do. Uh otherwise uh I think we're done here. I hope you all have a wonderful wonderful rest of your day. And uh tune in Thursday night. We've got Counter Points coming back for a Thursday throw down. Uh that MAGA is not conservative or Republican. That is his prompt. So I know I I typically have a lot of right-wingers in the chat. So if you feel the need to come and battle him out on an open panel, Thursday night is your time to do so. Also more debates are already set and lined up underneath the live tab if you want to see more. Otherwise, [ __ ] off. [Music] [Music] Captain's log, June 2nd, 2836. After 27 years of war between the D-Gen Kumers and the Sainthood Slayers, a new hope arises. As the battlefield lay weaponized, locked and loaded for destruction, negotiations for a peace treaty are in transition. The moderator has arrived at station 42. Can this war be ended? Will the Kumers and Slayers find a middle ground? Abort mission. I repeat, abort mission. Negotiation failure. Abort mission. [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] Local control, Yasha Mon. Heavy bogies 6 plus at over 315, too. No joy, Yasha Mon. Can go to your window and look out. The biggest [ __ ] asteroid. Copy, Yasha Mon. Still blind. Got some kind of system-wide faster than defense grid. God damn yourself right god damn now cuz we got bogu inbound. not carrying flaws. Wait one goddamn minute, mom. He don't have flaws. [Music] [Music]