Know More News - Adam Green - Smelting Out Religion in the Crucible | Know More News LIVE feat. Andrew Wilson

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 20, 2022 - Know More News - Adam Green

01:32:25

Smelting Out Religion in the Crucible | Know More News LIVE feat. Andrew Wilson

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to No More News Live.
	Thank you for joining me today, Thursday, May 19th, 2022.
	Joining me tonight, I have a guest, Andrew Wilson from the show The Crucible has had me on for a debate and an interview.
	And he is a paleo-conservative Christian.
	He is here tonight to discuss Christianity, all things.
	What did I title the video, The Smelting?
	He's about trash talk and I guess the smelting of the heat of the crucible.
	So he is here to share his thoughts, to chat with us, to cover some of the latest news, to answer some super chats.
	So thank you for being here, Andrew.
	Oh, your audio's off.
	You're on mute.
	Kenny, do you have me now?
	Yes, we do.
	Okay, good.
	So there's a little bit of a delay on my end.
	Oh, no.
	But I'll bear it.
	We could try to reconnect with call.
	The audio is coming through, not delayed.
	Let's restart the call.
	Video is a little delayed.
	I don't care.
	Okay, we can do that.
	Okay, hold on.
	We'll get this right.
	Okay.
	And sharing screen and audio.
	Okay.
	Oh, yeah, that's better.
	Way better.
	All right.
	That should be better.
	Good.
	All right.
	So you've had me on the crucible.
	I debated one of your friends.
	You did an interesting interview where we talked about a lot of things that I don't really get into much on my channel.
	And now you're here.
	We were supposed to do a debate on another show.
	And you are a Christian.
	And I'm sure you've got some thoughts on all of my takes on Christianity.
	So what's up?
	How's it going?
	Thanks for being here.
	Well, so first and foremost, let me thank you for having me on your show.
	I appreciate it.
	I know that we had had a debate scheduled on a different show and that fell through for various reasons.
	But I still appreciate the opportunity to come discuss these issues with you.
	I'm going to try to be as open and as good faith as I can possibly.
	I'm sure that you will be too.
	I'm kind of well known as a blood sport debater, and so are, you know, that's kind of what the crucible is about.
	But maybe we can keep this more conversational.
	If not, I'm okay with that too.
	I do enjoy talking with you.
	So I have a little bit of a statement here prepared.
	It's not very long, just a few minutes, just to kind of give you an overview of what I think.
	You want to give me a minute to just go ahead and read it?
	Yeah, sure, sure, sure.
	Okay.
	So thanks again for having me.
	My name is Andrew Wilson.
	I'm the host of The Crucible, a fairly popular debate platform on YouTube and multiple platforms.
	I do do debates myself.
	I enjoy doing them.
	I had the chance recently to host a debate between Adam Green and Zen Shapiro, who is the in-house right-wing debater for The Crucible.
	The debate was interesting, and so was the interview that followed.
	I was able to glean a better insight into Adam's views.
	And while I enjoy talking with him, the interview and debate, I think, gave me kind of a leeway in to some of the things he thinks.
	Adam isn't somebody who responds well to philosophy or kind of the pairings of morality.
	And he isn't somebody clued deeply into geopolitics or party politics either.
	From my perspective, he seems to have an obsession with Jews.
	Now, I've seen this many times in the online arena, and it's almost impossible to talk or sway somebody out of that.
	But Adam takes it a step further than most, which is kind of the most interesting.
	It's not just the Jews control the world thing, but that people are, you know, most of the time, people are just content to point out that inadequacy of the Jewish faith.
	Or for some people, it's a race.
	They point out that there's a Jewish race and the inadequacy with that.
	Adam, though, believes that all of Christianity essentially is a Jewish plot.
	A massive control grid spanning the globe in order to control the Gentile and put them under the boot of the Jew.
	Adam will cite the Bible in this conversation, and I'm okay with that.
	Just understand that Christianity is not designed to be understood by the layman or the uninitiated or the secular mind.
	And Adam himself really doesn't have much of a justification for where his moral axioms lie.
	The best we were able to really get out of him was his mind or that doing harm is immoral.
	Neither of which is really an axiomatic belief in the traditional sense, though do no harm could be constructed under both Kantian ethics for the categorical imperative, derived from the golden rule of do unto others as you would have done unto you.
	But these are deontological ethics and generally do no harm.
	As Adam states, is utilitarian-skewed consequentialism.
	This problem has created, I think, cognitive dissonance for Adam, who can't kind of see the forest through the trees, in my opinion.
	The secular worldview offers no alternative to Christian universal ethics.
	He uses the Christian ethics even as he damns them and kind of shouts Christianity down.
	So here's the thing I think Adam needs to contend with: justifying the Bible to a layman who has no understanding of the metaphysical and doesn't understand the Bible, must be interpreted not just through the physical writings, but the metaphysical Holy Spirit of which we have thousands upon thousands of brilliant church scholars, saints, church bodies who have spent their entire lives dedicated to unlocking its profound messaging and interpreting these things going back 2,000 years to the initiation of Christ's church.
	Even the basic metaphysical concepts aren't really there for him.
	So I'm going to try to make a secular argument instead for Adam to contend with instead of trying to do a metaphysical argument.
	From my perspective, Christianity offers a profound universal moral system that secular morality can't compete with.
	Even if true that Christianity is a subversive Jewish plot, he'll have to justify how exactly this plot was designed to hurt society.
	According to Gallup's well-being index, Christians are far more likely to experience overall well-being, according to self-reporting.
	There are dozens of polls and studies confirming this.
	Christians are more likely to adopt a child, according to a recent Barna Group survey.
	In fact, twice as likely, and not just twice as likely as secularists, but the entire U.S. population.
	Christians are more likely to have children and tax families.
	They're more likely to stay married.
	They're less likely to cheat on their spouse.
	Christians commit less crime.
	They have more stable structures for family and community.
	Study after study and all data proves this over and over again.
	And the people collecting this data are mostly secular.
	So even with their bias, they're kind of stuck still admitting that these are facts.
	And so I think Adam really needs to tell us why Christianity is some sort of theological slave trapping designed by Jews, how it's a bad thing based on his moral concepts of harm.
	If Christians do better by almost every metric of society that Adam supports, why in the world would he want to replace them with atheistic, agnostic, or secularists who do much worse by almost every behavioral metric?
	That makes no sense to me.
	And I'll just close with this: that I'm not a Christian apologist.
	I don't do Christian apologetics generally.
	I'm a political pundit.
	But this was of interest to me.
	So I did want to come on and discuss this.
	So that's kind of my opening and my worldview on this so far, Adam.
	Interesting.
	You said that you thought I would be surprised with what you had to say.
	I'm surprised, but not in the way that maybe you thought.
	Like, I didn't hear anything that even attempted to disprove any of the things I've been saying, like saying that I'm obsessed about something.
	You know, yes, I am interested in emphasizing and focusing on a certain topic, like Zionism, Judaism, Christianity.
	So saying that I'm obsessed, though, is just kind of a way to try to make me look bad for focusing on a specific thing.
	To say that, you know, philosophy isn't my thing.
	Yes, I'm not a philosophy channel.
	And I feel like a lot of religious people want to focus on philosophy because if you focus on their actual religion, it's so nonsense that they want to divert attention away and have to argue things from a metaphysical, philosophical point of view.
	And I do cover politics, but not from a biased standpoint.
	It's more like a neutral analysis kind of with stuff related to my emphasis and the topics that I focus on.
	Let's see.
	Oh, to say that the Bible's not.
	So the reason.
	Okay.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, I was just going to say that.
	So the reason I came into this way was just to go ahead and concede.
	So in the abstract, I'm just going to concede that your argument is true and that everything you're saying is true.
	What I'm asking specifically is why we should give a shit.
	What's the moral implication for why we should care if every metric of society does better by being able to do it?
	Because it's not true and because it's harmful in various ways.
	So then I was correct in assuming that your metric was a consequentialist metric for harm.
	Correct?
	You cut out that.
	I don't understand that because everything I just.
	Oh, well, so I was just saying then your metric is for harm, but everything I just stated proved that it's not harmful.
	I'm not following what you're saying.
	Everything you just stated is not harmful.
	No, no, it proves.
	So if I seed your argument as true, let me cut the video out and maybe the audio will be better.
	Let me just cut it out for a second.
	And we'll see if the audio is a little bit better here.
	Okay.
	Can you hear me a little bit better now?
	Okay.
	So if I seed your argument, so my point here is to say Adam Green is correct.
	In the abstract, I'm just going to concede everything you're saying is correct.
	100%, 1,000%.
	You say that we should care because it causes massive harm to society because it's not the truth.
	But by every single metric I just gave you, Christians do better than secularists.
	So why should we give a shit, even if it's not true?
	If society is not being harmed, they're doing better than secularists.
	Yeah, and you can find Muslims that say that they're doing better under the morals of Islam, the same.
	Just because you can argue that in some instances people are doing better doesn't mean that it's true.
	And to think that we wouldn't survive and you can't have a moral, ethical population without the Hebrew Bible is literally laughable because the Hebrew Bible is full of so many immoral things.
	Well, so just to back up, whether the Hebrew Bible is full of the most immoral things that have ever been done in the history of all of mankind, let's just say that it has, still really wouldn't matter or contend with my argument of Christian modernity when it comes to ethics.
	So what I'm saying is that by every conceivable metric you would want to see in society, Christians better than secularists do.
	by every conceivable metric for what you would want to see.
	So if that's true – Just because they're a little bit more sane on certain issues doesn't mean that it's right.
	Well, no, no.
	The metric across the world.
	Can we just have the same takes, the same moral takes without all of the Hebrew prophecy and worshiping the God of Israel?
	That's what I'm asking for.
	So, okay, so feasibly, if we contend that you just take all of the moral takes away from Christianity, but you take all the metaphysics out of those moral takes, you can't justify them as being correct or incorrect anymore.
	Now, I don't want this to become a metaphysical debate.
	Rather, I just want to pin down on this one question because it's very important to me, which is in Adam Green's world, the entire world has conceded that this is true.
	That everything that you're saying is true, that Christianity and Islam are basically manufactured by a Jewish plot in order to control the Anglos.
	That's not even controversial.
	They're both based upon the Torah.
	Even Islam believes in Jesus, believes in all of the Hebrew patriarchs and myths.
	It originated from the Hebrew Torah and the Tanakh.
	And it's not true.
	So, yes, this is the important issue here.
	Right.
	Right.
	Right, right.
	I agree.
	So we're going to dive right into it.
	Right.
	So the whole world has conceded that this is true.
	Let's say.
	All of them have conceded it's true.
	They get rid of Christianity.
	They get rid of Islam.
	They get rid of any Abrahamic religions.
	Why do you think that the world is better if the current metrics we can see of people who have faith versus those who do not do poorer than those who do have faith?
	Well, it would be a completely different world if nobody believed in the Abrahamic myths anymore.
	It would be so different.
	There would be completely different morality.
	And it could even be much better than what we've had the last 2,000 years.
	Well, okay, so I'll see that that's possible.
	So I can envision a possible world where that's true.
	So you need to tell me what it looks like, though.
	What does this world look like?
	What is the morality that people follow?
	What does the world look like absent faith?
	A little bit like the world that we have right now because there is no absolute law and there is no real religion.
	So really it's just people winging it and making stuff up as they go along and people deciding and interpreting and evolving on how they interpret what these scriptures mean.
	Okay, so in this world that Adam Greene envisioned, can people kill each other?
	No.
	I mean, within certain contexts, of course, kind of like how we have now.
	We don't really live in a Christian country in America.
	Well, all of our laws are derived from English common law, and English common law was most certainly derived from Christianity.
	Well, there were Christians that came up with some of it, but it's not like based upon Christianity.
	Like, you don't need the Hebrew Torah to know basic things are right or wrong, is the point I'm getting at.
	Okay.
	So I'm not even arguing that because I don't think it's that important to argue whether or not you have fundamental knowledge of what's right or wrong without any axioms.
	Like Nietzsche, for instance, would probably agree with you.
	Okay, so I'm fine with all of that.
	What I'm asking specifically is, what would the moral differences look like from a Christian society to a secular society?
	And if they're.
	Well, people wouldn't be killing each other over differences over what God says.
	That would be a start.
	Well, very few people kill each other right now inside Western nations over differences of what God says.
	They mostly kill each other over almost all the wars throughout history between Islam and Christianity.
	Yeah, even Christianity, between Christianity?
	Yeah, even that's still a minute amount of death in comparison to what I'm talking about is societal runnings, right?
	So people are killing each other over race, crime, poverty, any number of different issues.
	So what I'm saying is, is that inside of a Christian moral world, that's all we have to go off of for about 2,000 years is that style of morality for the West.
	If this goes away due to, let's say, everybody embraces that Adam Green is correct.
	I really would like to know what that society looks like that's so much different and so much better than current society.
	That's the part I can't figure out about your mission, right?
	So your mission is we're going to prove that Christianity is wrong, and feasibly you want everybody to turn away from it because it's a lie.
	Well, if that's true and everybody does, then you have to be prepared to give them something different.
	I don't think I do.
	I don't think I do.
	I don't have to provide something different just to say that the Torah is fake and that Christianity is based on lies and myths.
	Well, no, you don't in that instance.
	But in the instance of you saying things like you want to turn everybody away from Christianity because it's a lie, In that instance, you would need to provide either an alternative that you can justify as being better.
	And in your worldview, you say that that's secularism.
	It'll be just like how secular people...
	There are no secular countries.
	There's never been a secular country?
	Not that I'm aware of.
	I'm not aware of any secular nations anywhere.
	Oh, well, I would disagree with that.
	There's many.
	They consider themselves secular and aren't religious.
	Well, they might separate out religion from politics like we do via a constitution, but you can't actually really do that in real time because if you're a Christian and you happen to get elected as a president, Christianity is still going to inform the way that you govern.
	So you never really can separate church and state.
	So it's not really ever secular.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Like, that's not really possible.
	Yeah, but like, what about your religion?
	What about like Nordic countries that were never really Christian and there aren't Christians in the government that created the government?
	You can't say that's a Christian.
	Man, people are saying Odyssey is buffering.
	There's going to be some type of whites.
	Yeah, it's acting poorly.
	They just did a post today that there's no more buffering.
	Yeah, so I was hoping for some improvements.
	Lower your video quality.
	That's the only thing I can suggest.
	All right.
	Not you, them.
	No, no, no, I know.
	I know.
	I'm with you.
	Let's see.
	I have some other notes here.
	Like, you're talking about, like, I say it's a slave mentality.
	Like, I don't even think that's debatable.
	So, like, want to worship a celestial dictatorship.
	And, like, what is the world that you want to see?
	Like, everybody worshiping the God of Israel, like according to the Torah prophets?
	Yeah, I think that that's a fair question, and I'll get to it.
	But let me address the first part of what you said there first, which is just to make sure I have it clear from your notes.
	You're saying that it's a slave mentality, and you say that it's a slave mentality because you're worshiping a celestial being.
	But I don't really understand how you can square that with the fact that we live in a society full of parasocial behavior worldwide where people worship human beings.
	An example of this might be in America First, which is such a cult.
	And Nicholas Fuentes is worshipped as a demi-god, in fact, where people make loyalty pledges where they say, I will rape, kill, and murder on behalf of Nicholas Fuentes.
	Do you think that those types of parasocial relationships, which are global, celebrity-based, things like this, are any healthier?
	Especially considering the fact that they don't have the thousands of years of wisdom to buffer, temper, nor any organization in place to stop people from doing that.
	So I don't really understand the argument that well.
	Well, you're talking about Catholics, number one.
	So they're already trained to be good sheep and good slaves and have the slaves following the Savior mentality.
	Come on, Adam.
	They're not trained to worship.
	You know that.
	To want to worship a God that will burn you in hell forever if you don't is a slave-battered wife syndrome type of mentality to have.
	And Paul says he's a slave to Christ.
	People say they're servants and slaves.
	And it's just so coincidental that Jews believe Christianity is Esau and Esau shall serve Jacob.
	Yeah, but that doesn't really contend with what I'm saying.
	So what I'm saying is that secularists are Christian alike across the board, it doesn't seem to matter.
	But secularists are indeed left with this parasocial relationship.
	Even the Bible alludes to this, the golden calf, right?
	Where absent a God, people find a God, and oftentimes they find that God in men.
	The amount of men who now and women who want Full-on celebrity for the purposes of controlling the masses is at an all-time height, and we have the internet right there available to kind of bring them into that celebrity-style worship.
	That seems to me like it is far, far more unhealthy without the messaging of Christ.
	I think it's much better to admire real men in real history and real ancestors than Hebrew mythologies and an ancient Jewish fictional superhero that is meant to be the Messiah that subjugates all the nations.
	What?
	That's the same thing.
	But I don't understand why.
	What man, for one, I don't think anybody should be worshiping anybody like social style brainwashed.
	Like the idea with Christians, like I'm nothing without Christ, you know, without his strength, you know, I'm just sinful and impure.
	Without Christ, I'm nothing.
	That type of attitude.
	If anybody has that for a normal person, like some athlete or scientist or somebody that somebody wants to admire, a leader, a political leader, like that would be pathetic if they did that.
	But that's what Christians do for Jesus.
	It's very self-loathing.
	It's common.
	But it's common, Adam, right?
	Sure, people like to be sheep and slaves.
	People like to follow an alpha male.
	Yeah, let's take, yeah, so let's take like Oprah Winfrey and all the top celebs that we grew up with and the cult followings that they had around them, rock stars, Michael Jordan.
	Followings.
	Yeah, I mean, some of them to the point where, you know, they have groupies who'll just come in, get on their knees and give them a blowjob whenever they say, right?
	Yeah.
	It's not like I think that I'm going to burn in hell if I don't accept their blood sacrifice, though.
	That's a whole nother level different of Jewish ritual atonement sacrifices.
	Well, I mean, it's worse than brainwashing a chick and just being, you know, making her come in and blow you whenever you feel like.
	I mean, I don't think so, dude.
	Well, hold on.
	I don't know where you came up with that example.
	Say that again?
	What?
	What are you talking about?
	Have you ever heard of groupies?
	I mean, have you ever heard of groupies?
	What's a groupie?
	Oh, yeah.
	Have you ever heard of all the sexual molestations from pastors and rabbis and all these religious figures as well?
	They're no better.
	Yeah, it's true.
	They're even worse, actually.
	They prey on the vulnerable via religion.
	Yeah, that's true, and I agree.
	But here's the thing that you're missing there: pedophiles are also prevalent in public schools.
	And those are state-run secular institutions.
	And they're far more prevalent in public schools than they are in religious circles.
	Oh, I'm not sure if I've seen those studies, but okay.
	Well, I mean, it's true.
	It's pervasive in religious circles as well, showing that it's not really, you know, if this is God's people and God's morals, they should be much better than the normal society.
	Sure.
	But what it's showing us is that anywhere that there's children that are readily available, pedophiles will gravitate towards that, whether they're religious institutions or secular institutions like we have with public school, which is completely secular.
	No religion allowed, no nothing.
	And yet you can't go to the drudge report on any given day and not see some teacher who's been boning their 13-year-old student anymore, right?
	I mean, this is, it's one of the most prevalent problems that we have.
	And this is a public, secular institution.
	So I can yield to you that this is a problem within these various churches because it is.
	But you also have.
	So the private school, the public schools are secular now, but you can't have a secular government.
	You can only have a religious government like the Nordic countries I was mentioning earlier.
	I don't understand what you're asking.
	Okay.
	It's just, you're making a different argument that you were earlier.
	You're saying, oh, these are secular schools and public schools and secular, but earlier you're saying no government could be secular because they're all influenced by Christianity.
	Yeah, but wait a second, Adam.
	Back up.
	I was responding specifically to a point that you made about how there's a lot of molestation cases inside of various religious institutions, to which I conceded was true, but then gave you a counterexample of where this is also prevalent in places where religion is not allowed.
	So prayer is not allowed in school, this type of thing, at least not led prayer.
	Individuals there can pray, but there's no led prayer.
	There's no favoritism amongst religions.
	It's exactly what a secret would advocate for.
	And it most certainly has not stopped any form of molestation whatsoever.
	So what that shows us is where there's children, there will be pedophiles, whether it's secular or religious.
	Well, I agree with that.
	It happens everywhere.
	But I think that that goes to show that, especially when, like, I know you're not a Catholic, but you know, Christians that say, oh, the Catholic Church, and it has such a pervasive problem, like, it's hard to argue that you have great morals and your church is the rock of God and stuff when that kind of stuff's going on.
	It's pretty hypocritical.
	Well, so, so, I mean, but I could just kind of throw that back the other way, right?
	And be like, well, absent it, you still have the same exact problem, just in a secular arena.
	So it's like, how, how is replacing the morality any better, right?
	And it's so it's not.
	So this is the, this is the problem fundamentally is like pedophilia is a huge issue in society.
	I agree that the Catholic Church, and by the way, the Catholic Church has covered that shit up, okay?
	Big time.
	But so have public schools.
	So have colleges.
	So have various teachers' organizations.
	So have various private citizens across the board.
	And it has nothing to do with these religious institutions.
	Essentially, pedophiles go where there's children that they can molest, and these institutions have lots of children.
	The Boy Scouts were that way.
	I think you could argue that the Boy Scouts was a religious institution to a degree.
	But there's also other organizations that were massive after-school programs, for instance, where there was a lot of that going on that had no religious basis at all.
	So I don't think that that's a sound argument from my perspective.
	So let me raise a point here.
	Since we're talking about sexual abuse of children, why does God allow sexual abuse of children?
	Does he not have the power?
	If he has the power to harden Pharaoh's heart, can he not soften a pedophile's heart and make it so children aren't abused in such a terrible way?
	Does God not have the power to do it?
	Does he not want to do it?
	Or does he not exist?
	Yeah.
	So just to back up, so when you want to ask these sorts of type of philosophical questions that you're looking for an apologist's answer on, I don't have those.
	I'm not a Christian apologist.
	What I'm specifically doing is comparing worldviews, and I'm trying to figure out what Adam's society looks like versus Andrew Wilson's society.
	And if I grant all of these horrific things that you say are in the Hebrew Bible, whatever it is that you're going to hit me with, I'll just concede that it's true to try to get to the point where we can Adam Green's society.
	So can God do all of these things within your purview?
	Sure.
	Whatever horrid thing you want to apply to him for the purpose of this discussion, I think is fine because I don't think that you can actually contend with the argument that I'm making, which is that your society is not going to look any better.
	And you have no basis for saying it's going to look better.
	And in fact, there's probably many ways in which it'll look a lot worse just based on the well-being reports of people who report religion versus who do not.
	I think you're minimizing the power of half of the world of the Abrahamic world believing in the Hebrew mythology.
	We've got Christians all over America and all over the world that believe that Jews are God's chosen people and that their Jewish prophets are all real and that God has a plan for the end times where if you look at the Torah, it's about the chosen people like a master race basically ruling over the world from their temple in Jerusalem.
	And you can make the case that maybe a handmaid's tail future world could be better than a hunger games dystopian secular world.
	But I'm not even making the argument here that it'll be a better world if nobody is religious.
	That might not even be the case.
	I could be wrong or I could be right.
	It would be much better without Abraham.
	The point is that it's not real that these things are made up and there are harms to their beliefs.
	Well, then you kind of messed up then, Adam.
	Why did I mess up?
	You don't want to say, well, because if you don't want to concede that, I mean, you conceded essentially.
	You said, I'm not really making the argument that people should not be religious.
	I'm just, you know, making an angle of argument at all.
	No, I get it, but do you think that people should be Christians or not?
	I think they should not be Christians because it's not true.
	And because you're worshiping the Messiah of the Torah and what that the objective of the Messiah of the Torah, I know what that is.
	That's why people shouldn't be doing it.
	It's a deception to get them to trick Gentiles into worshiping the Jewish God of Israel.
	Right.
	So would you apply to every religion that worships a secular or a higher or supreme being that you would also advocate that they not be religious because it's not true?
	I mean, I could agree that some people would probably be better off to have the fear that there's somebody, an eye in the sky watching them.
	And if they do bad things, they're going to burn in hell forever.
	That does have a positive impact.
	And I agree that there are some positives to being religious, but there's also a ton of negatives, and it's not true.
	That's what I think is the most important part: it's not true.
	We shouldn't be believing in things that are not true.
	We don't need them.
	I want to live in a world where nobody believes that Jewish prophecy is real.
	That's the direction I think we should go.
	The Jewish prophecies and Jewish myths are fake and not real.
	But I'm asking you specifically to hone in on what you just said right this second is you said, look, there are instances where I think that people who follow a higher being, it's good for them.
	Okay.
	Well, I agree with that.
	But if you say that, sure, sure.
	But if you're saying that Christianity is not true, and that's the basis for which people should not follow it, is there any religion that has a higher, supreme, invisible being that you would make the claim is true?
	And if not, then you would have to say people should not follow that religion, right?
	No, I have seen no religions that look true to me.
	No.
	So then by your logic, we should not follow any of them.
	Yeah, I don't think anybody should claim to be able to speak for God.
	Okay, so then I was correct when I said that you want a secular world because you don't want anybody to have any kind of religion where they worship a supreme being because it's a lie in your purview.
	Well, that depends on what you mean by secular because I'm saying I don't like when people speak for God.
	That doesn't mean that you don't believe in a God.
	You can believe in a God and just say, I can't speak for him.
	Would that be secular?
	Okay.
	Well, no, but.
	Because I think that'd be fair.
	If you want to say there's a God, you can say that.
	But to speak for him and says what he wants and who he chooses and who gets what land and what the laws are, that's all nonsense.
	But would it be true?
	No, it would be nonsense.
	Well, then by your logic, if it's not true, that's where the harm comes in, right?
	Not alone.
	There's harm.
	I mean, yes, it's harmful to believe in things that aren't true.
	Of course.
	So, I mean, but this is what you claim your primary argument is for why it is people should not be Christians is because it's not true.
	If we extrapolate that out, that means all religions are not true by your estimation.
	So therefore, all of them must be bad.
	So you would have to be...
	Not every religion is the same.
	Yeah, I agree.
	But if your position is don't believe it because it's not true, you have to apply that equally across the board.
	How is it ever a good thing to believe in something that's not true?
	Well, whether it's, well, there's lots of instances where it's probably a good thing to believe things that aren't true.
	Like an example, I could give you right off the top of my head.
	Like, what if you had a really ugly wife, right?
	But you thought she was beautiful.
	That was my example, dude.
	How do you read my mind right now?
	Because God gave me certain gifts.
	No, I'm kidding.
	I'm kidding.
	But what I'm saying to you is like, there are examples of that, of course.
	But the most important thing here is that Adam's worldview, which I think I understand really well, which is we want this thing, this thing causes great harm because it's not true.
	And so therefore, things that aren't true cause great harm.
	So we have to things that aren't true.
	It causes harm for other reasons, not because it's not true.
	That's not the biggest reason that it causes harm.
	You want to hear why it causes harm?
	Because it's got the whole world and a lot of American politicians going over to the wall in Israel and putting on little hats and saying you're the chosen people and our Judeo-Christian values and blah, blah, blah.
	And it's got people believing that to turn against your family if they're not for Jesus, to love your enemy, to that usury is okay for in the Old Testament, but it's banned for Christians in Islam.
	That you should follow a universal religion where anybody could be a part, where Judaism is exclusive.
	And I can go on and on.
	The idea that you are born damned for hell unless you get the blood atonement sacrifice to redeem yourself.
	I think that's a terrible, crippling thing on a people's psyche.
	Well, sure.
	So I get every single one of those nitpicks.
	But if we were to start at the very end of every nitpick that you had and bring it back to the foundation, the actual foundation for why these things suck is because they're all based on people acting on assumptions that are not true.
	Well, they don't suck because they're not true.
	They suck because they suck and they're also not true.
	So that's double reason to not believe them.
	But would they do these things if they believed in something that wasn't true?
	Would they do these things?
	Would Christians do these things if they believe something?
	Right.
	So, I mean, if there was no thought that the faith was not true, they wouldn't do any of that, right?
	Right.
	It only works if you believe it.
	Right.
	So, so it really is a truth claim.
	When we get down to it, it's a truth claim, no matter which way you want to cut it.
	Your real gripe is that this shit ain't real.
	It ain't true.
	And so it makes people behave badly.
	And so it needs to be stopped, right?
	I mean, when we break it down, that's really where we get to.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	You're playing into their by believing in the God of Israel, you're playing into the hands of its supremacist chosen people that had it a part of their prophecy that you, that all the nations would worship their God.
	That's the whole objective.
	So by doing that, you are falling into their trap.
	That's why people shouldn't do it.
	Well, sure.
	Sure.
	But this would be applied again.
	You'd have to apply this fairly across the board.
	So like Nordic people who were pagans who believed in supreme beings, that shit ain't true, right?
	No, Odin is the only real God.
	You didn't know that?
	Yes.
	What was the joke you did on Twitter about Odin?
	Well, that was a good one, by the way.
	It was good.
	It was good.
	But yeah, so none of that shit's true.
	So then by your standard, it's bad.
	I mean, it has to be.
	Well, it's not bad in the same way that Christianity is because it's not based built upon the Jewish myths.
	Well, sure, sure.
	So nothing's ever going to be directly equatable.
	So you could even make that claim, maybe Muslim's not as bad as Christian, or Christian's not as bad as Judaism.
	You can never make the claim that it's equally as bad as anything else.
	Even if you were to dissect it like a murder, you could say this murder was worse than this murder, but they're still both murders.
	Well, Nordic religions aren't in the same category as Islam and Christianity because those are Judeo-Abrahamic faiths.
	That's where the problem arises.
	Yeah, right.
	I'm not directly equating them as being equal.
	I'm making your point and saying I agree that you cannot directly equate anything, but it's still bad, right?
	It's still bad because it's not true.
	So, I mean, it's bad.
	I mean, there could be positives to it as well, just like anything that's wrong can still have some positives.
	Hey, let me ask you a question.
	Okay, I'm curious.
	Like, how much of the Bible do you believe is true or not?
	Because we've been talking the whole time hypothetical that I'm right.
	And I just want to ask you: like, do you really believe?
	I mean, to believe in Jesus, you have to believe in basically all of the myths of the Old Testament, too.
	So, do you believe all of these things really happened on earth?
	Like, somebody turned into a pillar of salt, a snake turned into, or a staff turned into a snake, these type of things.
	Yes.
	You do believe that a staff just a few thousand years ago just magically turned into a snake.
	You think that's real world happened?
	Yes.
	Did somebody live in a Jonah live in a whale for three days?
	Yes.
	And I mean, I'm at a loss of words to just you would only defend these things because you're a Christian.
	You're validating the myths of the Torah.
	This is such a powerful thing for Jewish prophecy by you conceding to these things.
	Would you agree with that?
	By you believing in the myths of the Old Testament, you're playing into the hands of Jewish prophecy?
	Well, no, I don't agree because you caveated it with myths.
	So maybe you can reframe the Jewish stories.
	By you believing the Jewish stories of the Old Testament, do you see how you're playing into the hands of the prophecies of the chosen ones of the Old Testament?
	Well, sure, but in a way, that's a non-sequitur.
	It's a chicken or the egg question because what you're asking is you're like, did I play into the hands this way because those prophecies are true, right?
	Because they've been fulfilled.
	And that is God, that's grand design.
	Or am I playing into the hands because there's some type of conspiracy that's going on from the Judeo world in order to force me to do so?
	Now, I'm a very rational, very, I mean, rationality and argumentation, structured arguments are things that I love to do.
	And I think that you can pick a bone with every particular thing that I believe in side of Christianity, probably pick it apart and even make me look stupid.
	In fact, you could be like, look, how can a grown man believe that a staff could turn into a snake?
	I think that those are all legitimate criticisms.
	But the difference between you and I is I'm not advocating for global change in the way in which people have faith and belief.
	And you are.
	Fair question here to ask as the arbiter of change, which is what you are, is what does that change look like?
	And you haven't really given me an answer.
	You keep wanting to move the conversation back to the things that I believe.
	And that's fine, but I've directly answered them.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	Yes.
	If there's a drug addict, I don't think that I need to provide him with an alternative drug to take in order to tell him that the drug he's on right now is bad.
	Well, I mean, but that's incorrect, too.
	So if you were to, for instance, pull an alcoholic off of alcohol, you could kill him.
	You have to taper him off by giving him smaller sections of alcohol.
	Like if they're whiskey drinkers, you have to give them a couple of beers a day, or they'll actually die.
	If you're a heavy enough alcoholic, you will die from the withdrawals.
	It's terrible.
	Okay, well, what should we have to addicts?
	Yeah, sorry.
	Well, what can we use to help people detoxify from their Christianity addictions?
	What's a good stepping stone in order to.
	Well, this is your proposition.
	You have to tell us what it is that you want to see and why that change is going to be better in society.
	I don't have to prove that it'll make society better.
	Proving something wrong, I don't have to prove that something will be better.
	It may be worse.
	That's besides the point.
	That's not even the point that I'm arguing.
	Let me ask you a question again.
	Do you believe That Christianity fulfills Jewish prophecy.
	But wait a second, because what you just said before goes against your moral standard.
	So if it doesn't make society better and you're advocating for it, then you're doing the harm.
	No, I think it will make society better.
	I want to live in a society where all of our politicians and all these Christians in America don't believe that Israel is the Holy Land and the Jews are God's chosen people.
	I want to live in a world like that.
	I want to live in a world where the Jews don't believe in these hateful anti-Gentile prophecies at the end of the world, also.
	And I think that that's all fair and okay.
	I understand your position.
	That's the world you want to live in.
	That's the world you're advocating for.
	And it complies with your moral standards because it's going to do less harm than the current world we have where people utilize religion and have provable outcomes that are better than people who do not utilize religion.
	So this is why it's totally fair for me to ask you then, what does that world look like?
	It'll look just like this world without believing in Jewish prophecies and Jewish myths.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Just like this world.
	Like you, just take your worldview and just only remove, cut out only the parts of believing in snakes turning to or staffs turning to snakes and believing that Jesus is saving with his blood is saving your soul from the magical Adam and Eve fruit tree curse.
	Like just get rid of those things and keep all your same views.
	And that's the kind of world I want to live in.
	Just a world without believing in Jewish prophecies and magic.
	Well, okay.
	Well, thanks for saying that.
	I appreciate that because that is the world that you live in.
	It is, basically, because many people don't believe in those things.
	Well, no, that's not why.
	You see, you live in that world because what happened with Protestantism during the Reformation was things like the Jeffersonian Bible, where they took all of those miracles out and just kept the values, which is exactly what you're advocating for.
	And so what you've ended up, what you ended up with was the Enlightenment document called the Constitution and the Enlightenment principles, which then guided this nation towards LGBTQ.
	It guided this nation towards mass promiscuity, towards only fans, towards all the things you would probably likely not like.
	But that was all done via a secular document that separated out the church from the state.
	The morality, they said.
	But the problem is, is that they didn't have anything to base it on.
	So it was just changeable.
	This is like unintended byproducts of an authoritarian belief system.
	Sure, if you have an authoritarian, repressive belief, you're not going to have as many degenerate things going on.
	Adam, this is a republic.
	This is not an authoritarian system.
	It's a republic.
	No, I know that's what we have, but I'm saying like what you think, like a handmaid's tale type of world that you think would be better.
	Like if we had a worldwide Catholic theocracy or Eastern Orthodox theocracy, like I don't, I don't advocate for theocracy.
	Okay.
	What do you advocate for?
	So I advocate inside the United States for one, limited democracy or stakeholder democracy.
	This would be inclusive to all people, but you would have to do a tour of service before you were able to actually vote because I think that masses of people by and large are too stupid to vote without having a stake.
	As far as church and state, what we're talking about is symbiosis.
	We're talking about cooperation between the church and state, not theocratic rule.
	Theocratic rule would not be good for the church or for the state.
	It's not necessary, but there needs to be cooperation in value.
	Society has no more values.
	And that's what we've seen.
	And so what happened is, in your worldview, we already did what you wanted, Adam.
	We already kept all the values and got rid of all the miracle in the Jeffersonian Bible and these Enlightenment documents that came after.
	And all we have now is, and pardon my French, but a society full of faggots and whores, right?
	I mean, that's what we have.
	Well, you know, Christianity is, you know, a lot of people are falling away from Christianity, but some are becoming more extreme also.
	But Christianity ultimately failed to protect the West and Europeans from all of these degenerate things that we see today.
	It ultimately failed.
	So if it failed, I'd say that that's not a divine way.
	I see it as a failure.
	And, you know, you could talk about what kind of future you want to see with politics, but I want to ask, since we're talking religion.
	Okay, go ahead.
	Well, wait, Adam, what would it have looked like if it was a success?
	It could be amazing.
	We could be already, you know, all we could be on the moon.
	We could be on the moon already.
	We could be doing all types of stuff if it weren't for religion.
	So wait, that's a hypothetical.
	You don't know what the last 2,000 years would have looked like without Christianity.
	You're saying, so if we had continued with Christianity, right, society would be a lot better.
	Thanks, Adam.
	It could be.
	If the Abrahamic religions never took off, society could be much more advanced, much better.
	That's possible.
	I asked you, I said, what would society look like right now?
	You said that Christianity failed to save the West because people fell away from it.
	So let's assume people did not fall away from it.
	Do you think that society right now would be better or worse?
	If they didn't fall away from Christianity?
	Yeah.
	If there were more guys like me running society who understood moral structure and things like that, you really think that that's a worse world?
	It could be better in some ways, but like I said, because you're not allowing freedom because it's more authoritative, authoritarian.
	Well, wait, it's not more authoritative.
	What do you mean?
	What's more authoritative than unlimited democracy?
	Well, like saying I'm sure you would just say porn is banned, OnlyFans is banned, you know, all these other things are banned.
	So, you know, I'm more for freedom than having religious dogma dictate.
	You don't want fucking OnlyFans, Adam.
	Come on.
	Like, you're not sit here and advocate that you want women to be able to go on OnlyFans if they want.
	Are you?
	I mean, if they're adults, if you're for freedom, then, I mean, it's a terrible thing.
	It shouldn't be glamorized.
	There should be a stigma around it, I think.
	But, I mean, I don't think it should be outlawed.
	No.
	But, Adam, but Adam, that is advocating slavery.
	It is.
	I agree.
	It is slavery to have the incentive for all that money for young girls.
	I hate it.
	But I'm for freedom over.
	I lean towards freedom over authoritarian religious regimes.
	I don't want to live in North Korea or Iran or under the Taliban or something like that.
	Yeah, but we're not advocating.
	Christian nationalism.
	You've only heard the insane version from these micro-cosmic groups like Grapers, who are literally 17-year-old retards who run around the internet kecking at people.
	They don't know shit about anything.
	Keck?
	What does Keck mean?
	I don't even really know what Keck means.
	It means LOL.
	Okay.
	It just means laugh.
	All right, Keck.
	It just means laugh out loud in the most retarded way that you can abbreviate it, right?
	So anyway, these are the prisms from which you hear about Christian nationalism.
	So it's very easy, I think, for you to conflate this with some type of authoritarianism.
	It's not authoritarianism in nature.
	There's nothing authoritarian about it.
	It's just asking that there be cooperation between the church and the state instead of the state being the ultimate authority.
	And we do that right now with checks and balances in our own government.
	You would just essentially be adding one more check and one more balance.
	That's it.
	It would offer more freedom for people.
	Nobody's even saying to have a state church.
	That's not even necessary.
	You know, I can, for the sake of argument, I can concede that maybe if Andrew Wilson was in charge with his Christian morals, we could have a better society than completely free, you know, all of the crazy things we see in modern times, but that has nothing to do with Christianity being true.
	It has nothing to do with the argument of Christianity being true.
	And you're talking about how you want to see politics today, but what does your religion teach is going to be the future of humanity?
	Like, what do you believe is going to be in the end times?
	If you're a Christian, you must believe in the end times prophecies of Christianity and the return of Jesus.
	So I want to hear what do you think is, how is Jesus going to return in a cloud?
	What's it going to look like?
	What's the future?
	If Christianity is real, these things are going to happen as the prophecies say.
	So what's the future going to look like?
	Yeah.
	Well, so there's, it's, it's speculative, and I'm not the best guy to answer, but I'll give you, I'm not going to dodge the question.
	So end times is speculative, but everything else isn't speculative.
	No, that's not what I said.
	Well, if end times, if the end times prophecies are speculative, then how is not all of the Bible speculative and open to interpretation?
	And why do we have to rely on experts to comprehend the Bible?
	I'd say that means that it's flawed.
	That's a point you made in your intro, too.
	That it's not for the laymans.
	Why do we need to rely on experts to understand the Bible?
	That seems ridiculous.
	Okay.
	Well, do you want me to answer these questions?
	Yeah, try to remember them all.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, well, so I'll do them in reverse.
	First, relying on experts is not an argument because that's all secularists do.
	You actually have no way to determine anything of societal value without relying on expertise and studies and data.
	You have no other way to form an informed opinion without expertise.
	Literally, there's nothing that you, Adam Greene, know right now that you think is objectively true that is not based around somebody else's expertise.
	And if it is, tell me what it is.
	Well, I agree that you should rely on expertise to come to any conclusion on any issue.
	Just not when you're a Christian.
	Just not when you're a Christian.
	No, I think that if we're talking about the divine word of God, the inerrant word of God, it should be a little bit more clear and not open to such interpretations.
	Because what we see is drastic different interpretations and all these different disagreements and denominations because of that.
	You don't.
	You don't.
	That's not true.
	You don't.
	There's a whole church.
	No, no.
	The Protestants split off a couple hundred years ago.
	And that's true.
	They have like 44,000 different denominations, but the Orthodox don't consider them to be Christians.
	They're not Christians.
	And the same thing with the Catholics.
	There's two whole right now.
	You, in your worldview, would really only consider there to be two whole churches, the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church.
	The body of the Orthodox Church has had its tradition intact for 2,000 years.
	There has been no deviation in orthodoxy ever.
	And there's not going to ever be.
	So why wouldn't we rely on experts who have been within the body of the church for 2,000 years?
	That's like saying you have a science, you have a form of science that has been studied by a singular body for 2,000 years and you want to dismiss it.
	It makes no sense.
	Why would you do that?
	So you have a document, you say it's the word of God, the original manuscripts, but you don't have the originals.
	And what you're saying is that you can't read those for yourself and determine what they mean.
	You have to have somebody at the church interpret it for you to tell you what it means.
	And whatever they say, that's what it means.
	Oh, I see.
	So if you pulled up your own medical history, would you maybe have to appeal to an authority to ask them what some of it meant?
	If I had to pull up my medical history, would I ask people what it meant?
	I mean, depends on what kind of medical documents you're talking about.
	But this is a different issue.
	I'm saying, like, we're not talking about simple things.
	We're talking about the complex things.
	Is the Bible not open to crazy different interpretations?
	Why do we need to rely on an ancient book to know the truth of God?
	Why is he hiding?
	Why can't he speak to everybody all at once in a clear way?
	That's my question.
	so I want to answer your questions.
	Yeah, I want to answer them, but you have to give them to me one at a time, okay?
	Otherwise, I can't feel them.
	So, to answer this question as concisely as I can, it is true that within Protestantism, you have a great point, which is why we're against Protestantism.
	It's terrifically bad for everybody.
	Okay, it's got thousands of different denominations, they all believe crazy shit, specifically because they decided to interpret the documents themselves without using the actual body of the church, which is what the Bible says we're to do.
	The church of Jesus Christ that he laid down, this is what he said to do to utilize the church authority and the church body.
	And this is why we have a 2,000-year-old tradition unchanging.
	And it's, by the way, this is what split Rome in half between East and West.
	You had the Eastern Orthodoxy, then you had Western Catholicism, essentially.
	So, what I'm telling you is that I think that your interpretation, if you apply it to Protestantism, is great.
	Sure, let's get rid of all the fucking Protestants, right?
	I think the society would be far better, but I don't think it would be better if you just got rid of Christianity or you got rid of the Orthodox face or even the Catholic faith because you can't replace it with anything.
	There's nothing, there's no alternative that Adam can offer because he just says that things that are not true, people shouldn't believe.
	And if you apply that across the board to everything, there's not going to be any religion at all.
	So, you have to have something for people to follow.
	What's going to be the state, celebrities, e-celebrities?
	Like, what's it going to be?
	What are they going to follow?
	What's their ideal going to be?
	What's their purpose-driven life going to be, Adam?
	Well, maybe it'd be better if people weren't so much about needing something to follow and having other people do all their thinking for them and acting like.
	You're not going to change human nature, brother.
	You're not going to change human nature.
	Well, that is human nature.
	That's why religion is so prevalent throughout history.
	I agree with that.
	But again, I go back to why would you want to believe any of all these things that aren't true?
	It's all based on myths and myths from a hostile enemy that considers us their enemy.
	Why would you embrace their God and their Messiah when their origins consider you as an enemy?
	So, first and foremost, I've already told you this, but I'll tell you to you again.
	Christianity has axiomatic value structures, which even if you believe everything in the Bible is incorrect from your secular worldview, you cannot argue that they have universal axiomatic values in which you yourself value greatly and operate within those paradigms yourself.
	So, when you say to me, why would you believe something that's untrue, right?
	But you yourself have no source or base for why you believe any of the things that you believe are true except intuition.
	You just intuitively think murder is bad, you intuitively think theft is bad.
	You know, it's things are wrong.
	It is, yeah.
	Through evolution and the use of our brains, we can determine that certain things are wrong.
	I see a good comment here.
	It says, Andrew thinks that people are evil morons that need to be deceived to be good.
	That is kind of the take that you're having.
	I don't think that that's a straw.
	No, and I think you're kind of right.
	Like, I can kind of agree with that point.
	A lot of people are evil morons and the deception keeps them behaving, but it also has the opposite effect.
	It doesn't have anything to do with evil at all.
	I don't even think that you can describe for me what you would consider evil.
	So, why would you ever put a nomenclature on me for evil?
	I don't think you could tell me what you thought evil even was, Adam.
	Sure, I could.
	Like, what is evil?
	Evil is evil, is people that want to hurt others, that take pleasure in hurting others, that don't care about hurting others, that do it repeatedly, that take what'd you say?
	So, it's doing harm, doing harm is evil.
	Yeah, but you could also do harm where it's not coming from an evil place, also.
	Okay, what is that?
	So, so when we were saying that you can do unintentional harm, that you're hurting somebody down the line that you don't even know, that you don't even think about, that's unintentional harm.
	Okay, so evil is intention partly, yes.
	Yep, that's why in law we have intent, that's what matters.
	Like, if it's a first-degree or second-degree murder, it depends on intent.
	Yeah, so what if you intend to make the world a better place by killing three million people and your intent was good?
	Would that be evil?
	Would you be an evil person?
	Well, if those were innocent people, then yes, that would be evil.
	Yeah, but how would you determine that they were innocent?
	Well, if they actually committed a crime or did something to you?
	So what if he just wanted to kill three million criminals?
	Would he be evil then?
	I mean, depends on the crime that they did.
	I think some crimes, capital punishment is okay in some circumstances.
	So some of them could have been justified, but not every crime deserves death.
	No.
	Yeah, but what do you, but this is what I mean is like, this is such a non-category for evil.
	I still don't understand what you consider evil to you.
	But if I give you, but if I give you an intent that is somebody trying to be good and they do evil, that's unintentional evil.
	That's a good point.
	Because a lot of people do evil thinking that they're doing good.
	That's a good point.
	So is that evil?
	Yeah.
	Hmm.
	That's a good question.
	Maybe, maybe not.
	But maybe it is.
	Evil is a subjective thing.
	It's not a cut and dry black and white thing because there's no moral, you know, just like we don't get our morals from God, there's no clear cut and dry on what evil is.
	This is why this is better that people get together and actually discuss these things and take things on a case-by-case basis instead of relying on the Ten Commandments or, you know, the Bible to get our values.
	I'm going to take it on a case-by-case basis.
	But what I'm saying to you is, is that that's why I said you couldn't really tell me what evil was, and you explained why, which is because it's subjective.
	In your worldview, it's evil is subjective.
	And I agree within your worldview.
	But I can give you examples of evil, though.
	Sure.
	You know it when you see it, right?
	Like I didn't give the example that you gave of somebody doing something thinking that they're doing good.
	I said somebody that takes pleasure in harming others.
	I said that's evil.
	But we've got an hour and 10 minutes.
	Let me get a couple super chats.
	I wanted to keep this like hour and 15 max, kind of.
	I didn't discuss with you how long we'd go, but I've enjoyed it.
	I've enjoyed the talk.
	These are stimulating conversations.
	Thank you for having me on this evening.
	Yes.
	Cube RT96 with the big donation.
	Thank you so much.
	Says, thank you for coming on the show, Andrew.
	I'm just curious, have you ever taken a step back and honestly questioned any aspects of Christianity?
	I do it all the time.
	That's good.
	Remember, I asked E. Michael Jones that and he said, no.
	He said, no, I haven't.
	I thought that was...
	Like all of us, I'm imperfect.
	I've struggled with my faith, right?
	I struggled with Protestantism more than anything because of the many incoherencies that were in it.
	And first and foremost, I'm a logician.
	That's what I do.
	And of course, I have to examine these things on a truth basis.
	I do think that that is important.
	And I think that a future conversation, we can expand on these things because they are important.
	And I just have different reasons why I think the things that I think than Adam does, but I don't think they're any less valid.
	To follow up there, what are aspects of Christianity that you do struggle with?
	So for me, there's obviously abstract concepts that are very difficult for everybody within Christianity.
	Here's a good one for you, and you've brought this up yourself.
	It's very difficult for which is forgiving your enemies, right?
	That has been a struggle for me to forgive my enemies and not kick them when they're down a little bit, you know, or things.
	They're bad people.
	But there's more wisdom than you could ever imagine in the teaching of forgiving your enemies.
	Even people like Sun Tzu, who are not Christians, preach to forgive their enemies.
	So, there is a lot of wisdom to it, regardless of even a Christian perspective.
	But I don't think that you could be a good Christian at all unless you follow that doctrine.
	And I've struggled with it a lot.
	You know, I mean, I forgot who said it, but like, there's a saying about holding a grudge against somebody doesn't hurt that other person.
	It only hurts you in a way, like, because it kind of sits on your soul.
	And I do think that there is some value in finding empathy in your enemies because, you know, there's people come from all different places and have all different types of views and stuff.
	But I think as a law from God to love your persecutor and love your enemy and turn the other cheek, I think those do kind of put us susceptible in a vulnerable position to be taken advantage of in a way religiously.
	Also, the idea that it's okay with being a slave and collect your treasures in heaven and this world isn't important, all those are other, you know, subversive worldviews.
	To address that, like when you really think about that, if you, if somebody who was malicious towards you slapped you and you offered them the other cheek in humbleness and you were like, look, I'm not your enemy.
	You can slap my other cheek.
	Doesn't it intuitively rise in you that the likelihood that the person will slap you twice drastically goes down just based on the fact that you were willing to offer him your other cheek?
	I think it does depends on the person hitting you.
	Some people will take pleasure and hit you twice.
	Yeah.
	I agree, right?
	But I think it still logically stands true that people would think twice.
	If an act of humbleness often will drag a person back from the brink of evil, really.
	Do you ever struggle with the part of Christianity about how Jesus is a like a blood offering sacrifice and like the idea of atonement scapegoating that you're forgiven because somebody else, like a goat, was killed or the Son of God was killed?
	Like so that's not having accountability for your own things in a way.
	Okay, so you're talking about a different worldview than I have, right?
	So I don't, the language that you're using is Jesus was set up as a blood sacrifice specifically to forgive us our sins, this type of thing.
	Well, let me see Yom Kippur and Passover goat is how he's associated with all over the New Testament.
	Well, I have to ask you a question then.
	Does a goat have a choice?
	No, of course not.
	No, but Jesus had the choice, right?
	Did he really?
	Did he not cry in the garden of Gethsemane at Gethsemane?
	Did he not say, you have forsaken me?
	Why have you forsaken me?
	Yeah, well, yes, but that would say he didn't have a choice.
	I mean, this is God's plan.
	Is Jesus not God?
	Do you believe in the Trinity?
	Is He not God?
	So He was doing what He came there to do.
	It's part of the plan.
	It wasn't a choice.
	It was part of the plan.
	That's my answer.
	So, so I want to just let you know what you're doing there.
	Is before I can get an answer out, you are already moving on to the next section to try to make your point.
	And you should let me finish the answer, and then I'll let you move on to the next point.
	Like, we've been doing the whole conversation.
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So, the goat, the goat doesn't have a choice.
	Jesus Christ had a choice.
	According to our faith, he did.
	Whether your interpretation of that is that he did not, because he was a man and he wasn't God, or even that he didn't exist, according to our faith, he did have the choice to die for our sins because he's God.
	It was always within his purview.
	That's why when you had thieves on the cross, one of them asked him, If you're God, why don't you come off of this cross?
	That's what the prophecy said would happen.
	That didn't actually happen.
	That's just straight from the scripture.
	I know you don't believe that that happened, but I don't think it's relevant to my point, which is in our faith purview, Christ had always the choice.
	Christ was able to walk.
	How would you be saved if he didn't die?
	We don't believe in the Orthodox world, in penal atonement, you have to understand these are really broad concepts that are not designed for the layman to just deconstruct.
	These are metaphysical concepts that go with the text in the scripture.
	So, like, when I ask you the question, does the goat have a choice?
	That should really get your mind moving on this blood sacrifice thing, right?
	It really should change the way that you look at that as a perspective basis.
	So, the next thing you have to do then to hold your argument up is just dismiss it as being fake, right?
	You don't really have a choice.
	I mean, you're still not addressing the point, though, that it's like a retelling of the Yom Kippur story that a goat dies and you're forgiven for your sins.
	You're atoned for the day of atonement.
	That's what Yom Kippur was.
	Yeah, so you may be completely right in what that is.
	I'm not familiar enough with the text to give you an informed argument on it.
	I'm just telling you, my faith informs me that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and that was his choice.
	It was not a blood sacrifice like you would with a goat, like you said, because a goat has no choice in these matters.
	They don't have dominion.
	Jesus was offered the entire world by the devil himself and said no.
	So, yeah, I think he had the choice.
	Okay.
	Jesus said that he had to be arrested and he had to die according to the scriptures.
	That's what the gospels say.
	He had to do it according to the scriptures.
	Sounds like he didn't have much of a choice.
	This was all God's plan to redeem the world.
	So, and that this beg, this is the bigger question.
	He is God.
	You got to understand.
	Why does God need to sacrifice himself to himself to fulfill his own rules?
	Doesn't that sound a little crazy to you?
	So, so I think from your purview, of course, it does.
	Why wouldn't it?
	But what I'm saying to you is that it doesn't really matter if, within your purview, you don't believe this or you just think it's hyper.
	Say that again.
	You're cut out a little bit.
	You cut out for like five seconds.
	Back up if you can.
	You just cut out for five seconds.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	What matters most here for the purpose of this conversation, and if again, I'm happy to come back and have a theological debate and we can go point by point.
	But I think that the main thing here that I'm trying to get across is difference in ethical systems.
	And I'm trying to figure out what these differences would look like.
	When you bring up things that you consider in your secular worldview to be contrary to what you logically think is possible, I can't really argue those things with you.
	You're a layman, right?
	You won't agree with any metaphysical concepts.
	How about I say we can live in a world where we adopt some of the values from Christianity, but we just don't actually believe that these myths are real?
	Can we agree on a world like that?
	Well, that's the world we live in now.
	It kind of is.
	You're right.
	Let me get to another super chat here.
	We got to move along.
	Renéce, a great supporter of mine, Renes, says, Andrew, are you aware of the Noahide laws?
	I am.
	Okay, you don't plan on joining anytime?
	Converting?
	That's a joke.
	Okay.
	To what?
	To Judaism?
	Well, to be a Noahide.
	Christianity is a step towards being a Noahide because you already believe in there.
	Well, so the Noahide laws are interesting, and I've heard you talk about those as well.
	And I also used to them a lot when I would go in and argue in various Wignat circles to listen to what they had to say on these topics.
	So, no, I'm not calling you a Wignat circle.
	I'm just a Wignat.
	I'm just using this as a reference point because it's a word most people, I think, understand what I'm saying.
	So inside of those particular circles, the Noahide laws would come up quite often.
	Most of these laws were constructed through various rabbinic arguments that went on for a long, long, long time.
	And, I mean, it was everything from, you know, five interpretations to what the rainbow meant after it was done and this type of thing.
	And it did inform the Jewish faith for their law.
	That's true.
	However, Christians don't follow Noahide law, and we never have.
	It's true.
	Generally, they don't, but they do target Christians for converts.
	Okay, men like, I can't read the rest because it's not letting me switch to the full view, says communism, a new form of Judaism, is what ruins society, not enlightenment philosophy.
	Communism, well, so actually, that's a great point, if you don't mind if I address that, because it is a good point.
	It is true that Jewish Bolshevik communists came to the United States in the middle of the 20th century and did begin to wreck it.
	But the way that they wrecked it was using the Enlightenment Constitution and using the perspective of unlimited freedom to subvert our entire system from the ground up.
	They were able to infiltrate via various electoral circles, every academic institution.
	They were able to infiltrate almost every single position of authority.
	And they have eroded by using the Constitution, which was designed to protect your freedoms as a enlightenment document.
	They were able to erode that document by using it against us.
	So, I mean, he makes a great point, and I wouldn't even argue the point.
	I would just say that it exacerbated what would have been a natural progression anyway, as by, you know, the mid-20th century, we had already lost a lot of those values we had in the 1800s from the Constitution, where we were willing to fight a war over just the 10th Amendment.
	I'd like to live in a world where I'm not stuck between a rock and a hard place between Judeo-Christian values and communist values.
	I wish we had another option between those two.
	Well, but communists kill Christians.
	So based specifically on our values.
	And the Orthodox were persecuted by communists like you couldn't believe.
	The communists, in fact, overthrew Tsar Nicholas.
	They tolerated him later, though.
	The KGB approved Russian Orthodox Church.
	They used them.
	Russia has significantly changed.
	And what happened was the value structure of the nation was eroding.
	They didn't have a choice.
	They had to turn back to religion.
	Stalin had a second nation.
	It was completely, I mean, there was no religion allowed.
	It was the state.
	They literally imposed a separation of church and state.
	Stalin was the demigod of Russia.
	You know, I read an article recently that Putin believes that Christianity is related to communism.
	And a lot of people have made a lot of associations between the two.
	I think that communist infiltrators in Christianity are absolutely the case, just like there's communist infiltrators in every aspect of government.
	The church has often been a target for subversive groups.
	The whole church of the Orthodox is no exception, but it became much easier for subverters to get into Protestant religions and Protestant denominations because they're completely fractured and they adhere to the solos.
	So they really do believe that their personal interpretation and how they exegete text is correct, regardless of what the church body says.
	So it literally makes them ripe to be plucked by subversive groups.
	But they weren't just targeted by communists.
	They were targeted by huge abortion advocates, for instance, like Margaret Singer.
	Is Christianity targeted by communists or is the doctrine inherently communist?
	Like when it teaches you to give away all your belongings to the poor and just follow the Jewish Messiah and that everybody is a brother in Christ around the world, those seem like kind of communist ideals to me.
	Well, I could see where you could make an argument for the first of saying, give up all of your possessions and follow me.
	But those were clarified through various parables as to what that actually meant, which is that it was better to do that.
	There's no worldly possession That's worth you having, that's worth your salvation.
	Like Jesus Christ said himself, for what good is it for a man to sacrifice his entire soul for the whole world?
	Nothing.
	It does you no good.
	The second aspect to this that I feel is very important that you brought up, which is kind of point two, just love thy neighbor, right?
	You're my brother in Christ, even if you're over here.
	I don't understand why that would be a bad concept to anybody or why you would consider that to be communism.
	Community is not about love, it's about the state.
	It's a bad concept because it's the concept from the Torah that the whole world will.
	I mean, it literally says in Isaiah that the Gentiles will seek the Moshiach.
	This is the plan.
	We'll be rejected by the Jews and will go to the Gentiles.
	That's part of their plan.
	That's the scheme.
	That's the ploy.
	That's why it's not a good thing to fall for their deception.
	Okay, wait, wait a second, Adam.
	If you're dealing with the text, though, directly, like, don't you think it's a good idea to love your neighbor?
	The original context of love your neighbor was a Jew loving a fellow Jew.
	Okay, but I'm asking you specifically right now, right?
	Right this second, don't you?
	Sure, you should love everybody.
	Yeah, you don't need you don't need the Bible to want to treat people the way you want to be treated, though.
	Yeah, but that goes to my point, which is to say, how would it be communist then for me to love somebody who's in a different country, regardless of your biblical faith?
	That wouldn't be a communist doctrine.
	The idea that it's like the whole world, I mean, it's not nationalistic.
	Like, you talk about Christian nationalism.
	Why would that not be nationalistic?
	I can still love you in a different way.
	It's a universal religion.
	I mean, this is the objective: to have the whole world worshiping the Jewish Messiah and the God of Israel.
	Wait, no.
	The Bible says that the nations will endure.
	Okay.
	You can have your own nationalistic outlook and have your cultural values and everything else stay completely intact and still love people from other cultures and not want to harm them or hurt them.
	It's international.
	It's the whole world.
	In fact, it's probably preferable.
	It's the New World Order.
	The idea of the New World Order, a one-world government, one world religion, that's all from the Bible.
	That's all communist doctrine.
	No, it's from the Bible, though.
	That's all in common.
	That's what the Bible has in common with communism.
	Communists hate the Bible and they kill Christians everywhere, everywhere.
	That communists take over.
	The first thing they do is kill the church.
	First thing.
	But the KGB did allow, they did eventually allow the Orthodox Church in Russia to operate and use them as informants.
	Yeah, via necessity, right?
	So communists will make exemptions for anything.
	For instance, abortion.
	You may not know this, but the communists instituted an abortion law where any woman could get an abortion anytime she wanted up to whatever trimester she wanted.
	And that was okay.
	But what happened was as Stalin was moving into war, he realized he did not have enough soldiers.
	So they got rid of that policy real quick.
	All of a sudden, the unlimited doctrine of women whatever they wanted with the reproductive rights was set aside for communist principles.
	They will set aside anything in order to achieve their goals.
	They don't care.
	Communists don't fucking care.
	Okay.
	The New World Order documents out that they want to eliminate Christianity, Adam.
	Yeah, but the New World Order is a one-world government, one world religion, mark of the beast.
	That's also all the God's plan is a new world order.
	A whole world worshiping the Jewish God.
	The law will come forth from Zion.
	Is that the New World Order you want?
	But these are the, these are just because you know the plan doesn't mean that your choices are not still intact.
	It's human beings' own choices that have led us to this.
	And you would have to admit that that's true even as a secularist.
	Say it again.
	What do I admit it?
	Individualistic choices have led individualists.
	You would have to admit, even as somebody who's a individualistic choice has led us to where we're at right now.
	Christianity led us to where we're at right now.
	My family's been Christian for generations.
	Well, Christianity is a choice, right?
	I mean, a lot of kids are indoctrinated into it, so not really, not totally a choice, but sure.
	For some people, it's a choice.
	So, I mean, but that's like saying you're born in America, so you have no choice but to be American.
	It's like, okay, but you do, right?
	You do.
	You do actually have a choice.
	Not everybody can move away from America, actually.
	If you don't have the resources, you can't really get away and up and leave.
	But you can.
	Let's do a couple more super chats, and I want to wrap it up because definitely we want to keep it under an hour and a half.
	So we're hitting the limit.
	Duvid says, Andrew going to book Adam for modern-day debates.
	Adam almost ready to hit the mainstream debate circuits.
	Question mark.
	Duvid wants to do a two-on-two debate.
	Tell me about that.
	Do you know what the deal is there?
	Yeah, so Duvid, Duvid takes your stance that Christianity is a Jewish subverted religion, which I find interesting because I've confirmed, validated, Jewish approval.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I've always thought that Duvid was himself pretty subversive.
	I think that it's interesting that he takes the same line that you do on it.
	He wanted to do a team debate against myself, maybe my wife, or Zen Shapiro, or something like this in combo, which I didn't think was a terrible idea.
	But it wasn't, that's not why I put you in touch with MDD.
	I put you in touch with MDD specifically because one of the things that he had said to me in that message was that you wanted to, you know, maybe go on that larger platform.
	So that's why I connected the two of you.
	And then, you know, I left the conversation right after that because I it's oh, yeah.
	Well, I mean, you know what I mean?
	I said I would be open.
	I'm not like dying to get on.
	I don't even have anybody in mind to debate on there.
	You know, I would really ask them to come debate on my channel, if anything, but I just said I would be open to it, which I am.
	So, you know, it's a great platform.
	Yeah, it's a great platform.
	He's James is a really nice guy.
	I'm sure you had a chance to talk with him.
	Just a little bit, what you saw.
	We're talking about modern-day debates.
	It's a debate show on YouTube.
	I've watched many debates there.
	Andrew had a debate there the other night.
	What did you debate?
	Wokeness or something like that, right?
	You and your wife?
	Yeah, wokeness.
	Yeah.
	Did you win?
	How did that go?
	Or did you get out woked?
	We wrecked them good.
	Their proposition failed in the first 10 minutes.
	So, yeah.
	Did you talk about pronouns?
	Well, you know, you have to be very careful about what you talk about on these platforms, you know, including pronouns, which is a, you know, that's a pet peeve of mine.
	Oftentimes, you know, that's one of the reasons why a lot of the Odyssey stuff I don't get as involved with as I used to, because they only ever want me to come in to talk about my views on racialism.
	They never want me to talk about my views on transgenderism, LGBTQ, any of the other moral structures.
	They only care about racialism because they want conflict.
	You know what I mean?
	So they want me to come in and just be the conflict guy.
	And it gets annoying after a while, you know.
	Well, I appreciate you coming on and giving me a little bit of conflict tonight because it is better than people agreeing with me about everything.
	Let me make sure I got this last.
	Well, this is different.
	So I enjoy having these types of structured debates, especially about Christianity and putting my worldview against other people's.
	I think that that's good.
	It's just after a while I get tired of having the same debate, right?
	Totally, yeah.
	Here's another one from Zio Free.
	Adam, if Zog didn't exist and Zog's plan wasn't being implemented, why would you care about people believing in God, Allah, etc.?
	I wouldn't, to answer that.
	I understand what you're trying to do to make a world aware of hatred and Torah toward Amalekites, Muslims, West, and how U.S., et cetera, being used for war, chaos, etc., to the benefit of the bankers.
	I'm guessing that this is a Muslim, that the Muslims are not taking it well, that I'm telling them that their religion is just as fake as Judaism and Christianity.
	But same goes for them.
	And all of these three Abrahamic religions kind of prop each other up.
	They all enable each other.
	I see them all as codependents.
	They all need each other in this dialectic, this trialectic of Abrahamic faiths.
	Why do you think that?
	I think they created versions of Judaism for the Gentile religions that are somewhat Noahides to pin them against each other.
	Rassell Frassen says, not a rich man.
	It's not a holy triune.
	It is, exactly.
	Yeah.
	Rassel Frassen says, not a rich man, but I give what I can.
	It's based upon the belief of the patriarchs.
	Esau is the Christianity in Ishmael, the firstborn of Abraham, the waste product, as Chabad says, is the Arabs, and then the waste product of Isaac, which is the firstborn Esau, is Christianity.
	Right.
	Right.
	The two brothers went off.
	I actually saw a video that you did where you mentioned this, where the two brothers went off and one founded Christianity, essentially, and the other one founded the Muslim religion.
	And I think that that would be a good one for me to come back and take you to task on because I don't think that you accurately have that history laid out.
	But that's just me.
	Well, I mean, regardless of the history, I mean, Islam is an Abrahamic faith, and they just conveniently believe that they are the sons of Ishmael when that's what the Talmud and the Jews believed before Islam existed.
	I find that a little too coincidental.
	And I think looking at both, it becomes clear what happened with this dialectical system of controlled opposition religions.
	But quick 30-second closer, and we're going to get it closed out.
	Andrew, thanks for coming on.
	Final words for you?
	Yeah, so I just wanted to thank our host, Adam Green.
	I don't agree with very much that he says, but we've always had very good conversations back and forth.
	And even on Twitter, he's always been very cordial with me.
	And we've had good conversations there as well.
	So I appreciate him allowing me to come on and say my piece.
	And I'm looking forward to future conversations and even debates on the Crucible.
	So thank you very much, Adam.
	And I always admire anybody that is willing to debate controversial issues publicly with their real face and their real name and stuff.
	So I thought it was a good talk.
	Hopefully everybody got some value out of it.
	Let us know what you think in the comments.
	The Crucible to find all his stuff on Twitter, YouTube, Odyssey, all the alternative platforms.
	Thank you, everybody, so much for watching.
	No morenews.org to find all my links.
	All the links are below.
	Support on Subscribestar.
	Thank you so much to all the super chats tonight, especially Cube and all the rest of the friends.
	And thank you, everybody, so much.
	Have a nice night, and I will see you again soon.

▲