Know More News - Adam Green - The Crucible Bible Debate: Adam Green vs. Posh

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 8, 2022 - Know More News - Adam Green

03:34:07

The Crucible Bible Debate: Adam Green vs. Posh

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome back to The Crucible.
	I'm your host, Andrew Wilson.
	Tonight, we have Adam Green returning to the Crucible to take on Posh Redneck.
	They're both very experienced debaters.
	I expect that this will be an extremely good debate.
	Expecting it'll be high contention.
	Always like that here on the Crucible.
	You can send in your super chats through YouTube if you have a question.
	You'll also see a stream elements link at the top.
	You can send that through too.
	That saves us about 30% if you do it that way.
	Whichever way you're the most comfortable doing it for super chat questions, you're welcome to do it.
	We'll be getting to the super chats before we get to the callers tonight to make sure that we can field all of them.
	But we will take a few select callers if they choose to call in after we get through those.
	I've been looking forward to this one for a while.
	Should be very good.
	The topic is the Bible.
	Make sure that you like, share, subscribe, and listen to Hypnotoad.
	Hypnotoad And I'll be right back with our debaters.
	music plays
	And here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
	Adam Green from No More News against Posh Redneck.
	Take a second, Adam.
	Shout out where everybody can find you and just briefly tell them a little bit about you.
	You can find all my links on no morenews.org, and that's K-N-O-W.
	It says in my title there.
	I'm posting on streaming on Odyssey and posting on BitChute, as well as on social medias, Twitter, Gab, Telegram, and at No More News since 2014.
	I've been focused mostly on Zionism, which derives from the Judeo-Christian faiths and Judaism and Christianity.
	So that's what we're going to be discussing tonight.
	Thanks for having me back, Andrew, and good to meet you, Posh.
	Yeah, most certainly, Adam.
	You're always very good in these things.
	We appreciate you coming back to the Crucible.
	Posh Redneck, take a second.
	So currently, I've only got, I've got a YouTube channel, so it's the posh redneck.
	Not much going on there at the moment.
	I've got an Instagram, the underscore posh underscore redneck, which people can contact me on if they have questions.
	That's what I use it for.
	I post memes also, I suppose.
	And I've got a Twitter, but I have no ability to use most of these things.
	This is the first time I've had an Instagram and a Twitter because I am just a cremogeny old man in a 28-year-old body, apparently.
	Yeah.
	Well, and you have that ridiculous English accent and you're a Serbian.
	It's just weird.
	You know, there's something going on.
	I'm kidding.
	All right, gentlemen, Adam, if you want to open, you're welcome to.
	Posh, if you want to, you're welcome to as well.
	Which one of you would prefer to go first?
	Doesn't matter to me.
	Okay, Adam, we'll start with you then.
	You have up to seven minutes for your opening statement.
	You can take as much of it as...
	I forgot to set a timer.
	Posh, how do you have that accent?
	I got to ask, by the way.
	If you say you were doxxed in your face, I don't think anybody would believe that that was your voice.
	Not at all.
	Probably.
	It took quite a while for it to be recognized.
	But as I'm not a native English speaker and my area of study is linguistics, and I really like studying phonetics.
	And as a very young boy, I was highly influenced by performances by Christopher Lee.
	You know, so I tended to emulate them far before I knew how to properly do so phonetically.
	So it's a strange thing that's happened.
	And of course, the voice is mostly genetic.
	I mean, you should just do like voiceovers for Disney movies and make millions.
	I'm telling you.
	Anyway, no, thank you.
	No, thank you.
	Adam, you got seven minutes on the club.
	I'm ready.
	Go ahead.
	Okay, the sacred seven.
	So we're debating the Bible, which I guess that means we're debating Judaism and Christianity.
	And the fact that we're even having this debate at all, I think, shows that none of it's legitimate and it's just made up myths and legends and man-made because we don't, just like we don't debates if the sun is in the sky or the boiling point of water, things that you can actually prove.
	We don't debate these things, but we do debate Christianity.
	So the fact that there's so many people that don't believe or don't see and that there even is a debate at all kind of works against your argument that there is an all-powerful God that created everything.
	And the whole idea of even trying to provide proof of God or that the God of the Bible is true is kind of counterintuitive because there's so much emphasis in the Christian faith based on faith, which is really belief of something like without evidence.
	Otherwise, it wouldn't be faith.
	So you have to have faith, and there's so much emphasis put on that because there isn't good proof.
	There's so many extraordinary claims made in the Bible, and the evidence is so flimsy.
	In fact, all the evidence really supports the case that it's not true.
	And the fact that God is hiding and doesn't make himself known, he knows what it would take to make himself known to everybody so he could clearly communicate his message and his desires and his laws.
	But instead, he relies, we have to rely on ancient books which were written by men.
	And because God doesn't make himself known, we have to require on, we have to have debates and we have to rely on philosophers or apologists or theologians to argue on his behalf because he's not making it apparent that he even exists.
	And by extension, you could say Christianity and Judaism aren't true.
	And we can start with the gospel before we even get to the gospels.
	The Old Testament, the Hebrew myths and legends of the Hebrew Torah and Tanakh, these are very clearly mythologies.
	They were written at a time where people were very ignorant about the world and written by myth makers, just like all people at this back then were writing myths and they were superstitious.
	And so the gospels are the fake fulfillment literary construct, a fabrication of prophecies of the Old Testament being fulfilled, written with allegory and symbolism in the Gospels.
	The Gospels are unreliable.
	They're convoluted, contradictory.
	They are inconsistent.
	They are not the inerrant word of God, which that proves.
	They are written by unknown authors at an unknown place, unknown time, very likely many decades after the fact of the supposed events.
	There's no corroboration of any of these events happening.
	Nobody wrote about these things at the time.
	And the likelihood, the probability that these stories and these miracles and these myths, the probability that they were just made up myths is so much more likely than all of these things being true.
	Far more plausible that these were just lies.
	These are forgeries.
	This is mythology and legends that developed over time.
	And so God is hiding, doesn't make himself known.
	The fact that there's so many different, it's so open to interpretation.
	We don't have the original sources.
	There's copies of copies.
	Who knows how many times they were changed?
	They're so open to interpretation that nobody, even Christian believers, can't even agree on what the Bible means and what the rules and the laws are.
	Just like the rabbis say they have the Torah, the written law, and the oral law, that they require the oral law because they need explanations to tell you what the written law means.
	Orthodox has very similar things.
	They have explanations that people have to appeal to authority and just say their version is true, whatever explanation they have to get around inconvenient facts or explain things.
	And the gospels are written not as historical biographies by like skeptics that are really trying to get the truth.
	These are religiously motivated, it's religiously motivated propaganda, essentially, with the motive to create converts to the Christian faith, to the Judeo-Christian faith.
	And if God really wanted everybody to have his message, he has the power that he could speak to everybody, but we have to rely on ancient books.
	And very inconvenient that all of these miracles and things used to happen back then, but never happened now.
	Also, the world we see, the world we can observe, shows that there isn't an all-loving, all-powerful God, Yahweh.
	All of the problem of suffering, either God doesn't have the power to stop it, doesn't care, wants it to happen, or he doesn't exist.
	Most likely, he doesn't exist.
	There's all the endless suffering in the world.
	Animals eating animals, all the pain and suffering all throughout the history on this planet.
	Is this animals have to suffer because they're fallen, because Adam and Eve and fallen?
	I don't buy it.
	So much suffering for an all-loving God.
	He could have done it differently if he was real.
	I mean, other things like birth defects, far more birth defects can be explained by naturalistic explanations and evolution, the replication of organisms blending their DNA, and then you get mutations, and many of them are bad.
	And this is explained not with the God of Israel, but with science and the explanation of evolution, which I saw your evolution debate, by the way, with Spencer and JFG.
	And so let's see, we got 30 seconds left.
	Christianity is so absurd, the whole one minute, okay.
	I don't know what's up with that.
	Maybe you started late.
	The whole idea that you believe in the Hebrew Torah, the Hebrew prophecies, otherwise, you're gonna go to hell, you're gonna be punished in some way or another, you won't be with God in heaven just because you don't believe in all of these absurd things.
	It's just not even a moral type of thing.
	And the fact that Christianity is based on Yom Kippur ritual, blood, magic, ritual, atonement, sacrifice, you're forgiven by somebody else, God coming into human form and killing himself.
	It's just so asinine.
	I'm almost embarrassed for people that have to try to defend this because it's so mythological, so superstitious, so unfounded in reality.
	And I wish Christians would apply the same skepticism they do to other religions and other claims towards Christianity.
	They don't do that.
	And I see Christians as I'm going to wrap it up here, just contributing more to the Judaism problem.
	Instead of exposing the Torah, you defend the Torah, you uphold the Torah, you spread the Torah.
	And that's how Christianity kind of plays into the whole Torah prophecies.
	And I'll leave it there.
	Thank you so much for that opening statement, Adam.
	Hosh Redneck, you have seven minutes on the clock.
	You can take as much of it as you need, or as little of it as you want.
	Go ahead.
	All right.
	First, to start off, this shows the particular problem that people seem to equate a particular form of Protestantism with Christianity.
	And what I will try to show here is that there is a huge problem with textual analysis that we see of people who do not recognize how language works.
	And all right, fair enough.
	The problem is that those people start their own movements.
	Now, I've been told that we have all sorts of things that are unlikely.
	Well, I would also posit that it is enormously unlikely if I wanted to go with this type of evidentiary claims for how did the universe start?
	How did our planets form?
	How do all of these things fit in that we have a life-permitting planet here?
	How do we get the first living cell?
	A biogenesis is so completely incapable of answering how we get the first proto-cell.
	That even if you grant these scientists the components needed for a cell, they can't assemble one.
	And they don't know how to get those components through a biogenically prebiotically relevant manner.
	But apparently, we are supposed to believe that, even though we haven't witnessed it, we haven't witnessed anything similar to it.
	We haven't witnessed how we get multicellular organisms.
	We don't know how to explain consciousness.
	We don't know how to explain a lot of things.
	But you see, this appeals to the myth of neutrality: that there is this naturalism, it is actually the neutral thing, and that naturalists don't connect into an entire system that has to account for itself.
	On another note, I suppose we'll get into the geopolitical aspects of it maybe a bit later.
	I am completely shocked by the fact that someone thinks the Orthodox Church is somehow pro-Zion, when in fact it has been in the area of Palestine pretty hard hit by the entire project.
	Not to mention things like the protocols of the elders of Zion.
	But okay.
	So, what I will really have to go into right now is because we need to set a certain standard here.
	Let's go with a typical new atheist.
	I'm not saying Adam is a new atheist, but the new atheist critique of God sending bears to kill Prophet Elisha, calling him bald.
	So, there are little children who call him bold, so God sends bears to kill them.
	Right?
	And if he read certain translations, that is actually what it says.
	It says little children.
	But this shows a lack of linguistic ability and lack of knowledge, of course, not just ability.
	That we have words like na'ar, which can be translated to more than a dozen Greek words and have been translated to more than a dozen Greek words by Hebrew scholars when we are talking about the Septuagint and so on.
	This was after the Greek conquest of these areas.
	And na'ar is something that can mean children or young men.
	And specifically, it comes with the adjective qatan, which means little or small.
	So we are then told to believe that, oh, this means little children called Elisha Bald, and God punished them.
	The entire problem with this is that words like Na'ar are used to describe all sorts of people, one of them being Zeba, who had 15 sons.
	Now, I'm not aware that there is a particular young boy who has 15 sons.
	It would be rather difficult, even with having quintuplets, three sets of quintuplets, actually.
	But the thing is that we have this word that is sort of the opposite of the word elder.
	The word elder doesn't just mean old person, it is actually a function, a person who is old.
	And if we go through the Latin root, we get the word senator from senus.
	So this would be the inverse na'ar of young officials and calling him bald and telling him to go on up in the story, which tends to be sort of Omitted is that this is something that happens in Bethel,
	and Bethel and Dan are the two cities in which the Jeroboam son of Nebad establishes these two golden calves that are supposed to be worship of Yahweh, but they're absolutely abominant if we read the rest of the scriptures.
	So they are basically telling him and calling him Bald, by the way, means he's unclean, he's filthy, because he's not participating in these religious practices.
	And God and God sends bears to kill young officials who can be, by the way, armed, they can be much older than little children, because little in that case would mean that they are not particularly high ranking.
	And of course, we can get into more of this later on.
	But here is just one example that is a huge talking point of the new atheists that, with proper textual analysis, gives a completely different story.
	I'm not saying that people can't, actually, I am saying that people can't just take a text and pretend to read it and then say, oh, they know everything about the translations.
	It means they don't know how languages work.
	It means they don't know how translations work.
	It means they don't know the context.
	They just want to pluck out a couple of things and then interpret them in a particular manner because they don't want to recognize that there are such things as presuppositions.
	And therefore, they will conclude something that really benefits their particular views.
	And I don't think I need to go further on into that right now.
	I hope to get into my new share after this.
	Okay, Pasha, you're done with your opening.
	Yes.
	Okay, appreciate it so much.
	Gentlemen, the floor is open.
	I expect you both to adhere to the moderator.
	There may be some times where I have to move this thing back on track, depending on what's going on.
	It can always appeal for you if you feel like you're going off track.
	But I'm right here.
	Go ahead.
	So a lot of the argument I heard was you don't like you don't have the correct textual analysis.
	You don't have the right linguistic interpretations, a lack of knowledge of the true context.
	But this is just raises like what we could argue about the interpretation things all day.
	Why do we even have to have interpretations and have these issues?
	It's all because there's no actual proof.
	Why is there no meddling of God today?
	It happened in the Bible, but not now.
	Why did Jesus resurrect, but then only came to, and this is contradictory what the gospels say, only showed himself in visions to like a few people, a few of his followers.
	If God wanted the world to know that he's real and this is his son and he died for you, you think that he could have at least resurrected and shown himself to somebody that would have seen him and then wrote this down and then in some magical divine way it could be preserved so we could have actual proof of it.
	But we don't have any good proof.
	So we have to, the arguments basically fall back on, well, you know, we have explanations for every issue that's ever been raised in the Bible.
	So basically, I'm happy to have a debate over what these interpretations are.
	Like, what is the proper interpretation for Matthew 27, 52, where it says the tombs broke open after Jesus died.
	The tombs broke open.
	The bodies of many holy people, the saints who had died, were raised to life.
	Is that a historical thing that you think happened?
	And what is the proper interpretation about that?
	Right.
	So, first of all, I'd like to start with when you said, why do we need these interpretations?
	And one very practical thing I will give you with modern English.
	I speak British English, you speak American English.
	And if we were to come across a verse that said in Greek that the Last Supper took place on the first floor of a building, what I would translate it with is first floor.
	If I were tasked to translate it into American English, I would have to say second floor, because in British English, first floor is the first floor above the ground floor, and the second and in American English, first floor is synonymous with ground floor.
	But if you then, after a couple of years or decades or whatever, took two of my translations, and the only differences are one says first floor, one says second floor, and you do not know the context of whether I was translating for a British or an American audience, then you would have to say that I was giving contradictory statements.
	Do you understand that?
	Right.
	They could contradict, but do you see my point that this is all problematic in itself?
	When we have these supposed events that happened 2,000 years ago, supposedly, that happened spoken in Aramaic, and then our versions are in Greek, and the Hebrew Torah was translated in the Septuagint to Greek.
	Already you're introducing problems.
	And then so there's translation problems.
	There's different translations people can't agree on.
	There's different interpretations.
	All of this is so problematic.
	And this is the type of problems we would see on a man-made, not real religion.
	Because if the religion was real, I don't think we would be having these fights over what does this verse really mean.
	That's proof in itself that it's not real.
	No, that would only be a problem for people who approach it with the idea that authority is the text itself.
	And this is something we get to with certain Protestant movements.
	So I understand that.
	And they try to abuse all sorts of hermeneutical principles.
	And yes, that is not applicable because you cannot know particular contexts.
	Now, if you're going to analyze the Orthodox system, it relies on an established authority.
	That is the point.
	You cannot critique orthodoxy with the critique of Protestantism because those are two particular systems which are different.
	In the same way That if I say you are an atheist, that means I can't then correlate other forms of atheism or materialism with how you interpret things should be done or could be done or how they happened in the past.
	So you can't conflate two things and then say this is a problem.
	As someone who studies language, I can tell you immediately that we don't have the original Pentateuch because it was written in what we call Paleo-Hebrew.
	And we don't have the first manuscripts we have are in what we call biblical Hebrew.
	And Paleo-Hebrew is different from Biblical Hebrew.
	This is nothing new to either writers of the Old Testament, nor to the writers of the New Testament, nor to the early church fathers, nor to the later church fathers.
	So you are critiquing a particular system that arose, we could say in the 16th century, but didn't really become that type of system until the 19th century.
	That we can just pick up this text and it will tell us all we need to know.
	So you're putting undue burden on a text that was built within a system that does not have that view of how it's supposed to function.
	Okay, you're saying I'm putting undue burden on the text.
	Like you have to have, you're making such extravagant claims in the Bible and, you know, believing in this ritual atonement sacrifice will save you and forgive you of your sins and then you can go to heaven.
	These are huge claims.
	So the fact that there's no outside proof of the Bible, there's no answered miracles in any statistical way, there's no clear communication or messages from God.
	So we do all we have to rely on is the scripture.
	And so when we point out problems in the scripture, there's you, I'm sure that the Orthodox priests have some explanation, some apologetics for it.
	And that's the authority that you appeal to.
	But there's so many other Christians that also believe and also want to be saved, and they can't even agree.
	That just shows how it's so inerrant.
	We wouldn't have, we wouldn't.
	Why would God rely on such a terrible way of communicating his message that so many people don't have the logic or the understanding to know what it means?
	It's not a very godly way of delivering a message, wouldn't you say?
	It kind of comes up short of divine.
	I would have to ask you first, what does it mean to be saved when you critique it?
	What do you mean saved?
	What does it mean for a Christian to be saved?
	Yes.
	It means you're saved.
	You get to go, you're forgiven for your sins.
	You get to go to heaven with God.
	It's why Jesus died to save you.
	That's not the view.
	That is a view that you get.
	To atone for your sins.
	That's what it says in Isaiah 53 to your inequities and salvation.
	Everybody gets their salvation in a day.
	It's based upon Yom Kippur, where they would sacrifice the goats and it would cleanse the sins of the Israelites.
	So it's based on that.
	No, not really.
	When we talk about, for example, again, I won't try to drag this into linguistics completely because it's unfair, you know.
	But when we talk about the Gospels, the word, they are actually, first of all, mostly in plural, and they are actually a technical term.
	When you would have an emperor or a sorry, or a general or some pronounced senator come to a city, they would send forth these announcers, let's call them, and they would read the gospels of that emperor which proclaim the great achievements of this emperor.
	Right.
	And we use gospel in singular.
	We use the fourfold gospel.
	And if you say the four gospels, that's actually more of a colloquial term.
	That's how Paul used it.
	Paul spoke of a gospel before the gospels existed.
	No, because we don't actually call it the Gospel of John.
	We call it Gospel according to John.
	Because John didn't write it.
	It was anonymously written.
	And all the names of the Gospels were applied, I believe, around the time of Irenaeus in 180.
	Irenaeus, no.
	Why would Irenaeus apply it?
	No, I didn't say around the time of him is when the time.
	Okay.
	Sorry.
	So, okay, maybe I then need to address this thing.
	If we read Romans, for example, right, we know the epistles predate the Gospels.
	Not all Christians agree on that, but I do agree with that.
	Yes, Paul never mentioned the Gospels.
	His version of Jesus didn't have any of the biographical details that are in the Gospels.
	He was before the destruction of the Temple.
	The Gospels, they believe, were after.
	But go ahead.
	Okay, why would they have biographical details?
	You're sort of assuming teleological.
	Why would Paul?
	You don't think it's at all suspicious that half of the New Testament is letters written from Paul, Saul the Pharisee, who never even met Jesus and just said that he saw him in visions and from the scriptures.
	And he meets other people.
	He meets the other apostles and he goes on and preaches.
	You can't just put it that way.
	It's sort of isolating a particular thing.
	And he battled and disagreed with the Gospels with the people of the world.
	Yes, because he was a highly educated man.
	He was a highly educated man in the scriptures.
	And in languages, he comes from a very conservative school, a Pharisees.
	I agree.
	Yeah.
	Some believe he was a very high-learned Pharisee.
	Yes, and what would profit him?
	Whoops.
	He just disappeared.
	I still hear you.
	Okay, let's hope this doesn't cause you.
	Oh, maybe we might not be live, though.
	Hold on, let me see.
	No, yeah, we're good.
	All right.
	All right.
	So what would profit him, for example, to go into like a new sect, so to speak, from this perspective of these Jews being sects, and get problems like getting beaten and stoned and accused and get bullied everywhere he goes from a pretty privileged position in where he was.
	That's one thing.
	But again, we know he wrote the epistles and he wrote them to established church communities.
	So when someone tries to quote Paul saying, all things profitable for salvation are found in the scriptures, he's already writing to a place that does not have the again fourfold gospel, not the four different gospels.
	That is a misnomer to speak of it that way.
	It can be used colloquially.
	And all the other writings that are yet to be written.
	So again, I cannot defend the Protestant position because I don't think it is defensible.
	And it is actually, it takes a millennium and a half to get to that position.
	So why would I try to defend it?
	Well, the issue that I was talking about with Paul is that he has disagreements with the disciples that supposedly knew Jesus.
	They wanted to not eat with Gentiles.
	They thought that they should still follow the law, that they should be circumcised.
	And he who never met Jesus had to come and disagree with them on all of these things.
	And there's an important verse in 1 Corinthians 9:1.
	And before I read that, also, there's 14 letters of Paul, I want to say, right?
	Is that right?
	And most scholars believe that only seven are actually Paul.
	The rest are forgeries made in his name and full of interpolations.
	But not forgeries made in his name.
	There were collections of epistles that were circulated, but we have, as I said, early church fathers who thought that Hebrews was written by Barnabas.
	This was nothing new because these, by tradition, are there for a liturgical purpose as the Old Testament was.
	It is not for liturgical purposes, but they didn't, he didn't name any of the most important things.
	He didn't talk about who crucified him.
	He didn't talk about his virgin birth, any of his parallel that he spoke in parables.
	There's huge gaps in the Jesus story in Paul because it hadn't developed fully yet later as it did later in the Gospels.
	No, it's sort of like me saying you tweeted about being in a car, but you didn't say it was an internal combustion engine.
	Yeah, but I mean, it's just another example of a car, you know.
	It's another example of how these gospels and the Jesus myth developed.
	In another point, with 1 Corinthians 9:1, Paul says, Am I not an apostle, an apostle?
	Have I not seen Jesus?
	Have I not also seen Jesus, our Lord?
	So Paul is saying he sees Jesus, how he saw him in the scriptures, and he's had visions of him.
	Is this not if he's seen Jesus, then the other apostles possibly saw Jesus the same way in the scriptures, in the visions, and that they never actually knew him?
	That's the point I'm getting at.
	I don't see how that is a sequitur.
	The idea is that they saw Jesus in the scriptures.
	They scoured all the Old Testament scriptures.
	They were trying to find out how our Messiah is going to come.
	They were creating new myths based on the old myths.
	This is like Pesher, Midrash, typical type of Judeo practice.
	And they came up with new stories.
	And that's what you can see all throughout the Gospels.
	And then, in order, so the prophecy will be fulfilled, Jesus said, I thirst, or okay, take me away.
	The prophecies need to be fulfilled.
	Jesus says, I need to be taken and be killed and come back.
	All very clear that it's just writing a new story from the old prophecies.
	Jesus didn't come and actually fulfill all of these things.
	The far more likely explanation is that they just wrote a story that somebody fulfilled these things.
	Could you agree with that?
	No, because what would you think it's more likely?
	If Christ fulfilled all these prophecies, how would you explain it?
	If it was actually how it transpired, if it would I explain it for me to believe that somebody actually came and did all these things, I'd need some extra biblical proof because the gospels are completely unreliable.
	We can't count on them as solid historical evidence.
	Don't you think it's at all?
	Can you admit that it's at all an issue that nobody else wrote about the Son of God that came to earth and did all these miraculous things?
	Don't you think all loving God would want to make it a little bit more clear that he ever existed, let alone force us to rely on ancient books instead of just speaking to everybody at once.
	Jesus could have resurrected and did a victory tour and went and saw the Caesar and went over to China and visited everywhere.
	Then I'd believe he's real, but there's nothing like that.
	Everywhere along the way, everywhere you look, it comes up short that Christianity or just the Torah and the whole Bible in general is true.
	Well, first of all, let's take a look at the historical context.
	So you think Romans, who went into battle by killing an animal or looking at the way birds fly and then take out its lever and look for spots on the liver to decide what to do, whether to go to war, which is a pretty significant undertaking.
	You think they're going to notice the fact that someone says they're the son of God?
	You think that's going to be shocking to them?
	Or are they going to be just a powerful person?
	If they saw legitimate miracles, I think that they would be impressed.
	Just like, I mean, this is the whole story of sorry, this is the whole story of Exodus and Passover and the ten plagues was to show that God was the God of Israel was the one true God and the God with the power.
	So, why could they not have done the same thing with the Romans?
	Well, let's start here first.
	So, you have, have you read Dostoevsky's brothers' Karamazov?
	No.
	Okay.
	It's a great read, either way, but in the Grand Inquisitor, so he makes this story within a story, and it's the Grand Inquisitor of Spain, you know.
	He says, Christ comes back to earth, and he starts performing all these miracles.
	And he says, he puts him in prison.
	And one of the things the Grand Inquisitor says, he says, you could put down your hand and turn all the rocks in the world into bread, and people would love you, sing your praises, and follow you, but at the same time, despise you and fear you, knowing that you could lift up your hand and turn all the bread in the world into stone.
	That is to say, God can make himself present in a way that causes fear and terror, and that is not going to achieve anything because we are given free will.
	We are given the ability to choose things.
	And if he just does it through terror, it's going to be a completely different thing because you can't force anyone to he does do it through terror.
	The Bible makes it clear that God rules through fear.
	When?
	All over.
	He says they will be fear and trembling and prostrate before me and things like that.
	Yes.
	And when does one resort to that?
	In the New Testament, there's fear, not believing in Jesus.
	There's penalties.
	There's consequences.
	That's fear.
	That's fear, guilt-tripping, scare tactics.
	Again.
	It is.
	A lot of Christians believe in Jesus because they fear hell.
	That's not denying that.
	And I would disagree with that.
	And if they actually read what the church wrote since the beginning, they would know what hell is about and how it's not this place.
	It's like a magma pit.
	And you go in there, but somehow you're spiritual, but you still burn.
	And it's rubbish.
	It's actually a paganized form of understanding hell.
	And in Nordic mythology, you know, hell, the goddess that rules the underworld.
	You know, that is what it gets confused with in a lot of ways.
	When we talk about fire, for example, in the Orthodox church, we talk about the fire of hell being the power of the Holy Spirit.
	But these people who have aligned with demons and the demonic entities, they're going to experience that completely differently from people who have aligned with God.
	And as the, I can't remember which exactly church father said, the same sun that melts wax will harden clay.
	So it is an experience we're talking about.
	We can't have, and people even misinterpret how pagans understand things.
	Like they think the Greeks thought the gods were like dudes and dudesses on top of the mountain that they can, first of all, see the top of, secondly, can climb a top of, but they didn't all of a sudden change the things because people have this materialistic modernist interpretation of even paganism, let alone of the Bible.
	So I hope I haven't spread that too much.
	Sorry.
	To comment on something you said there that like Protestants have a different version of hell and they're wrong.
	Like, don't you see how this is an issue and a problem in itself?
	That is God so incompetent that he couldn't deliver his message and his laws and the consequences for not following those laws.
	Billions of Christians who they believe they want to be saved, they want to follow God's law, but they get it wrong.
	So many people get it wrong.
	It seems like God is inept or he doesn't care because these people are going to have the blessings of salvation in heaven if they don't get this right.
	So what is it?
	Inept, doesn't care, or not real?
	Okay.
	So this is why I asked you, what does it mean to be saved?
	Do you think it is a Protestant?
	With God.
	I understand Orthodox Christians believe being saved is being basically with God after you die.
	And then to not be saved is to be without God.
	That's how I've heard it explained.
	And I've heard other Christians explain it that way too.
	And that sounds a lot less crazy than the burning hell, the gnashing of teeth that so many other Christians believe in.
	Like, yes, and one good example, when you say gnashing of teeth, wailing and gnashing of teeth is not a sign of pain.
	It is symbolically speaking.
	It is not a symbol of pain.
	It's a symbol of madness.
	Okay.
	It is very, because it is associated with how people who would be demonically possessed act.
	We have an example with David, who goes with the Phoenicians and he pretends to be mad and they don't kill him because they believe there's a spiritual entity for them.
	It would be potentially a God.
	So you don't kill the guy who's potentially, you know, possessed by a God, etc.
	But I'm mentioning that merely to show you that it is easy to understand why people will see that as pain, but it's not.
	It's representing madness because they're away from God.
	And I'm also telling you, it is not this idea.
	We have debates with Protestants all the time.
	And we ask them, okay, so what is the basic thing I need to believe?
	If Jesus died for my sins, okay, can I believe Jesus died for my sins, but he is not God.
	He is, you know, Jehovah's Witnesses believe Archangel Michael and others believe something else.
	But if he's not God, how is the infinite debt paid by a finite sacrifice, etc.?
	You know, we have these debates because we believe them to be incoherent.
	They do not cohere with the entire story of the Bible.
	So you can't take a critique of Protestantism that doesn't apply to us.
	I'm not critiquing Protestantism.
	You asked me what it meant to be saved, and I accurately said it.
	You're with God or you're not with God.
	I mean, that's how the last Orthodox I debated.
	That's the explanation he gave.
	Let's move on.
	There's some other points you made in your opening statement.
	You said that you talked about how abiogenesis and the creation of the universe and all these things, they're all impossible.
	But I find at least these are we're trying to get to the answer.
	We're trying to find scientific explanations for these things.
	Whereas the Bible, the Genesis story, is like a non-answer.
	Number one, who witnessed it?
	Who wrote that down?
	If do you believe the Torah came from Moses on Mount Sinai, dictated from God?
	By angels, yes.
	By angels.
	Okay.
	And the Adam and Eve story and just God in general is a non-explanation.
	It causes more problems than it solves.
	Because if you require a special deity with this complex mind to create and power to create all things, then you're just creating a special pleading to say that he doesn't have to be created.
	But that's where we disagree on the cosmological argument, I'm sure.
	But the idea that Adam, you know, was life was poofed into him from dust and Eve came from his rib.
	You have to be any serious person.
	That's not a realistic explanation for mankind.
	That is that is begging the question, first of all.
	But let's go to your answer.
	It says a very clear side, not ribs.
	I can go there first.
	Secondly, when you say you're trying to explain, hang on, Adam, let him respond.
	Got it.
	I know.
	When we talk about abiogenesis, you are saying we're at least trying to answer it.
	But by saying that, you are not committing to, let's say, okay, if we can't explain abiogenesis in a thousand years, we're going to give up on it.
	You're not.
	At the same time, if you and I were archaeologists, we have our backpacks, and we go into some place in the Middle East or Northern Africa or something, and we come across this temple and we go inside the temple and we look at these columns and writings and pictures.
	And I say, whoa, look at what these ancient peoples built.
	And you say, excuse me, this is what nature built.
	And I ask you, okay, but how do you explain these patterns or these columns?
	And this column here is made of marble, but we don't see marble for hundreds of miles.
	You say, we'll figure it out.
	We're at least trying to get the explanation.
	We'll get to it in a thousand years or so.
	Just because there's gaps, just because they're gaps doesn't mean anything.
	No, it means that you are not willing to accept any type of evidence except for the foregone conclusion that you've already made.
	Well, this is getting off into evolution, and I'd suggest people watch the previous debate you guys had on evolution.
	But I completely disagree.
	The idea that evolution and that we're still looking for answers, that we have gaps in our understanding, maybe we'll never know because these are huge, huge questions.
	Look how big the universe is.
	But to say that we know because angels dictated it to Moses, and this is what happened in Genesis, and Adam and Eve, and talking stakes and curses of painful childbirth.
	These are obviously legends.
	Creation legends made by people that were looking for explanations of origins.
	How is it obviously legends if you cannot account for a materialistic explanation for it?
	It's a legend because we know that things don't just when have you ever seen anything poofed into existence?
	There was no Adam, there was no man, and all of a sudden excuse me.
	When have you seen a creation of a proto-cell?
	I haven't seen that.
	Do you know what?
	I don't know.
	I'm not a scientist.
	I don't have my studying those things.
	As I said, even if you give scientists the parts that you get from biology, you get them from already existing organisms.
	They cannot assemble them.
	And they cannot make the parts from inorganic chemistry sufficiently to create the proto-cell.
	So why are you trying to say, oh, but we might get to it.
	So this is the neutral thing.
	This is the obvious thing.
	This is what we should look for.
	Dismissing my belief.
	The universe we see, trillions of galaxies, possibly, you know, multi-verses.
	There's the denominator is so high because there's so many chances.
	There's an analogy that if the lottery happened and one person bought a ticket and then they won the lottery and got all these numbers in a row, you'd say, wow, that's a miracle that that happened.
	But if billions of people were trying trillions of times over trillions of years, like the universe we see, which, by the way, why would God go to the trouble of creating all of these distant stars in this vast universe that's inhospitable to any life and doesn't have anything to do with us?
	But some of them provide light in the sky that we can see as stars.
	He would go through all that trouble, but he can't show himself to save little babies that are born with birth defects or die from suffer terribly from cancer with their Christian parents orthodox or not praying away.
	It doesn't add up, it doesn't pass the smell test at all.
	Do you know why we believe birth defects or illness happens in our probably because we live in a fallen world because Adam and Eve took the magical fruit?
	Okay, but why?
	Why?
	Why is that?
	I don't know.
	It's just, it's, you were blaming us for God's faults, is the way I see it.
	It's our fault, making excuses for God why he's so inept that he creates so much suffering in the world.
	Do you know what God says, why he makes man mortal?
	No, tell me.
	He says we cannot allow man to become mortal because he will persist in his rebellion.
	The reason in orthodoxy, again, that is the only position I can defend.
	I cannot defend other ones.
	I'm not asking you to, but you have to cope with the fact that there are billions of other people that do believe these things.
	So that, If you don't want to defend them, you have to explain for that.
	Why would God allow so many well-intentioned Christians to believe such differing doctrines?
	Because God will, if you want to, let's use the word save.
	But those who will come to God are people who live a godly life.
	And as we are told by Saint Paul, in fact, that the law is near even unto our hearts.
	So we don't believe that if you cannot make a checklist, there will be angels showing up with checklists of, do you believe this?
	Do you believe that?
	Do you believe this?
	If you take basically anyone, the most educated Orthodox person, we believe if you quizzed them, you know, they would get something wrong.
	This is the entire problem of the fundamentalist movement.
	Oh, we can agree on the fundamentals, but who decides what the fundamentals are?
	So the fact that these people disagree, there are people, as again, St. Paul says, who can have all the truth, but not have the love.
	So it doesn't matter that they have the epistemological points correct.
	If they do not live a Christian life, they are pulling themselves away from God and into the demonic realm.
	So the fact that there are people who have wrong beliefs, we have saints who we believe held wrong opinions, Saint Augustine being a pretty major person there.
	So it is the Protestants who believe, oh, if you don't believe this particular thing, you're going to hell.
	So you're using a critique.
	I know you may not be particularly familiar with Orthodoxy, and that's fine, but I'm here to represent it.
	I have to explain what our position is, and you can critique it afterwards, and that is fair enough.
	Have I missed something?
	No, no.
	You mentioned that Orthodoxy and they're in Palestine, they're not pro-Zionist.
	I'm not using Zionist in a way that says they support the modern-day state of Israel.
	Zionists, all Christians, in my opinion, are Zionists because they believe that God dwells in Zion.
	The law will come forth from Zion.
	All of these things from the Torah that are the word of God.
	You believe in the biblical Yahweh significance of Zion.
	So in that sense, you are all Christians are Zionists.
	What do you believe?
	I can include the Catholics here, actually.
	I do too.
	The Orthodox and the Catholics would say Zion is.
	You're muted, I think.
	Okay.
	What do you think the Orthodox and the Catholics believe Zion is?
	They believe probably that Zion is a mountain in ancient times in Jerusalem.
	Okay, a spiritual Zion, a heavenly Jerusalem, a heavenly Zion, right?
	You still believe in Zion, though.
	No, that's the point I'm getting at.
	You still...
	Zion is the church.
	Right.
	You have all sorts of...
	And perhaps this is a good place to pivot to ethnicity.
	We're trying to be careful.
	Andrew warned us about using certain phrases in this atmosphere.
	Don't go full.
	No, Kanye.
	Don't go full Kanye.
	Right.
	Little less.
	Yay.
	Liles ye.
	Right?
	Little less ye.
	Yeah, we're doing good.
	We're doing good.
	We're such good, disciplined people.
	So when we talk about this, we're not talking about anything new.
	And hopefully we get into this later.
	But when we talk about Zion, like when we talk about the mountain of God, there are different mountains that are referred to as the mountain of God.
	Sinai is referred to as the mountain of God.
	Tabor is referred as to the mountain of God.
	As much as the word paradise is used for all sorts of places and even people, because for us, paradise is the place where God dwells in a particular manner.
	This is why we use it for the mother of God.
	We call her paradise.
	Because this is the word concept fallacy to say that Zion is a territory.
	In fact, not to get.
	I'm not even saying it.
	I'll say it's not a territory.
	It's just a concept.
	It's still all Christians are inherently believe in the Zionist concept.
	So they're all, they believe in Zionism.
	They're Zionists.
	That's the point I was trying to make.
	We believe that there is a kingdom of God on earth, and we believe it is the church.
	So aren't there many more Catholics and Protestants than Orthodox?
	Yes.
	And they all believe they're the true church and that you've got it completely wrong?
	The Catholics do.
	And if you ask the Catholics, actually, they would say we still have valid sacraments.
	We are basically just angry at the Pope.
	Disagree, you disagree about authority and who you're submitting.
	Ecclesiologically, we would be different.
	We actually reject a lot of things about Catholicism, but it's not completely reciprocal.
	You've got a problem with them, but they don't have a problem with you.
	That's funny.
	That's actually a new development from the 60s.
	But let's not get into that.
	So this territory that we speak of.
	No, no, no.
	I remember what I wanted to say.
	Do you know about the cussing of the fig tree in the New Testament?
	You're right.
	Yeah, Jesus' parable of the fig tree.
	Right.
	What do you think that represents?
	I've heard many different explanations.
	They're talking more sacrifices at the temple.
	This is one of the top ones I've heard.
	I've heard other ones that I don't agree with as well.
	What's the point you're getting at?
	The point I'm getting at is that the reason Christ goes for this, and this is also prophesied.
	One of our favorites is always Malachi 1.11, that God will take Gentiles to himself, and many of them will be priests and Levites, etc., etc., etc.
	That incense shall Malachi 1.11, just to repeat it.
	I see you're typing.
	I'm going to see if I have it in my folder.
	Okay.
	So when he curses the fig tree, so he looks through the fig tree and it says it wasn't the season yet.
	Right?
	The thing that happens with fig trees is they grow these little growths that are technically edible, but only eaten by like poor people, basically.
	But if you don't have those little growths that start, you won't get the actual fruits.
	So when Christ looks through them before the time of actual fruits growing, you get he sees it won't bear any fruit.
	And of course, from our perspective, this is more a theatrical, you know, performance, so to speak, because it would be obvious to the people around him what he's doing.
	They know about fig trees.
	It's not something you would explain to someone in.
	It's an obvious parable.
	Sometimes the parables are obvious.
	Yes, but especially to the audience at hand.
	So when he sees it won't produce any fruit later on, he curses it.
	It is because the Israel of old has basically reached its point.
	This is what Christ also says, O Israel, how I would have gathered you under my wing, so on and so forth.
	The entire thing, and maybe we get into ethnicity after this, is not that God created Israel to be the chosen people in the sense of everyone else sucks.
	It is that he created them, that they are supposed to be an example to the others so that they stop worshiping these demonic entities and come to the worship of the true God, the creator of the universe.
	Sounds like you sound just like the rabbis that promote Tikkun Olam, that they're the night, they're the example, they're the light unto the nations.
	They're supposed to be, are they?
	And the Bible does say they're above other nations, and the other nations are like nothing compares them to Spittle, says that they will feed off the wealth of the nations.
	They will eat the riches of the nations, things like this.
	Right, right, right.
	And what happens also in the Old Testament quite a bit?
	They don't follow the Torah and they're punished after the divine persecution of Esau.
	Right, they get persecuted.
	The northern kingdom gets given over to the Assyrians, and you don't want to get given over to the Assyrians.
	They make the Aztecs look like pretty kind people.
	And the south, Judah, gets given over to the Babylonians, and, you know, it develops on and on and on.
	But why would he punish his own people if their point is just to be there and be Chad and rule over everyone?
	I know rabbis have all sorts of explanations, but rabbis also use the Talmud, and they also reject all sorts of things from the Old Testament.
	But never mind that.
	The entire point is they're supposed to be a guiding force.
	And if you'd like to switch over to what it means to be a nation, we can do that now.
	And people.
	What it means to be a nation.
	You know, what was the verse you said?
	Was it Malachi 1 that you said?
	11.
	111.
	I actually do have that highlighted up in my folder.
	I wanted to share with it real quick something interesting about that.
	So let me just share screen here real quick.
	I guess I'll do audio too, even though I'm not using it.
	All right.
	Let me know when you guys can see.
	There we go.
	Malachi 1.11.
	This is one where they talk about Esau is Edom.
	Edom, who Jews, I'm sorry, who rabbis and Hebrews, Israelites believe are they consider Edom Rome and the people against whom the Lord hath indignation forever.
	They also all believe that Edom is Christianity now.
	And here's the verse 111.
	My name shall be great among the nations, the Gentiles, the heathen, the Goyem.
	And in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering for my name shall be great among the heathen.
	My name is dreadful among the heathen, as it says below.
	This is one of the verses I show, the plot for Christianity to convert the Gentiles, to get the Gentiles to abandon their gods, their idol worship, their cultures, their traditions, their ancestors, and replace it with the God of Israel.
	This is one of the verses in Malachi that calls for that.
	There's also many verses about Edom, who they all believe in the world.
	Wait, wait a minute, calls for that.
	Calls for that.
	Yes, this is saying my name will be great among the Gentiles.
	The Gentiles couldn't convert to Judaism, but they accomplished this.
	The incense offered into my name, like the Orthodox use incense into his name.
	We're going to get bad bad Edi back.
	We are?
	Yeah.
	Here's the...
	Let me just check.
	Nope, dude.
	I don't know.
	Nothing changed.
	Oh, probably because I'm sharing audio.
	Yeah, remove that without the audio.
	Got it.
	And I'll, yeah, there we go.
	So share without audio so it's not going through and we'll we'll see if that gets rid of the feedback loop okay posh uh say basically anything you want oh i didn't finish the point yeah i know i know i'm just asking i'm doing an audio test sound check got it go ahead go ahead posh test one two three okay you guys are good go ahead sorry adam so here's the safaria the talmudic interpretation on malachi 1 11 and 12.
	it says here my name is honored among the goim and everywhere incense and pure oblation are offered to my name this was the plan all along that the nations would worship the god of israel this is the christian deception to get the whole world to believe in the god of israel and believe in their holy scriptures and over here in the talmud it says from the rising of the sun until it sets my name is great Among the nations, and in every place, offering are presented to my name, a pure meal offering.
	My name is great among the nations, said the Lord of hosts.
	This indicates that God's name is known across the entire world, even to the west of Tyre and the east of Carthage.
	This is the blueprint, the plan for having the whole world worship the God of Israel.
	This is what the conquest of the world is about when you get the whole world to be under your theological control, worshiping the God that chose them.
	Well, first of all, west of Tyre and east of Carthage is pretty small.
	It says all the nations, the whole world.
	They're clear about all flesh, the whole world.
	Why are you giving me the Talmud?
	Because this is what they believe.
	They have these verses, and this is their secrets about what they believe about these verses.
	And you can see how the Christianity manifested itself with this intention of getting all the nations to worship the God of Israel.
	That's the world takeover.
	Now, Adam, you had a good fair amount of time there to kind of go over your overview and present some evidence.
	Let's give Posh a bit of time to respond.
	Okay, so first of all, within the context of Malachi, this is God being upset with Israel.
	This is in no way, oh, great job, Israel.
	I'll whoop the Goim for you.
	Malachi does say that.
	Have you read the prior verses as he talks about Malachi 1:4 through 5?
	Yeah, he talks about Edom being destroyed.
	Edom is the antithesis.
	It's the Esau, the antithesis, the nations is what it represents.
	Okay, so if I wrote a book now and said Edom is the United States, that is now a legitimate interpretation of it.
	No, they believe that Christianity was called the Lord.
	Who believes when was the Talmud compiled?
	It was compiled 200, maybe 100 to 600.
	It was completed, but the oral law was around even before Christianity.
	Right.
	So the fact that they, the oral law, that the Talmud gets used and therefore making Judaism actually younger than Christianity.
	Second Temple Judaism was based on the Tanakh.
	Okay.
	So Second Temple Judaism preceded Christianity.
	I hear this argument lots from Christians that we're the reality of the people.
	Yeah, Second Temple Judaism talks about the two powers in heaven, for example.
	But rabbinical Judaism is pretty clear.
	Oh, one God, one God, one God.
	So do you.
	You can't take the interpretation you dislike and say, oh, this is the actual real thing.
	Otherwise, we're going to get into the whole postmodern debate.
	It's actually all racist.
	What am I rejecting?
	What am I rejecting?
	I'm saying the deceptive, sneaky, trickery, esoteric secret rabbis.
	This is what they have to say about these verses.
	Christians can put their head in the sand and say it's irrelevant what they say, but you won't understand Christianity's deception and forgery and a hoax unless you understand the motives as to why it exists.
	And you get that from reading the secrets of what the rabbis say.
	The rabbis who hate the Christians.
	So they hate it, but at a superficial way, because they do like, they take pride in the fact that all the nations are worshiping their God and believe their Torah.
	Like the top rabbi in the 12th century, Maimonides says Christianity is part of God's and Islam are part of God's plan.
	It's preparing the world for the Messianic age.
	So it's not really honest or it's not really true to say that they hate Christianity.
	It's only on a Talmud is very good in a certain way.
	Well, yeah, Jesus is their adversarial Messiah.
	They believe in two Messiahs, and that is the, in a way, their anti-adversary Messiah that goes, that's rejected and goes to the Gentiles, which is all part of the deception based on the Joseph story.
	Jesus is Moshiach ben Joseph, the suffering Messiah.
	The Genesis story, Joseph is rejected by his 11 other brothers and then goes and rules behind the throne in Egypt, which represented the Gentile Empire at the time.
	This is the template that they use for the Jesus myth, and now Jesus is ruling all the Gentile nations.
	And this is playing into, look how they've the power that they get from their greatest Judeo-Christian allies.
	And it's not by accident.
	It's not just hijacked 100 years ago with Schofield and Darby.
	It was always set up this way as a subversion, a takeover, psychological manipulation.
	Go ahead, I'm rambling.
	Yes, because you seem to be saying, oh, a rabbi says Islam is fine, therefore Islam is fine.
	You said they hate it, and I'm saying that they don't.
	That's not the full picture.
	They actually like it.
	They love to hate it, and it is useful, exactly.
	And it was part of the plan all along, as you just saw from Malachi.
	What?
	No.
	Bloody hellmate.
	When we talk about the point, as I said, of Israel.
	Okay, let's switch back to what it means to be part of Israel.
	Do you think it's a bloodline thing?
	According to the original interpretations, yes, it was a bloodline.
	The descendants of Abraham.
	How did Caleb and Rahab become Israelites then?
	By marriage, right?
	Rahab is the line of Jesus, and that's why it's.
	How can she become that by marriage if it's by conversion?
	Women were allowed to convert.
	Okay, okay.
	How did Caleb then?
	I don't remember.
	Right, because you have a misunderstanding of how the idea of ethnos in the ancient world worked.
	Because the entire point is if you can convert to a race, that sort of buggers the entire bloodline thing, doesn't it?
	Or at least waters it down.
	It waters it down, yeah.
	That's why so many.
	I'm looking for the right word for YouTube.
	All the Judaists believe that they reject converts because it waters down the pure holy seed bloodline that needs to be kept separate.
	A nation that shall dwell alone.
	And so much of the Bible is about not mixing the holy seed.
	Right, but that isn't a game.
	That isn't ethnicity and genetics.
	It is about worship and ritual.
	So if you Caleb, when he wants to convert, he has to become part of the Israel Israelite Israelite tribe.
	Sorry.
	So in order to do that, he would have to get circumcised and he would have to participate in at least Pascha.
	That's the bare minimum.
	Like in the church, it is a bare minimum to get baptized and to participate at least in the Eucharist on Easter or Pasca, as we call it.
	And many in Danish, I think they call it Posca.
	So even in Nordic languages, they adopted the term.
	I know Easter gets a bit confusing for people because that's something from the British Isles.
	But at the same time, you wouldn't be able to convert into it if it is actually a bloodline thing.
	And Caleb was not either married because a woman would have to shave her hair, which, because you can't circumcise a woman unless you ask Muslims, I suppose.
	She would have to shave her head and then be married to someone who is circumcised.
	That is for a woman.
	Okay, so that explains Rahab.
	You can't explain Caleb then.
	I don't, why do I even need to explain it?
	How did this even come up?
	I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.
	If people can convert into this elite race, then it's not really a racial project.
	Sure, it's not purely a racial.
	There's been times where there were converts, but there's also been, you know, factions that say they can't have any converts and you can't be married in and you can't convert.
	But the point that I was making was that they don't want all the Gentiles to convert.
	That's why Paul said, no, don't follow the Torah or don't follow the law, observe the law, don't get circumcised.
	You don't have to keep kosher.
	But the Israelites did still need to.
	The point I'm making is that their prophecies called for all of the nations, the whole world, to abandon their idol worship because Yahweh is jealous and to worship the God, the fictional God that the Hebrews came up with in their image.
	So that's how it's a deception to conquer the world.
	And it's been massively effective.
	Half the planet in this Abrahamic conspiracy has dominated the world for the last 2,000 years.
	They didn't want the nations to convert and become chosen people.
	They wanted them to worship their God.
	So they accomplished that through these other religions, these religions for the other side, the Citra Atra, and led by their adversarial Messiah.
	That's why they hate him.
	It's like saying you hate Magneto.
	Magneto is still an X-Men.
	He's still a fictional character.
	You may hate the villain of the story, but he's still a character in the Judeo mythology.
	Same with Satan.
	It all keeps you in the Judeo paradigm.
	What a bloody paradigm, mate.
	If they have a completely based on blood magic, yes.
	Blood magic, right?
	Do you want to go into that?
	That sounds like for sure, yeah.
	Okay.
	So for now, it's like saying democracy was invented by the Greeks so that they would rule the world through democracy.
	So should we say that the Greeks have invented the idea of democracy in order to enslave the world as we see democracy being the vehicle by which we get all of this rubbish today, most of which we would probably agree on.
	I miss the front on, Frenen.
	You were saying the Greeks invented democracy to conquer the world?
	Yes.
	I wouldn't compare it to the same as the Hebrew prophecies in that regard.
	Well, well, well.
	They were trying to figure out how to do it.
	Bearded really like to diddle children.
	Sounds like a certain type of people we might know today.
	I miss what you said.
	Who's diddling children?
	The ancient Greeks.
	Okay, so what?
	So do priests and Orthodox rabbis do today.
	As do atheists and all sorts of people.
	It's true.
	Just the same.
	The priests do it just the same, which kind of shows that there's no divine, special, elevated divine, anything special about Christianity when they're raping kids the same rate, or if not more, than other groups.
	I don't know how we got here.
	I don't know.
	But let's get somewhere else.
	I didn't intend on getting it.
	Let's get somewhere else.
	Okay, I was just to explain why I went there.
	It's imputing motive.
	So if I say, okay, from this, you get this result is sort of if I fit everything in as I would like to see it fit in.
	Because I could say atheism was a project to conquer the world.
	If I went with someone like Marquis Desad and say, these are just people who want to satiate their own appetites, let's say.
	And Marquis Desad is where we get the word sadism, so that should say a lot.
	And he was an atheist.
	So does that mean that atheism is this grand project from the bloody French?
	And we should blame the French for Everything again, another people with a really big nose to just satiate certain carnal needs.
	Can we make that claim?
	I'll say this: there's a good amount of people in the world that think that they have things figured out in their way as the right way and want to get the rest of the world to see to agree with them and do what they want.
	But like I said, you can't really compare it to, like, do you say, do you not think that the Torah is about conquering the world?
	Conquering the world in what sense?
	If you mean all the world bowing before the Moshiach ben David, but before the king of the Israelites, yes, ultimately, yes.
	All right.
	And who does these atheists want the whole world to bow down to and to worship and to fear eternal damnation if they don't believe in it?
	No, they believe there is no punishment for anything unless you have a particular governmental system or someone stabs you in the street.
	So they, it's like saying the fear of hell is there to create a particular uh or the Amish.
	I'll blame the Amish.
	Well, you know, they've got something figured out.
	Um, so what I'm saying is, you can impug presuppose a certain way of thinking about it.
	We see it as these Gentiles, and I see this.
	This is almost a switch from going between what do we get with Gentiles.
	Like it's let's go with the Nords.
	Okay, the Nords, Nords, Nords, my people, my Viking brothers, Nords.
	Got it.
	Okay.
	They worshipped Odin, like, right?
	Or yes, the one true all-father God, yes.
	Okay, and Odin practiced Sever.
	I guess, I don't know, I'm not an Odin expert.
	Seder, is that what you said?
	Like a Passover Seder?
	No, no, no.
	It is a particular type of Nordic divination called Savar.
	And it was practiced by women.
	And if you were a man and wanted to practice it, you would have to cross-dress.
	And the Nords weren't big on cross-dressing.
	You know, I'm Slavic and Slavs weren't either.
	But it would, but Odin participated in that.
	So he was a cross-dressing guy.
	So does that mean that the transgender or transvestite movement is some type of Nordic push to glorify the All-Father?
	No.
	Well, this is the All Father, and he cross-dressed.
	Okay, but I wouldn't say that.
	So why?
	But Christianity is related to the fulfillment of the Hebrew prophecies that all the world will worship the God of Israel.
	They accomplished that through Christianity, and now they got the Christian Zios helping them fulfill their rise in world power and their end times engineer their end times wars so they can fulfill their messianic prophecies.
	Christianity is serving those goals, serving those aims.
	And people are, Vikings in the chat are disputing that Odin cross-dressed, but I don't believe in Odin.
	So I'm not exactly sure the point I'm going to get at.
	Cross-dressed, didn't drink.
	He didn't exist, so he didn't cross-dress.
	Jesus supposedly had long hair, and that was an abomination in the Bible.
	So the Nazarite vow.
	So while, so while I find this whole line of inquiry amusing, I do.
	It's very amusing.
	I wasn't prepared to talk about cross-dressing Vikings.
	The Nordish Odin cross-dress arc on the crucible.
	I'd like to move back towards the greater biblical discussion.
	I'm going to start with you, Adam.
	I'm going to let you set the tone for where you want to take this.
	From here, we've covered a lot of ground and we can move into something else.
	You brought up the example of the Greeks and democracy taking over the world.
	I think an example that I want to raise is Plato and his noble lie, where he wrote in the Republic how that the elite should have like a mythology, like a religion to kind of control the masses to advance an agenda or have, you know, unite them, have harmony.
	And that's what they did with the Hebrew myths.
	It's the same thing.
	It's the same concept for the greater good.
	And this is the problem with Christians: that instead of helping all of us oppose Judaism and oppose Torah supremacy in the Torah agenda, you guys are participating in it and defending it instead of helping us expose it.
	How are we participating and defending it?
	The church is pretty clear that it is against this idea of a bloodline that has a right to a particular strip of land or that we should invest.
	In fact, the church, both the Orthodox and the Catholic Church, are pretty big on not allowing for such things to happen.
	No, they're participating in it because they're upholding and affirming the Hebrew scriptures and they're worshiping the God of Israel and they're following the Moshiach men David.
	Christians want the same thing that rabbis want.
	They want the whole world getting on their knees and bowing down before the Torah Messiah.
	And that's the blueprint for the world takeover.
	And Christians are willingly being obedient and having fear and feeling the supposed judgments.
	And as Paul says, I can get into some verses unless you want to get to the blood magic stuff first, but that Jesus will reign over the Gentiles.
	And there's verses alluded to in the Bible where it's that they will make Jesus, the Messiah will rule in the land of thine enemies, or he will make the enemies his footstool.
	They're referring to the nations, the enemy of the Israelites, because the Torah Messiah was meant to come and redeem and bring salvation to the chosen people by destroying Rome and the nations, or at least theologically conquering them, which they did through Christianity.
	I don't know what theologically conquering them means, but okay.
	It means you're controlled psychologically and spiritually by their deity.
	That's what theological conquering means.
	It means there's millions, hundreds of millions or millions in America that believe that chosen people are in Israel and that's God's holy land.
	And you're cursed if you curse them and blessed if you bless them.
	We wouldn't have this if not for Christianity.
	We wouldn't have this Judeo problem.
	That's not really a comment about anything because you could say that basically about any type of system.
	We wouldn't have it if we didn't have America.
	So should we have it?
	Before America, there were still Christians.
	In the 1500s, before America was founded, in the 1500s, before America was founded, there were already Christians saying, oh, we need to regather the exiles back to Israel so that the prophecy can be fulfilled and Jesus can return manifesting and self-fulfilling these prophecies themselves.
	Right.
	So the fact that that contradicts the teaching of the church, that doesn't mean anything because there's this guy who thought we should do this.
	There's all sorts of insane people who have made all sorts of claims.
	And God is so inept that he allows so many false teachings and so many people to get it wrong.
	They can get it wrong, but God is in charge ultimately.
	And the entire point is, if you reject the point of the fact that there is an afterlife with God, and you have this materialistic analysis, because if you want to go into the materialistic analysis, we can go into it.
	We can go into how do you believe that there's a consciousness.
	We can go into a lot of things because you believe there's this life.
	And if God doesn't want us to be happy and jumping around in this life, that means he's retarded.
	But I can ask you, as an atheist, how do you believe that there is human consciousness and why human life has value and all sorts of things?
	Because it seems to me you're sort of a tactical immaterialist and believe that there's things that should be valued.
	And also explain to me why I should value certain things as a Christian, even though you have not engaged with the fact that I'm Orthodox.
	Yes, I have.
	I'm not making any Protestant-based arguments.
	I'm catering them to your beliefs.
	How do I explain consciousness?
	It comes from brains, from brain activity.
	Without your brain, you don't have consciousness.
	If you damage your brain, your consciousness is altered.
	It's very clear that that's where it comes from.
	And are the functions of the brain predetermined?
	Are the functions of the brain predetermined?
	I'd say maybe some functions, like on the biological level, they're predetermined.
	But like, what do you mean by that?
	I mean, if we had sufficient knowledge of the mechanism of the universe in your worldview, and I hope I'm not going outside the topic.
	In your worldview, the universe is a giant mechanism.
	And if we had sufficient knowledge of this mechanism, would we not be able to predict every happening in the future?
	We can predict some happenings.
	Okay, currently.
	And in the past, and we will be able to in the future.
	No, in the past, we predicted things that happened.
	Okay, sorry.
	So what I'm asking is in the past.
	I never thought of that.
	Sounds like something.
	Right, right.
	Intergalactic.
	A particularly bad one.
	But as I'm saying, if we're going to go into a mechanistic universe and we have this universe that popped out of existence, as Daniel Dennett says, from nothing or from something very small, I think they could have that wrong.
	Okay, but it had to have come about somehow.
	You can believe in the eternal state and eternal matter.
	If the universe had to come about somehow, then I would say that a creator had to come about somehow.
	No, because you're trying to drag the transcendental creator into the materialistic universe.
	So he's not in the universe at all.
	He doesn't exist, but he controls over the whole universe.
	He interacts with the universe.
	You could never prove him.
	He interacts with the universe when he wants to, like when he smells burnt offerings and he enjoys the smell.
	Okay, maybe we can pivot from this to the sacrifices and stuff.
	So what I was saying, to finish up on the previous point, if you're going to go with the mechanism of the universe that develops, because I don't know, if you're a materialist, I don't know how you can go into the things like the mind.
	And this is why I asked you, are the functions of the brain predetermined?
	Because atheists who are consistent deny free will.
	Because there's no proof of things like minds other than words we might use to describe something that isn't really a mind, but just an algorithm playing out.
	I've heard atheists say that they believe in free will.
	We have the free will to make certain choices, but we don't have the free will over what we believe.
	You just believe you can't control it.
	But I do have the free will to decide if I'm going to ask if I can go to the bathroom here in a second or not.
	Yeah, it's good.
	It's actually a good minute here to take a second, relieve yourself, and we'll move back into the debate here.
	You're going to read some chat or something?
	Yeah, we'll get to a few of the super chats in the interim.
	Okay.
	I'll be back in just a second.
	Sure.
	So one thing I did want to mention, Dry Owl says, he says, if God's real, how come I have a beer belly?
	But that's proof God is real because we have beer.
	Right?
	Like, how you going to argue with that?
	That's proof.
	That's proof because we have the beer.
	Okay?
	We have it.
	I don't like.
	Terrible comment from you, dry owl.
	All right.
	Yeah.
	Divine beer.
	Exactly.
	Okay.
	Like, just ridiculous.
	Just ridiculous.
	You know what I mean?
	We're not going to get to the super chats yet.
	We're going to save them until the end of the debate, but I wanted to make sure that these guys had an intermission because they're going to go a little bit longer.
	They still have some things to get into.
	But I've been really enjoying the discussion.
	I know there's some of you out there who are like, you're not screaming at each other enough.
	What my suggestion for you guys is to get the fuck out of here.
	You know what I mean?
	Like, get the fuck out of here.
	I don't want you here.
	You know?
	Leave.
	Leave.
	You know, you have to leave a comment to say it's boring.
	You can just leave.
	They're like, they have to.
	You know what I mean?
	They're like, they're a chat.
	They're just like, this is so boring.
	I have to watch it.
	All right.
	Here we go.
	Looks like looks like we got Adam back still waiting on Posh.
	You could still take a breather for a second till he gets back there, Adam, for just a sec.
	There he is.
	I feel like I'm in an Oxford debate with this volume.
	It's bad with Posh, isn't it?
	It's terrible.
	Oh, I like it.
	I'll let you.
	Well, yeah, it's been a very enjoyable discussion.
	Been enjoying it quite a bit.
	I disagree with Andrew.
	I don't know why, but I have to.
	Yes.
	Yes, that seems totally fair.
	That's kind of Adam's stance, too.
	But Posh, we kind of left off with you.
	So we're going to start back up, pick it back up with you.
	Go ahead.
	Right.
	So what I was trying to say is that we have certain ways of viewing the world and they have their consequences.
	And I try to talk about this myth of neutrality in the beginning, that we can't just say, well, things are obviously materialistic, and you have to provide proof for anything immaterial.
	But if we take that to its logical conclusion, we would have to say that everything is materialistically predetermined, And I know Adam would not agree with everything every atheist says.
	It would be ludicrous to state so.
	But at the same time, if you get logically consistent that we live in this mechanism called the universe, then the only randomness that could exist is because we are not aware of all the factors involved in producing a particular result.
	That is why I'm saying, if things are predetermined, then this debate is predetermined.
	Everything we say is predetermined.
	And the only reason why we believe it isn't, and there would be no we to speak of, we would all just be epiphenomena.
	We would all just be the bubbles at the top of a body of water with a hot spring underneath.
	It would not make for any type of reason or anything.
	So I'm saying if you can't account for anything other than saying things are materialistic, then you're going to have to deal with the fact that there's nothing that can be changed.
	It's just all playing out of a giant mechanism.
	I don't see why you just because I believe in a material world, you want to call it mechanical.
	I don't see why that means that it has to be predetermined.
	And I don't believe in predetermination, but I believe that Christians, if they're going to be consistent, would have to believe in it.
	Because if you believe in the power of prophecy, then God has a plan.
	He has a divine plan for the world.
	He knows what's going to happen before it happens.
	He knows your thoughts.
	He knows what you're going to do.
	So he would have to know these things.
	Otherwise, how could he predict or prophesize that these things would all come about?
	How did he know that Judas would betray Jesus or that they would call to release Barabbas instead?
	So he created these people knowing that they would do that.
	He creates some people supposedly knowing that they'll never become orthodox and be the right kind of Christian.
	So he knows before he creates them, just like he knew before Adam and Eve, he created them.
	He knew that they would fall and that they would be tempted by Satan and the serpent.
	So I see the religious Christian view as being predetermination.
	And does God have the power to change his own mind?
	Does God have free will?
	Right.
	So here is a category error that you're making.
	Again, you're pulling the creator into the creation.
	When we talk about God, we are talking about a transcending being.
	So when you say God knew before creation, you're sort of saying time exists before time exists.
	So it was a logical problem.
	I feel like you're doing the category error to say that God doesn't have to apply to the same rules as everything else.
	I believe that's the same thing.
	Because we believe the rules are part of creation.
	And the only person we would exempt from it is God.
	Yeah, well, you're making a special exemption.
	That's inconsistent.
	You're saying it's special pleading, but the way we would conceive of reality, therefore, would have to take that into account.
	Saying God doesn't have to apply to the same rules as everything else or that everything else needs a creator, but he doesn't.
	That is by definition special pleading.
	Because you would have to ground things in the transcendent and the only transcendent that you can ground it is a God figure.
	And from there on, you would have to go into particularities.
	But if you're going to say that you don't need to ground things and you're a materialist, you just have to say that it is predetermined.
	And I'm not saying you have to believe in it.
	You can say you don't believe in it.
	I'm saying it's inconsistent.
	But if you're going to put God like Calvinists do and talk about the sovereignty Of God and saying, therefore, everything is predetermined by God specifically, and not believe in what we believe in, which is secondary causes, which we would believe humans to be.
	We would also believe angels to be, and all of this.
	You're sort of making category errors within our system.
	Whereas within your own system, I don't see how you can get away from the fact that the world is a mechanism.
	What else can it be?
	I mean, we've heard the term mechanical universe, but mechanism is just a word that we're applying to the natural universe.
	Like, you're saying, like, it's a machine.
	Like, in some ways, it is a machine, where if you do something, there'll be a certain reaction.
	But that's not to say that, like, the universe knows what's going to happen before it happens.
	Like, you could almost argue that the outcome of this debate, given the arguments that I've heard and the arguments that you've heard, that when they clash together, they will come to a certain way.
	You could argue that, but it's not in the same way.
	Still, religion is more predeterministic than you could ever argue a non-deity, a non-prophecy deity would be.
	What could be a cause in a materialistic universe that cannot be calculated in advance?
	If the mind is a product of the brain, the brain just reacts to stimuli and it produces a certain outcome.
	So, it would be predetermined, and you would be so you can't calculate it now, neither can I. Maybe Andrew can, but the thing is, the lack of knowledge of the mechanism is the only reason why we can't produce why we can't predict things.
	Well, there's atheists on both sides of this argument.
	Like, some people will make the argument that, like, oh, that guy, you know, it was inevitable that he was going to murder that woman and steal her purse because he was raised this way and this is he was abused and blah, blah, blah.
	So, that happened.
	But I don't believe in predeterminism.
	So, I don't even know why it would work because I believe that the future hasn't happened yet, and nobody knows what the future is going to be.
	So, it's up to chance.
	It's up to.
	What is chance?
	Chance, like on one day, somebody might do something, on another day they might not.
	Because we do, I do believe that we have like libertarian free will in a way.
	Like I said, certain things are free will, other things are.
	We don't have the free will on what we believe, but we do on how we behave and what we do and the actions we take.
	Are your choices a product of the brain?
	Not just the brain, external factors too, apply.
	Okay, but that's saying your nervous system reacts to external stimuli.
	It does, some, yeah.
	So, I feel like we're getting so far away from the Bible here.
	No, no, no, because I understand that.
	We are.
	I just can you tie it?
	Can you tie it together for us?
	Okay, maybe this should be a separate debate at some other point.
	But I'm trying to say there isn't one worldview that is neutral, like atheism, because as I said, materialism will have to ground itself in universal mechanistic materialism.
	And that means that if you're going to say there is a mind, and that mind isn't a product of the brain, but so it can make no saying it is a product of the brain.
	Okay, but how does it influence the brain?
	Is it a product of the brain?
	Product of the brain.
	And the brain decides things?
	Yeah.
	How?
	And electrical signals, chemistry, hormones, decision-making, past synapses, past memories, future thinking and logic.
	Many things.
	Listen, listen.
	The brain produces decisions.
	How can a brain be a response to decision-making?
	It is the cause, not the effect.
	The cause is the decision-making.
	It makes a decision, and then it makes your arm move or something.
	I don't know.
	I had a lot of stuff like Bible topics, and this rule should be a different thing.
	Let's move on.
	I'm just trying to establish the fact that we have worldviews and both need to be justified.
	So maybe this is a separate topic, and we will have it on another.
	I know one thing I had been wanting to see myself was the discussion on blood magic.
	Are you guys willing to move into that for me?
	Sure.
	Yes.
	I'd love to.
	Are you washed in the blood, Chad?
	The blood of the lamb?
	Do you agree that Jesus is kind of like symbolizes the Yom Kippur scapegoat and also the Passover lamb?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So how is that not blood magic?
	How is it blood magic?
	It's magical, supernatural things that require blood.
	Blood to be spilt.
	Why is the world?
	Why is blood?
	If you say pagan, but call it pagan, you're sort of putting a distinction between two things that you're equating.
	So I don't know how that is an argument.
	We can go into it.
	What is the point of the blood in these rituals?
	I know what the point is.
	Blood, like, I think it's Paul.
	It says blood must be spilt for there to be atonement.
	You need blood for atonement.
	The idea that killing a goat forgives you or all the Israelites, I just find completely indefensible and absurd.
	Okay.
	It's not taking accountability for what you're doing.
	It's like me killing my dog and telling my wife, okay, I'm forgiven now.
	Okay.
	So let's say that is how it works.
	And you're saying it's blood magic.
	So Saul, the penitent Psalm, Psalm 50 or 51, depending on whether you go with the Mesoretic or the Greek numbering, says that God does not care for burnt offerings, right?
	Sounds like one of the many, yeah, he does.
	It's one of the many contradictions.
	No, actually, it from our perspective, it is perfectly consistent because God, unlike pagan gods, the God of the Bible, when he is upset with bad sacrifices, he says, Don't give me any more.
	Well, the pagan wants time to ramp it up because the gods of the pagans are demons.
	And so he says, You a humble and contrite heart you will not reject.
	And he talks about it, and in the end, it says, Then will you find the burnt offerings pleasing?
	Why?
	Because God doesn't care about the offering itself.
	He cares about the human heart.
	He cares why you're giving it.
	You can't trick God.
	You can't give him like a super special effective thing, effective sacrifice.
	So, what's the point of the blood at all then?
	If it's if it's just what's in your heart, I'm getting to it.
	So, sorry for a bit of a digression, but when we have arguments with the Catholics and the Catholics believe that if you say the wrong word during a service, the service is therefore invalid.
	You could say that is a magical type of thinking.
	It is a sort of incantation, invocation, etc.
	We don't have that view in orthodoxy because for orthodoxy, our view is that the point of the sacrifice is to put you in a particular mindset.
	This would go into anthropology, how we understand what a human being is, how we conceive of the mind, etc.
	But if you give something valuable to God, we see that as a sacrifice in the sense that you are sacrificing a particular pleasure or benefit to God.
	It's not really a sacrifice, though, to kill somebody else.
	This is why the scapegoat atonement is interesting.
	It'd be one thing if you're saying I've sinned and now I'm going to cut my arm and bleed out and suffer pain, then it would make a little bit more sense.
	But atonement scapegoat rituals are not taking accountability for yourself, and it's just an ancient barbaric blood magic practice that's that's not real.
	It's obviously very gruesome and comes off as loony as a kid drinking the blood at church and the communion and eating the body.
	It's just very bizarre, and it's the type of thing that you would expect to see in ancient mythologies.
	But we know today that killing another animal doesn't do anything to forgive you with a deity of the Israelites.
	Now we know that, X. Yeah, it's superstition.
	Just like they had the superstition of Yom Kippur with the scapegoat and the ribbon, and it turns red, and you're forgiven.
	Like, do you believe before Jesus that the Israelites were doing the Yom Kippur ritual, and you believe that was a real ritual?
	Like that it really had supernatural powers?
	Uh, as I said, from our perspective, doing anything, you cannot do such a thing as a type of uh, what we would call what the ancients would also call techne.
	As in when you go with the uh people who read livers and the pagan priests who would have all sorts of uh it's a type of spiritual technology, how you would engage with certain parts of a certain animal, etc.
	We don't believe that to be particularly important, we believe it to be a standardization.
	But where we disagree with pagans is that it's not literally if blood sprinkles you or something, that that is what does it.
	But the participation in the ritual with the right mindset is what it means.
	If you do not have a humble and contrite heart in the old and the new testament, that doesn't matter.
	You can't turn God into a technology.
	I get it.
	That is why the psalm says you don't care for things unless it comes from a humble and contrite heart.
	Right, but then also elsewhere in the Bible, it says it's required, and God is very clear all over the Bible about exactly pages and pages, chapters all about exactly how Yom Kippur and you have to cut this type of goat and has to be this special goat and you can't break the bones and you got to spread the blood on the on the four corners of the ark of the covenant.
	And why doesn't any of this seem bizarre to you?
	Honestly, be real.
	Doesn't this seem a little bizarre?
	Like, from just try to like take yourself out of your Christian perspective and look at it from the outside.
	Nothing about the blood magic, washed in the bud, plower of the power of the blood, the blood of the lamb.
	None of this seems a little archaic to you and just a little absurd.
	Well, first of all, I don't care if it's archaic, but second of all, asking me to go out to my Christian worldview.
	If I asked you, Adam, come into the Christian worldview and accept the Orthodox teachings.
	Does that seem right to you?
	Or does believing that we all come from apes, does that seem wrong to you?
	You wouldn't be able to do that because that's not how your mind currently operates.
	So you don't have free will?
	You don't have the free will to imagine what it's like?
	I'm saying it's not how it currently operates.
	That is why we believe people should engage in fasting and prayer and all sorts of things because that is a feeling.
	Do you think it's a little bit outrageous that all the myths in the Bible, like the saints raising from the dead and walking around, staffs turning to snakes, things like this?
	You don't feel a little bit unease inside when you have to say, yes, I believe these things actually happened.
	I used to, not anymore.
	Because I realized that materialism is gay, and I stopped being a materialist.
	And then I realized I would have to actually account for things in materialism.
	It's not just the neutral position, which is why I'm going via that route with questioning.
	I don't see how materialism is gay, but bowing down before an ancient Hebrew superhero who was a virgin and loving him and putting your family before him and getting down on your knees and prostrating yourself and calling yourself a slave to this imaginary deity.
	I find that a little homo.
	Okay, I find bowing down before imaginary deities stupid as well.
	Well, where's your deity?
	He's outside space and time.
	You can't prove him.
	There's no extra biblical evidence that he existed.
	There's problems with the gospels.
	Where's the proof?
	Where's the proof?
	The God of the Bible is real.
	What's the best proof you have that the God of the Bible is real?
	The best proof that the God of the Bible is real is, as we would say, not a philosophical inquiry.
	It is also not even an epistemological inquiry.
	It is a spiritual problem.
	But that is where you have to do a lot of groundwork thinking about what human is, what the mind is, what beliefs are, etc.
	And if I ask you, do you think thoughts are predetermined and that if we have sufficient knowledge of the mechanism of the universe, then you can't really say anyone can be convinced of anything because there isn't a one person to be convinced.
	It's just part of a mechanism that you're arbitrarily pulling out.
	And if I say that I believe in abiogenesis, I find that ridiculous.
	But because it is a necessary prerequisite for your worldview, you're going to have to say that is what it is.
	Let's say hypothetically, in 100, 200 years from now, they're able to, in a lab, create life replicating life from inorganic life.
	Would you still be a Christian if they discovered that?
	Probably not, no.
	Don't you think it's much more plausible?
	Hold on.
	I don't care if there are millions of years, infinite time, infinite space, trillions and trillions of opportunities for the right mixture, the right type of whatever building block to come about naturally.
	You think that's less likely than the story that Moses got from the angels of Genesis a few thousand years ago that said that they were just poofed like a Marvel comic book movie, a character was just poofed into existence.
	No humans, and all of a sudden, boom, there's Adam.
	And then boom from the rib.
	You really find that as like a reasonable explanation.
	Okay, so if you were going to create a protocell in a laboratory, and let's say you got the components necessary, you got them through a prebiotically relevant manner, and you somehow combine them into the protocell.
	The thing you have proven is that actually a mind can do that.
	No, because it could also happen naturally.
	You could just reproduce in the lab something that happens naturally in nature, which is what they try to do.
	They try to mix chemicals, hit it with a lightning bolt, stuff like that.
	And have they succeeded?
	Not yet, but just because they haven't yet doesn't mean that they never will.
	Like I said, at least they're trying to.
	At least they're searching for explanations.
	That's better than just saying, oh, well, we got the answer from Moses and the angels.
	What I'm saying is they don't even have the basic components that they can get.
	And just a few hundred years ago, they didn't even know about natural selection.
	So we figured that out, and that put a huge dent in the Genesis story.
	And just 30 years ago, we discovered something called chiral-induced electron spin selection, which means that you have to have a homochirality in a system in order for it to be able to function by selecting the electron spins so that they can have the efficiency and not just burn up due to resistance.
	So we got further away from proving a biogenesis.
	I heard you make this point with JFG.
	I like JFG.
	Yeah, I like JFG's explanation for this about how life didn't start with a reproducing cell, but with some type of like virus RNA or something.
	He knows much more about that than me, but still, regardless, it's by far the most more plausible explanation.
	And at least it's trying to find a natural explanation.
	To say, to wipe our hands and say, oh, Genesis explained it, the Hebrew Bible, they got it right.
	Adam and Eve, let there be light.
	That's simple as that.
	It's just not a serious explanation.
	It raises more issues than problems itself.
	I don't think abiogenesis is a serious explanation.
	There is no proof of it.
	There's just a necessary prerequisite in your mechanism.
	What's the proof of Adam and Eve in Genesis is real?
	Ink on paper written by men?
	Because we believe that in order to have the world we have, you need a God.
	You need a transcendental deity, and you have to not justify, but ground everything in him.
	And we believe that a transcendental deity can be only known properly through revelation and that he revealed himself.
	This is the coherency thing.
	What you're trying How is he not revealed?
	He knows exactly what it takes to make everybody see him, and yet he doesn't do it.
	So he just creates people knowing that they're going to go, what?
	How do you know he doesn't do it?
	Because where is he?
	How are there so many different religions and different interpretations and so many non-believers and so many people that honestly tried to believe but just couldn't do it?
	Because there are deceptions and deceiving entities.
	And God can't overcome.
	Didn't God create those deceptions?
	No, he created.
	He didn't create the devil.
	He created The devil, in the sense, yes, you could.
	And he knew the devil would rebel.
	This is again you pulling God back into temporal relations.
	Well, I mean, we got to talk about him.
	You can't just say, oh, well, you know, I see this in the chat.
	I hear Christians say, God doesn't do what Adam wants him to do.
	The Bible describes a certain God with certain characteristics, and when he doesn't meet those characteristics or he does things that are completely contradictory, inconsistent with what we should expect from what the Bible says, that's when you get all these issues.
	And yes, we can.
	You get into your best proof of God, you basically said, was like presupposition transcendentals, but now you're saying I can't even use logic to show that, hey, this God isn't adding up.
	It's not passing this meltdown.
	Yes, the God of the Bible does not fit your presuppositions.
	Yes, we would agree on that.
	And God knows what it would require for me to believe in him.
	Yes.
	So is he playing a prank on me?
	Why is he showing me everything that shows that he's not real?
	He's not doing a very good job of getting believers to so many people.
	You got to let him respond.
	Go ahead, Paul.
	All right.
	So I could respond to that the same way.
	There was a guy in high school, you know, quite a long time ago that came to me and said, What said, why is someone as smart as you a believer in God?
	And I said, Because if I was as stupid as you, I wouldn't.
	So that's like saying, oh, if God knows what it takes, I would he would do X. Well, maybe God is doing X, and maybe that is something in the future that will happen.
	Do you understand why it is not this direct correlation with how you think it would work out?
	Because he's got the divine perspective of how things should play out.
	These just sound like apologetics and excuses for why there's no good proof.
	I don't need, like, I started in the beginning.
	The fact that we're even having this debate, and so many people have always had this debate, is a pretty good indication that this divine deity doesn't actually exist.
	No, because you would also have to be denying free will and what we call secondary causation.
	So you're a caused cause.
	You're a created cause.
	You're not a transcendent one.
	Right?
	So if someone came to you when you were in middle school and gave you all the information you've got now, do you think you would have the same interpretation?
	Or I just told you, oh, this is all a big conception.
	Sorry, I mistook you for the person I was debating on Jim Bob's stream.
	He said he was Luther and I almost said you were Lutheran.
	Sorry.
	But someone told you back in middle school, Christianity is a big plot to subvert the Gentiles.
	Do you think you would have the same view as you would have today?
	Yes.
	I just would have learned it a lot earlier.
	That is a big, big claim to make because you would be disregarding all the experiences you had before.
	It's not about my view on God doesn't have to do with my own personal experiences.
	My experiences before middle school and from middle school to now haven't really changed in regards to Yahweh and his existence.
	Right.
	So I guess we will have to be having the same debate.
	I guess we don't change your opinions because you've had your formed opinions.
	No, I haven't.
	It isn't the fact that you have received certain information at certain parts of your life with certain experiences to back them up and interpret them.
	It is all just infused into your head, into your mind, which apparently isn't just a mechanism.
	It also has the ability to choose its own functions.
	So, all right.
	Well, my brain can choose.
	I don't know if it chooses functions, but functions happen and then I make certain decisions.
	What is this idea of your brain?
	What time is it?
	Five?
	We're two hours in.
	I know we have super chats and other things.
	We do have to wrap it down.
	Yep, go ahead.
	Are we still going a little bit more?
	Yeah, so I was going to say, before we wrap it up, we've got about 15 minutes left that we can get through before we hit that three-hour mark when we include callers and super chats.
	So you have asked a lot of questions, Adam, and Posh has fielded them.
	Posh, if you do have questions at this point, you can ask those questions.
	If you want to start a line of inquiry, that's okay.
	Well, again, I can't ask.
	Maybe I could go with things like the prophecies in Daniel and how they account for things like when, what's his name, Antiochus, the fourth of Epiphanies, sacrifices pigs to Zeus, and how that is sort of put as a middle point between the Babylonian slavery and the coming of the Messiah, and how we basically get a timeline.
	And the entire book of Daniel actually foreseeing things, how it will play out with different empires.
	But I suppose that would be.
	You know, Daniel's a forgery.
	It was written in the second century and it claims to be written in the fourth century.
	Neither of those two statements are correct.
	They are.
	We have I've seen scholars prove it.
	I believe it was even like a Christian from a long time ago was the first one to even propose that idea.
	Yes, this is also like talking about the 19th century German theologians who also said, oh, there is no David.
	He's sort of like an Arthurian figure, even though King Arthur existed.
	But also then we find inscriptions of calling Israel the house of David, but because you didn't have back then, it is a rather new thing to have the vowel systems, the diacritics in Hebrew.
	Then they said, oh, no, this means if you put different vowels into it.
	It means the house of the water bucket.
	It doesn't mean house of David.
	And then they go and find a couple of more.
	And then, oh, well, never mind then.
	It's not the house of the water bucket.
	So the fact that you have heretics does not mean that the truth, true faith, is not there.
	That's not the argument I was making.
	What I'm saying is that it's proof that God isn't doing a very competent job of delivering his message and doesn't care very much about the salvation of all of his creations.
	That's the point I was getting at.
	Because obviously there could be a true Christianity, and there would inevitably be some people that get it wrong.
	I see what you're saying.
	My favorite David verse is 1 Samuel 18:25, since we're speaking in the Bible.
	I want to get your take on this.
	David?
	Saul replied, say to David, the king wants no other price for the bride than a hundred Philistine foreskins to take revenge on his enemies.
	What do you think about foreskin collecting and God's foreskin commandment?
	Right.
	This would come into our idea of economia or ukonomia, if you want to go with the Greek one, the proper Greek pronunciation.
	Yes, this God accepts things to happen in order to bring about a greater good or to prevent a greater evil.
	This would go into the slavery debate, which we may not be repeating.
	But when he says that, we're talking about people like the Philistines.
	And the reason God isn't particularly happy with people like the Canaanites and the Philistines and all sorts of other groups around is because they worship demonic entities, and part of that is burning babies alive.
	It is bestiality.
	It is all sorts of nasty things.
	If you believe Israelite propaganda, but go ahead.
	Well, yes, that is what I also hear from scholars.
	And they say, oh, no, no, no, they didn't burn babies.
	And then we find baby bones along with goat bones.
	And they say, oh, no, they burned them along with their pet goats.
	You know how babies have pet goats.
	I find it a little hypocritical to criticize pagan religions, which I'm not defending.
	I'm not pagan.
	I don't believe in pagan gods, but to criticize them for having human sacrifice when Christianity and Judaism are based on very similar sacrifices.
	Christianity is a religion based on sacrificial atonement ritual.
	No, not really.
	Sure, it is.
	It's a Christianity based on Jesus and his sacrifice, his scapegoat atonement.
	Bloody hell, mate.
	That's the Protestant thing.
	I keep telling you.
	No, it's not.
	Yes, it is.
	Yes, it is.
	So, in Orthodoxy, the death of Jesus on the cross isn't important.
	It is important, but it's not there to pay for our sins.
	And if we accept it, all of a sudden, yeha, we're going to go out and play a harp.
	This makes sense because it's ridiculous that Christians believe that it's not actually Jesus dying that gives you any power.
	It's the belief that he died for your sins that actually has the power.
	You sound like a Gnostic now.
	No, we believe in what is called the harrowing of Hades.
	We believe God, the second person of the Godhead, the word of God, became man, took on a human nature, and with his death, he descended into Hades or hell or Sheol or whatever you want to call it.
	These are all just different words for the basically the realm of the dead.
	And he destroyed the rule of Satan, which was talked about in Genesis over the dead when it says, dust you shall eat.
	And he opened up the heavens for the people and brought out the just people, including all sorts of people who never heard of it, from hell or Hades or Sheol and brought them into heaven.
	That is our belief.
	That is how we see recapitulation, as we call it, God taking on human nature to start reversing the four.
	If you want to argue that, okay.
	If you want to argue that Jesus didn't, he suffered and he was in pain.
	Therefore, now it's okay that I, you know, masturbated 10 times yesterday.
	That's something you and I would be on the same side of when arguing with people who believe in solar fide or salvation by faith alone.
	Yeah, well, that's obviously very illogical to think.
	And sadly, some Christians do believe that.
	They think that believing in Jesus is their get out of jail free pass so they're they can sin all they want and be forgiven.
	But yes, and they will tell you.
	I know a lot of Christians disagree with that, though, obviously.
	Yes, well, the vast majority, again, Catholics and Orthodox would disagree.
	The Oriental Orthodox would disagree.
	Many Anglicans don't actually have this view, particularly, but Anglicans have any view you ask them.
	So, yes, this is what I'm talking about.
	It isn't just blood is sprinkled on you or blood is spilled, therefore it's okay for you to do all sorts of nasty things.
	We have just a moment, Andrew.
	Yeah, sure, we have our system and we defend our system.
	And we hold it as coherent from Genesis to Revelation.
	The fact that there are people who have had different interpretations does not, for us, mean that our interpretation is wrong, as much as any type of evidence can be interpreted in many different ways.
	And of course, this would tie into the whole why God didn't do this particular thing, but that will also be part of a paradigm and a presupposition.
	Adam, I have to cut in.
	There's no good time to end the debate, wrap up into closing arguments so we can get to callers and whatnot.
	Very quickly, I'll add another 30 seconds if you want to rebut to that before You move into your closing statement.
	Go ahead.
	Instead of responding to that, I wanted to bring up real quick your thoughts on Jesus's parables.
	Like in Mark 4:12, he says, the mystery of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to those on the outside, everything is.
	We're going to go down a rabbit hole with it.
	Okay.
	I got to go to the bathroom then before I do anything else.
	Sorry, no problem.
	Go ahead.
	I visited the gym before the debate.
	Yeah, it's not an issue at all.
	Super chats, whatever.
	Kill time.
	I'll be right back.
	Yeah, yeah.
	We're all good, man.
	Go ahead, go to the restroom.
	Let's badmouth him.
	Wait, that's right.
	He's not here right now.
	Fucking Adam Green.
	That's so abitious.
	Nice.
	Good sport for coming on, man.
	It was fun.
	And I recommend also for people: if you go to Adam Green's channel and he hosts you, if he wants to have a discussion with you, he's very, very fair about it.
	And he's a very good host.
	So I recommend doing that.
	Even if you adamantly disagree with him, he's a pretty good host.
	I mean, I've been on talking with him on his channel.
	He treated me very well.
	That's why I've always been willing to have him back.
	So glad to see him on tonight.
	And you, Posh.
	That was so far, it's been a very interesting debate to say the least.
	So, yeah, it goes into too many things for it to be a single conversation.
	I understand that.
	Yeah, and we did make this one a little broader on purpose.
	So anyway, go ahead.
	The point I was going to make with that verse is completely relevant to what Posh just said.
	So I just want to get it out.
	I won't argue it for five minutes, but it says here, Jesus says, to those on the outside, so not his disciples, not people with the inner esoteric knowledge, everything is expressed in parables, so that they may be ever seeing but never perceiving and ever hearing but never understanding.
	Otherwise, they might turn and be forgiven.
	So you're making the argument that just because other Christians don't have it right, like orthodoxy, doesn't mean orthodoxy is wrong.
	Seems to me from this parable, Jesus doesn't want the multitude, the mixed multitude, to know the truth of the parables and turn and be saved.
	It's Mark 4:12.
	So why would Jesus and God not show themselves, not make things clear?
	Why is it, why do so many people have it wrong?
	Is that not proof that it's not divine and it's not a real deity of the Bible?
	I hope we can get into this in depth at some other time, but it always goes into the fact that Christ came in to fulfill certain prophecies and certain things to establish the church and then to send out the church into the world.
	It is also when we get with the Canaanite woman, you know, a lot of people go into that.
	But if you don't have that understanding and you would have to go into a lot of prophecies before that, why didn't Jesus go and preach to the Gentiles, right?
	But the church did.
	It is because he is there to give, to perform a certain function, and then, as in his human nature, to perform certain functions and establish the church, we get to that with the Pentecost and the descending of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter.
	And then it goes into this phase of spreading the kingdom of God.
	Does Jesus want people on earth to be forgiven and to understand his message?
	If so, how do you explain this verse?
	He doesn't want people to understand.
	That's why he speaks in parables.
	He doesn't want them to turn and be forgiven.
	And hey, we have so much confusion and so much disagreement and thousands of different sects.
	Seems like it's going according to the plan.
	He doesn't want people to understand the truth.
	He doesn't want people to be saved.
	As I said, this would have to go way deeper in order to understand that.
	So you need a whole lot of explanation to yes, you need a whole lot, lot of explanation to understand a verse that you're sort of taking out of a text.
	That's the problem with so much of the Bible.
	It requires so much.
	There are so many explanations to explain all the details.
	All right.
	Guys, we have to.
	I'm sorry.
	We got it.
	We got to cut it off there.
	Nobody's ever happy with whoever you cut it off with.
	So anyway, Adam, you opened first.
	And so, Posh, we're going to let you close first.
	Go ahead.
	Okay.
	So I started off by saying that I gave the example of children and Elisha and how that is a huge talking point because I wanted to show that it is not a simple thing to understand written text of any kind.
	And that this will also tie into how we perceive of reality, how our presupposition will shape things as we perceive them.
	The paradigm will determine how we interpret evidence.
	Indeed, if we are going to have a worldly mind, we're going to interpret things worldly.
	If there are rabbis who want to see this type of subjugation of the ethnic Goim to the ethnic rabbi people, sorry, we were given strictures.
	Banned!
	Banned!
	No rabbi people allowed.
	Right.
	What did you do?
	What did you do?
	Hopefully nothing particularly egregious.
	But if they want to have that interpretation, we believe that to be a problem that is a spiritual problem.
	And the fact that people are putting their desires before God and that they are separating themselves from him.
	This is what orthodoxy teaches.
	And I can only defend the orthodox system, which would have to go with accounting for why we perceive of rituals the way we do, why we participate in rituals the way we do, why we believe certain things in history happened the way they did.
	And if someone has a worldview that they see currently certain people who have disproportionate influence and then want to read back into certain events, which is why I try to go with the Greeks, although you can go with all sorts of people, why this type of postmodern thinking is not going to stop.
	It can be expanded all the way to what we see progressivism being nowadays.
	Because these people do not believe they have presuppositions.
	They believe in the myth of neutrality.
	They believe that they have this normal way of thinking and that there are things you would have to build upon it and you would have to justify from their particular foundations.
	And what I was trying to say is you cannot just start halfway through a process and expect to have a proper understanding of the entire process.
	And I am also thankful for Adam for showing up.
	I think it was a nice discussion.
	Again, it is a huge topic.
	It is a varied topic and it cannot be done within a couple of hours.
	But I hope we set at least some type of essentials that we can work on in the future.
	But that would basically be it for closing statements.
	Okay.
	And then as I mentioned before, Posh, Adam's a great host on his own program.
	If you ever decide to go over there and have a future discussion with him, highly recommend it.
	Go ahead, Adam.
	You said that some people are unable to properly understand what the Bible says.
	This is an inherent problem with the Bible: it's so clumsily put together.
	It's so unclear.
	This is not the indications that it was created by a divine entity that wants his message to be understood and followed by mankind.
	The fact that I didn't hear any good explanations for why God is hiding, why he doesn't show himself, why there's no good solid proof that he exists, nothing about the gospels and their unreliability, nothing about all the suffering and all of the examples we see in the universe that show that the God of Israel is fictional.
	Didn't hear a strong defense about the ritual, scapegoats, blood, magic, atonement.
	And the main point to see Christianity for what it is and why I call it a deception is because I see all the myths of the Hebrew Torah as very clearly mythology, legends, non-historical things, miracles that are impossible.
	They require good proof that they existed.
	Some of that good proof would be maybe some of the same things still happening today.
	If that happened, if there was any of these things, we wouldn't be having this debate.
	Nobody would have this debate.
	There would be no question.
	The fact that we're having this debate at all, I think, indicates that Yahweh isn't real.
	And to understand Christianity for what it is, we see Romans talking about the Gentiles being obedient, like it calls for in Genesis, obedience of the nation shall be his.
	That's why it's theological conquering.
	It's theological control when you have the obedience of the people.
	Religion is a great way to control people, like with a noble lie, like Plato described.
	The prophecies were that the whole world would worship the God of Israel and they accomplished this through Christianity, through a deception of fake prophecy fulfillment.
	Jesus speaking in parables was even one of the prophecies that was supposedly fulfilled, as well as so many other things.
	In fact, that verse about turning understand is just a play on an older prophecy.
	That's what actually explains it, the verse I was talking about there at the end.
	And, you know, verses in Paul that says that the Messiah shall rise to reign over the Gentiles, and that prophecies of Isaiah, that the nations will seek the Moshiach, this is proof that they had a pre-planned agenda to get all of the world to abandon their religions and worship the God of Israel, fulfilling the chosen people's prophecy.
	Jesus will rule with a rod of iron.
	He will rule in the land of thine enemies.
	He will make the enemies the footstool.
	And now Christians are happily calling themselves sheep and bowing down on their knees to the king of the Israelites.
	And this is why they don't hate it.
	Top rabbis like Maimonides say that it's a good thing and it's part of God's plan.
	And we see Christianity today, Christian Zionism, being the key to Judeo-power and Judeo-prophecy being fulfilled.
	And even the history of anti-Jewishness from Christianity has played into their victim status and has discredited Gentiles in legitimate criticisms by turning us into the villains and the evil oppressors of Esau, persecuting the chosen ones who were chosen to be hated and suffer this divine atonement.
	Christianity fulfilled that.
	It was always planned that Christianity would go from persecuting to becoming the advocate.
	We're seeing that happen with as they're marching towards their end times agenda, more power because of Christianity.
	They wouldn't be where they're at today.
	They wouldn't have Israel without Christianity.
	And it really is the Abrahamic conspiracy that has conquered the world through the deception of the Torah and their fake prophecies.
	I wish all the Christians out there would stop believing in these prophecies by believing you're making the Prophecies fulfilled and come true because their prophecies were that you would believe in their God.
	So please check out my videos.
	I have playlists where I go into the verses and show where they came from and show the secret esoteric secrets of what the rabbis and the oral law and the Kabbalah believe and check that out with an open mind.
	And I think you guys will see where I'm coming from.
	And thank you, Posh.
	I enjoyed the civil discourse here.
	And thanks, Andrew, for having me on again.
	Yeah, of course.
	It was a very spirited debate.
	I think that sometimes when people see kind of these different entities, like you can see a guy like Adam Green go from blood sports to very civil discussion.
	Remember that people who are experienced debaters tend to match the energy that they get.
	And so that's what ends up happening.
	So for people who are disappointed that this wasn't a slugfest, drag out, blood in the street, it actually was.
	It's just you weren't paying close enough attention to know.
	I should have spoken in an old English accent, and then I would have had maybe the leg up today.
	Right, right.
	Well, we're going to get some callers.
	Maybe because I did speak with this accent, people just obey naturally.
	You sound smarter and more intelligent and authoritative than me.
	I'll give you that.
	Well, it's funny.
	From the voice.
	I was making fun of Posh's hat one day, and he said that the traditional hat of us Irishmen is the English boot.
	I thought that was pretty funny.
	But anyway, moving on to some of our call-ins, we're going to move through the callers very quickly for you callers.
	So one question, one follow-up.
	We're going to start with Ben Shapiro.
	Go ahead, Ben Shapiro.
	Hello.
	Oh, thanks for having me.
	Well, I wasn't going to show up on this disgusting platform, but someone mentioned rabbi people.
	So I guess my little ear started ringing, so I jumped on the screen.
	So I want to clear something up.
	First of all, I do not hate Palestinian people.
	I would happily shake the hands of any Palestinian people as long as it was a part of the body and the body was completely dismembered.
	My question is actually for Adam Green.
	You know, people have put you on my radar.
	You're absolutely one of the top top performing anti-Semites that I've ever encountered.
	So kudos to you.
	So my question is, you mentioned multiple universes.
	And, you know, I don't really believe that nonsense.
	I also believe in miracles.
	Of course, miracles that have a naturalistic explanation.
	Those are the kind of miracles I believe in, like yourself.
	The question I have for you, if there is actually like multiple universes, would it be safe to say that in any of those universes, a God could exist?
	I mean, in one of those universes, I could be a little bit taller.
	I could have a Yarmouka that charges my whole house.
	So by what, I wanted to know by what standard you're determining what is possible and not possible in any given universe.
	Anti-Semitism.
	That was the greatest caller of all time.
	Good job, whoever that is.
	But really, it's a serious question.
	No, no, yeah.
	No, multiverse, I don't, just like why you wouldn't require a God for a single universe, a universe, I don't see why just because there's multiverses, you would all, there would need one or there could be one.
	And then what do you mean by God?
	You know, that's that's a question in itself.
	Well, that would be like the necessary creator of all things, including those universes.
	The one, the one, the Abrahamic God that makes a covenant with Abraham that he splits up a bunch of animals and carries a torch through to signify the covenant.
	A god like that.
	I don't think any God exists in any universe like that.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	So there could be.
	I don't think he would choose your people either of all the people.
	I don't think he would choose one group of people.
	I know I've heard.
	I don't think he would choose one group of people over everybody else.
	Okay.
	One last question before I leave.
	I need to be tucked in.
	So when you say there's a certain tribe of people that control a lot of stuff, even if I granted that, which is completely anti-Semitic, I'd never do it.
	I'd have to close the Daily Wire immediately.
	If that were the case, my question to you is, is there another group of people or a paradigm or a philosophy that you would rather be in control of all of these systems?
	Anti-Semitism.
	Anti-Semitism.
	Oh, is there another group of people that I'd rather have be in charge than the Judeo-Or a general philosophy that you'd rather because would you admit that like if suddenly we were all dethroned, which is never possible, actually, that there would be a vacuum.
	So the question is, well, who would step in?
	Would they be the same size?
	Would they want the same things?
	I think you can take some of the good parts of Christianity and good parts of other religions and philosophies and just kind of go by the general golden rule and we would be better off than what we have today.
	Is that like a sex move or something?
	The golden roll?
	It's a kosher sex movie.
	This is disgusting.
	This is disgusting.
	This was a total mistake.
	So I mean, thank you, I guess.
	I guess.
	Well, Mr. Lee.
	Shapiro.
	Before you go, would you leave us with some words of wisdom?
	Sure.
	Go to madebyjimbob.com and buy his latest book.
	That's all, folks.
	That's who that is.
	Did you guys know that was Jim Bob?
	Yeah.
	Hey, Jim Bob.
	I watched some of your video about me you did after my last debate here, just FYI.
	Oh, no.
	Anti-Semitism.
	Yeah.
	So we will set up the Green Jim Bob debate.
	We know it's coming at some point.
	It's coming.
	And you should buy, and even Adam Green will have to admit this, whether he likes Jim Bob or not.
	Savage Memes Volume 4 is fucking awesome.
	And you need to buy it.
	Adam, I will actually send you a free copy if you would like.
	I think you would enjoy at least half or 75% of it.
	What's it called?
	Memes?
	Savage Memes Volume 4.
	Savage Memes.
	Yeah, Savage Me.
	Take a look.
	Savage Memes.
	Comes with free Bolembrane sheets.
	That's right.
	Wait, can you give this stream your stamp of approval, Mr. Shapiro, so it doesn't get shut down?
	That's right.
	The stream has my stamp of approval, so it doesn't get shut down.
	All right.
	Thank you so much.
	Have a great night, Mr. Shapiro.
	Next caller up, Kilborg.
	Man, that's just, he fucking nails it.
	He's good at that.
	Yeah.
	Kilborg, you're up, man.
	Go ahead.
	Howdy.
	Just got a question for Posh.
	So if butt scripture alone isn't enough to understand the will or word of God, how can the common man have a relationship with God if he Needs a priest to interpret things for him, and how can he trust that priest?
	Well, the way you are asking that is sort of saying, yes, you can have it by the scriptures alone, but you need an interpreter.
	So it's sort of just moving the goalpost.
	That is not what I'm talking about.
	As I mentioned, the original Pentateuch written by Moses would not have been in the biblical Hebrew, but it gets adapted and edited over time so that it can give the information.
	Right.
	So we have the Hebrews go to the city of Dan.
	Sorry.
	And the city of Dan, you can't have the city of Dan before the tribe of Dan moves in.
	A bit difficult to do that.
	But you would have it was called Laesh.
	And in the Greek manuscripts, we find it, which is nowadays Heliopolis.
	Right.
	So you can't have this type of, how shall I say, direct infusion of information from a text without interpreting it, because a text is going to be interpreted in the time and a circumstance that it is in.
	And that is why you have a normative body.
	That is why you have the priesthood.
	And that is why we in the Orthodox Church have the church, which is the normative body to talk about these things.
	But relationship with God, there's the normative, the Orthodox way.
	And we don't believe God would reject people who were deceived to a certain extent or who were, how shall I say, who were far out of reach, geographically speaking.
	We believe God looks at your heart.
	This is why I mentioned that being the important part of sacrifices.
	So you can have a relationship with God even without it, but it is the normative way.
	And we don't believe people just do nasty things if you're not convinced about it through debate.
	People can do horrible things because they are self-interested, because they want to do certain things, irrespective of logic and debate.
	And that is why it's not just pushing things back a bit.
	It is taking the entirety of the scriptures and also a relationship with God is not something you need a degree in.
	One quick follow-up, Kilborg, and then you have to leave us with some words of wisdom.
	Okay.
	So how would you know that your normative counsel is correct and not some other interpretive body?
	Because it is in full coherence with the previous revelations and scriptures, and it is the normative operation that we find in those scriptures, which are records of how things function.
	And with all of those things as they operate, we can have a cohesive view and we follow that cohesive view.
	And that is why we have these debates with Catholics or with Protestants.
	Did you want to follow up, Adam?
	Go ahead.
	Yeah, this is a point I tried to make throughout the debate.
	And this shows the problem with Christianity is that it depends on ancient scriptures.
	And not only that, hypothetically, an all-powerful God could communicate his message clearly.
	He could voice every language in everybody's head in a way that they would understand clearly, but he doesn't do it.
	We have to rely on ancient books interpreted by whoever we determine is the authority by fallible men explaining us what the Bible says.
	And that just shows that it's got huge issues.
	Words of wisdom, Kielborg?
	Christianity, ogas are like Christianity.
	They've got layers.
	No.
	Terrible joke.
	You know why?
	It's because you had to follow up behind Jim Bob.
	He made a Shrek joke.
	Not kidding.
	That was a Shrek joke.
	I know this.
	I have tons of kids.
	I've watched the movie.
	It was a Shrek joke.
	You fail, Kielborg.
	You fail.
	Acorn, can you hear me okay?
	Yes, can you hear me?
	Yeah, go ahead with your question, Acorn.
	Okay, I have a quick question, not so quick for Adam.
	It is, first, the question is, do you deny the historicity of Christ?
	Do you deny that Christ existed historically?
	Yes, I think he is purely mythological.
	Even top mythicists like Richard Carrier believes that there's a small possibility that there could have been a colonel historical character.
	But, you know, the academics are in agreement, a consensus that the stories in the Gospels are mythological and they're based on prophecy and they didn't actually happen.
	But it's kind of irrelevant if there really was a person or not.
	But I do believe that it's purely mythological.
	It evolved from Logos.
	It evolved from, I believe, pre-Christian Gnostic Judeo sects and it just evolved.
	Different competing sects kind of had memes that developed.
	And then not till proto-Orthodoxy did they have the power and influence to use their authority to only have one version that they could enforce.
	But I believe it developed naturally like that.
	And the version we have is Paul, which was focused on targeting the Gentiles.
	But there could have been pre-Christian groups like the Ebionites that believed completely different things.
	But those were buried.
	They were covered up.
	And now we just have the official version.
	And the victors write the history books.
	So you would deny the children.
	I do deny it.
	Yes.
	He's a myth.
	He didn't exist.
	Adam.
	Let the caller, let the collar respond.
	Go ahead, Acorn.
	You would deny the historical account of Peleni the Younger, Satonius, Cleosus, Josephus, what's his name?
	This is low-tier stuff, man.
	You can't just list off a bunch of names.
	The first biblical source that we have collar, let Adam respond.
	This is what they do.
	They hit you with rapid fire.
	Plenty of the elder, Josephus.
	If you look into each one of these individually and you see that they're actually not legitimate.
	Josephus is an interpolation or complete forgery by Eusebius, third century.
	And that's the earliest one.
	Josephus was born in 37 AD after Jesus supposedly died.
	So this is not a contemporary source.
	There's no contemporary source.
	Tacitus is in the 110s AD.
	This is so many decades after the fact.
	The Gospels were already in circulation.
	The Pliny the younger letter that he had, I forgot who it was.
	He didn't even know who the Christians were.
	It's not like he was, these are not solid proofs that he was real.
	And in fact, all the evidence that we have shows that there is no proof at all that he existed.
	So who are you getting this that these are all forgeries from?
	From what sources?
	I didn't say all forgeries.
	I said Josephus is a forgery.
	And that's not even disputable.
	That's in academia.
	They've known for a long time that Josephus would never say those things.
	And it's just like a little bleep, a little blurb kind of like it's he doesn't even go deep into it.
	And it's basically even if it was true, Bart Ehrman makes this argument.
	Even if Josephus was legitimate, Acorn.
	Oh, sorry.
	Very quick follow-up.
	I didn't finish the point.
	Bart Ehrman, who believes in historical Jesus, he even says Josephus, which is the earliest supposed evidence, isn't proof at all because he just basically regurgitates the very basic beliefs of Christianity.
	This is not proof that Jesus actually existed.
	Okay, look deeper into all these sources.
	Read books like David Fitzgerald, his books about the mythical Jesus, also Richard Carrier, and you'll see how much you've been misled, especially by books like what is it?
	The proof, Strobel's The Proof for Christ, or The Case for Christ.
	Tons of misinformation in there.
	Okay.
	Last follow-up.
	Yes.
	One thing for Posh.
	Will you forgive me for being Old Benjamin?
	Tell the truth.
	Maybe one day.
	What if I was Orthodox?
	Well, then I have to ask my bishop whether I could.
	But hang on, Acorn.
	Acorn, before you go, I forgive neither of you for not being Irish.
	Well, it's okay.
	I would never forgive you for being Irish.
	I would never forgive myself for being Irish.
	Thank you so much for the call, Acorn.
	Appreciate it.
	And then, Rachel, you're up.
	Can you hear us okay?
	Yeah, I can hear you guys.
	Can you hear me?
	Yeah.
	Yep.
	Go ahead with your question.
	Okay.
	I am actually kind of here to maybe surprisingly extend an olive branch to Adam because I actually have a lot of sympathy for, you know, I'm listening to the debate.
	I'm hearing a lot of what he's saying.
	And I know where it all comes from.
	It comes from this American Protestant ethos that he was raised in.
	Adam, are you familiar with any of my work about feminism?
	I've seen you on Tucker Carlson once.
	I didn't get to talk about feminism there, sadly, but I wrote a book about feminism and why it sucks and how it's all bullshit that was invented by gender studies departments.
	And when I talk about it, yeah, when I talk about that, people react insanely.
	They call me all kinds of names.
	They give me all kinds of psychological diagnoses.
	They're like, how could you possibly say that?
	How could you possibly think that?
	Whereas if I was saying these things 200 years ago, they wouldn't be controversial in the least.
	And the reason this is, is because they have grown up in, it's kind of like a fish doesn't know it's swimming in water, right?
	They're just growing up in this ethos where they're just told women are brave and wonderful and they can do anything a man can do and there's no difference between the sexes.
	And of course we believe all women, you know, they're just pounded with propaganda their whole lives.
	And I think a lot of what you say that maybe Posh and I would disagree with is because you were raised in this Protestant American ethos, which is naturally anti-authoritarian.
	So like when you're talking about, you know, oh, they want us to bow down and they want us to be obedient, you know, like I hear some libertarian Americanism coming through there.
	And when you talk about blood sacrifice and atonement, that's 100% Protestant, which I know because I was raised Protestant in a Calvinist church, which did believe in penal substitution, which never made sense to me.
	So I actually have a lot of sympathy for where you're coming from, why all this stuff sounds so nuts to you, because Protestantism is a people are always like, why are you so hostile to Protestants?
	Well, this is why.
	Protestantism is an atheism factory.
	It's a heresy arc.
	It's a complete bastardization of the church.
	And Christ didn't come as a blood sacrifice.
	He came to establish his church so that we would have guidance.
	So when you say, why doesn't God just present himself?
	Why doesn't he just show himself in a way that everyone can understand?
	Well, that's what, as Posh said, that's what Christ came to do.
	He's not a blood sacrifice.
	He didn't pay a price.
	He came to steal the gates of Hades and the keys to hell and break the spell of death over humanity.
	But he also came to establish the church so that we would have it.
	And we don't in Orthodoxy rely on the scriptures.
	We have iconography.
	So before people could read, we had iconography, which we can see all of that.
	Hang on, Rachel, you got to let him get to one point here at a time.
	Go ahead, Adam.
	I've already taken a page of notes here.
	Yeah, yeah.
	You got to let him respond.
	You got to let him respond.
	She's been holding it in for three hours.
	I understand.
	Well, Rachel, I knew you were going to say that I'm.
	Yeah, you guys go to the bathroom twice, right?
	I need to go again already, so we got to wrap it up.
	I knew you were going to say that I'm a Protestant biased.
	It's true, I was raised Protestant, but I don't think the Protestants have like the correct interpretations by any means.
	And in fact, I think maybe the only people that know the interpretations, the true interpretations, are the people that actually wrote these things.
	I may agree with one sect on certain things or one on another.
	I think that maybe they have it right.
	But it's not.
	And also, I'm not saying like, well, you made the point: Protestants create atheists.
	I think just the Bible creates atheists.
	If you read the Bible, if you read the Old Testament, especially, you know, bashing baby skulls against the rocks, condoning slavery, all this magical stuff.
	I feel like also just the jealous, genocidal, horrendous God character that they created.
	There's a really good book by Dan Barker, who's a former pastor, longtime pastor, turned most famous atheist in the world, maybe.
	He has a book called God that's really good and also God, the most unpleasant character in all of fiction.
	And you read these things and it's just an abomination, the stuff that God is saying and doing.
	And you said Jesus came to make himself known.
	I made the argument the whole show that he didn't make himself known.
	If he wanted to make himself known, he should have resurrected and gone on a victory lap and saw the Caesar and went and saw this emperor and this king everywhere.
	Then there would be no dispute.
	Everybody would see him.
	Everybody would believe.
	People would be saved.
	But I guess that's not the plan.
	He wants us to trust in the man's explanation in ancient books for proof.
	Well, that's not what the church does.
	The church isn't a bunch of men just dictating to us.
	But that aside, it is.
	No, no, it's not.
	It's not.
	But the more, like, just so that we're not here for 10 hours and I don't take up all your time, what I wanted to make a point about was, you know, you keep saying, why doesn't God just show himself?
	Why does he just present himself?
	Why doesn't he just prove himself?
	And I ask this of atheists all the time when they say that and when they say, if God real, why bad thing happen?
	Okay.
	Well, the problem of evil necessitates that God would have to remove your free will to solve the problem of evil.
	Same thing.
	If he just appears and says, I'm God, I'm omnipotent.
	Thou before me.
	Here I am.
	And I'm going to convince you I'm real.
	That removes your free will.
	So I always ask people with this assertion: would you love God if he did that?
	If he came and removed your free will and you had no free will, would you love him?
	This is what I talk about this a lot.
	This reminds me of battered wife syndrome.
	And I'm not inferring anything here by any means, but the idea that you can't love.
	You can't fucking infer it.
	He's the only one that doesn't infer it.
	You can't love a deity where there's punishment and threat.
	Well, you are a redneck, so I'm not surprised.
	You can't really love a God that you fear.
	You can't really, it's not true love if there's a punishment if you don't love him.
	And I think it's completely asinine and immoral that a God would punish somebody for eternity for not believing in the Hebrew prophecies.
	But I find that just fear and control.
	Orthodox don't believe that at all.
	Do you believe you'll be separated from God for eternity?
	No, in fact, I don't even, I don't know how it was phrased by other people, but the way that we understand it is that God is fire.
	He's eternal fire.
	When we talk about the lake of fire, hell isn't a place God created to punish people.
	God is fire.
	And if you all, if you die and leave this world hating him, thinking he's a jerk, a bastard, he's mean, he sucks.
	When you go to the escaton, you're not going to experience the presence of that fire as something good.
	You're going to experience it as torture because you've already decided that things should be dictated the way you think, that you should be God, that you should be in charge, and that this God sucks.
	He's terrible.
	So if you had to be with him eternally, I don't think you would enjoy it.
	So it's a completely wrong interpretation of what we mean by hell and what we think will happen to people.
	And we always say, by the way, that God can extend grace.
	We don't know how and when he does that.
	It's not for us to know everything.
	Not everything is revealed to us.
	You claim to know a lot, though.
	That's the problem.
	And that's my problem: the whole idea of the Hebrew God of Yahweh comes from a foreign people who are hostile and think that they're better than us.
	And giving them the power to speak for the one true God of the universe.
	Monotheism means only our God, only our way.
	And to delegate them to speak for God, like Paul says, they're entrusted as the oracles and the prophecies of God.
	That's giving them way too much power that I refuse to do.
	Now, Rach, I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry.
	You can only leave us with some words of wisdom.
	That was your follow-up.
	Plus, plus, you have to bring me a beer.
	Go ahead with your words of wisdom.
	How dare you?
	How dare you subjugate me this way?
	It's patriarchy and blah, blah, blah.
	Yeah, my words of wisdom are that people need to understand that the Old Testament is not Jewish.
	It's Christian.
	The Old Testament patriarchs were not Jewish.
	They're Christian.
	Judaism is a later, younger religion that was established after Christ.
	And when we talk of the God of the Old Testament, that is Christ.
	He appeared as the Theophanes.
	He appeared to Moses.
	No man has ever seen the Father.
	So whenever they speak of God in the Old Testament, they are talking about Christ pre-incarnation.
	Therefore, Christianity is what was prophesied in Malachi.
	That's why the reference to incense, that's orthodoxy.
	So that's it for me.
	Thank you.
	Thanks so much for the call in.
	Now that we're done with the call-ins, we're going to get to the supers.
	We should be able to bang these out pretty quick, Adam.
	We've got about 10 minutes before the three-hour mark.
	We'll go a little bit over it, but I don't think by much.
	Because I haven't got a wife, I need to get my own beer.
	So I'll just do that.
	Well, that sounds like a you problem.
	Read a me question, and then I'm going to go to the bathroom for a posh question.
	Okay.
	So we'll stop.
	We'll stop on this one before you go to the bathroom.
	This from Candles Tall for $2.
	He says Adam is right.
	So we'll stop on that one while you take a quick pisser because Pasha's grabbing a beer anyway.
	Come back.
	We'll finish up the supers real quick.
	I wish I love people's comments and their input, but like when people say in the chat, oh, Adam got wrecked or Adam lost or Adam's right.
	Like, I wish they could just say, like, which point I was right on, or, you know, exactly, you know, give some details.
	Just blate, like, I hate it when it turns into an echo chamber where it's like, whoever has more followers or whoever has the advantage on a page, like, let's just spam the comments and say our guy won, and we'll all convince each other, you know, and then it'll look like we won.
	But anyway, thanks for the thanks.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, no problem.
	No problem.
	Give you a second.
	You can go to the bathroom before we get to the supers and we let these guys, and then we let poor Posh Redneck here, who's been up since the dawn of time, basically, all day long.
	This is his second major debate of the day.
	He had another one on Jim Bob's channel.
	I'm actually going to link to it in the community page because I found it interesting on numerology.
	You find all kinds of great.
	Do you know what was great?
	I told Jim Bob, sorry, I can't appear at all tonight.
	You know, I've got to debate.
	And he roped you into it.
	He roped you into it.
	He said, if you've got 15 minutes, you know, and feel like it, you know, you can jump on.
	And it ended up being more than two hours.
	Why is it?
	Why he got it?
	I mean, that's Jim Bob for you, right?
	Like, he pulled a Shapiro on you, man.
	He roped you in.
	You got netted.
	And the next thing you know, I was like, this guy's been, Posh, been on for like two hours.
	He's going to do a debate after this.
	Sure enough.
	Sure enough.
	He is part Irish, so tricky people.
	No, no, no.
	You mean, you mean he's one of the finest of humanity.
	So Adam, now that you're back, that you're back, 2.2 acres in a bear ass.
	Did Adam ask God a direct question when he was five years old and he never answered?
	So he's just been mad this whole time?
	No, I'm not mad.
	Everything in my life aligned me where I should have been a believer.
	I had pressure from my family.
	I was forced to go to church forever.
	I was pressured to get baptized.
	I've lived a good life.
	It's just, you know, people can't help the way I feel.
	I can't help that I'm not convinced.
	And only I'm not convinced, I'm completely convinced that it's all made up.
	So it has nothing to do with my personal experiences.
	I prayed and God didn't answer my prayer.
	No, that's not what it is.
	I see no, in fact, I feel for people that I, something that I haven't even experienced, true believers that pray for their children that have brain cancer to get better and then they die and suffer a terrible death.
	I think about that.
	It never happened to me personally, but I know that happens all the time.
	And I say, either God doesn't care, he doesn't have the power or doesn't exist.
	And it's the latter.
	Yeah.
	Or maybe the entire idea of why I would hope diseases exist and why we believe mortality exists, which is what I mentioned.
	No, sorry, Posh, go ahead.
	Right.
	So we believe that these are all things that are supposed to bring you to a particular mindset, as everything is, which is why we have the anthropology and the idea of the noose that we do.
	That we believe that unless you are brought down, because people tend who get a lot of good things in life, they tend to worship themselves.
	They tend to worship their own beliefs and their own goals as opposed to God.
	So God put an interdiction to that with all sorts of things because we don't believe that a child who dies just disappears.
	That is, they have a lot of pain.
	They're miserable.
	So also, like you said, pain and suffering gives you a mindset.
	So you're saying some pain and suffering around you.
	Or teach you a lesson or something.
	Put you in a mindset.
	Well, you know, this reminds me of a question I had wanted to ask you.
	It's in my notes.
	I don't have a good time to get to everything, but I do have maybe time for this one because it ties in.
	Let's assume you have a very close friend, Adam, who's very religious.
	I'm sure that you have friends who are religious.
	I'm guessing anyway, right?
	You have some friends who are religious, very deeply religious, and you're very intertwined with their family.
	You maybe watched their kids grow up a little bit.
	And one of their kids does end up getting something like brain cancer.
	And they have a group prayer over this child's bed.
	And they ask you if you'll come pray with them because, you know, whatever reasons, it's because they're religious.
	They ask you to come pray.
	Would you tell them no?
	No, I would for moral support.
	So you would still pray with them.
	Right.
	Yeah.
	Do you think that that would have anything?
	I think prayer has a placebo effect.
	Well, that, but you're not praying for yourself, but this is what we are talking about.
	You would be praying for them and their kid.
	Yes, but you can't have a placebo for someone else.
	No, they'll have the placebo.
	Plus, just moral support being there.
	You know, I'm not going to be like, no, prayer doesn't work like around a dying kid.
	I'm not going to say that.
	Yes, exactly.
	That is what I'm saying, putting you in a mindset.
	Okay, so you're not saying that like your pain and suffering, there's like you can learn a lesson for it or you can become stronger or something.
	It's God works in mysterious ways.
	That's not what you meant by that?
	Yes, but because you're not.
	Is this only for humans?
	Human suffering is explained.
	We believe that the fall of nature generally is to bring us away from the materialistic worldview that would include animals and plants and everything.
	So Trillions of animals throughout history on this planet and maybe elsewhere in the universe.
	They've starved to death, they've been eaten alive, they've suffered pain and tragedy and loss.
	All of that is not to teach them no lesson.
	They're just suffering the consequences because Adam and Eve took the magical.
	They are part of creation, and the pinnacle of creation is supposed to be man.
	And that is why, unless you keep getting reminded of death, you're not going to stop.
	And most people do not stop.
	And you know of probably, I don't know personally, but of prominent examples of people who get rich and famous.
	Does that make them better people?
	Or does it make them or tend to make them worse people and they get all sorts of vital subjective exactly?
	But it gets open to them.
	I mean, not really, though.
	Like, from my standpoint, rich and famous people, especially if they're born into a lifestyle like that, are almost always terrible people.
	But that's my point.
	Don't you think?
	Well, I'm just asking Adam, like, don't you think that like people this is why I like to bring this argument back to the animals is because you know, there's there's lots of animals that suffer in many of the same ways humans do, but I mean, so God doesn't seem like a loving God to allow so much suffering, not in humans, because you can explain that by free will and the in the fall, but all of the animal deaths and suffering.
	Like an all-loving God wouldn't create so many animals that have to, in order for them to survive, they have to eat other animals.
	This is a very cruel type of world we live in that is much more likely explained naturalistically with evolution.
	This is just kind of the way things turned out to be.
	If there was a divine creator, he could have done things.
	If I can find ways to improve on the morality of the Bible and I can think of a deity that could create a world with less suffering and God didn't do that, then I'd say that's not a divine God, not a real divine.
	I did have to take a giant bite of the preserved meat that I have as you were going through that because it was just fucking delicious.
	But I have to move on from the super chat.
	So posh, quick response and we'll move on.
	And no, I'm not a vegan, chat.
	No, he's not a he's not a vegan.
	We've already covered this.
	He's breathtarian.
	That's a good point.
	God could have created us where we absorb our energy from the sun or from the air and we wouldn't have to kill animals and eat them and you know all those things.
	It wouldn't be because it should taste fucking good.
	Hey, man, imagine laying out in the sun and just having the best, the best feeling in the world and having all your energy from that.
	And you wouldn't have to be slaughtering all these animals.
	Yeah, but doesn't that all like tie in with this bizarre belief of like suffering's bad?
	Suffering is bad.
	Says who.
	If you've suffered a lot, are you going to say that?
	Oh, I love this suffering.
	I love this pain.
	I've suffered in a way very few human beings ever have.
	And I grew up in Serbia in the 90s.
	Yeah.
	And if you don't know about that, I grew up during war.
	I grew up surrounded by bombs being dropped.
	I grew up being separated from family, etc.
	And so I'm not some coddled child.
	Well, yeah, well, so I'm no Joe, but I've experienced the loss of a child.
	And it's fucking, it's horrific.
	You know what I mean?
	That is suffering.
	But what I experienced as a result of that, in some ways, I wouldn't, now I would almost betrayed anything, obviously, to have the kid back.
	There's no doubt about that.
	But the way that I grew as a person from that is, I mean, it's astronomical.
	There's no doubt.
	Suffering in and of itself is not a bad thing.
	Isn't that how we grow?
	Some suffering helps you grow.
	Like suffering when you go to the gym and you feel pain, but your muscles get bigger and you work hard and things like that.
	But the other suffering where the children has a brain cancer and suffers terribly for years and is miserable and then dies, I wouldn't see any benefit to that.
	You wouldn't see personal growth in that.
	Because if you look at, you can look up the icon of Christ.
	It says Christ, the one who loves the innocent.
	And it is Christ surrounded by all of these children with halos.
	And it specifically is talking about the ones who suffered under Herod.
	But it is will.
	That's just so good.
	You know, I couldn't help it.
	Anyway, go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	Right.
	Great, great maintenance of the atmosphere.
	I'm looking at the icon you're talking about of the 1400 holy innocents, the slaughter of the innocents.
	Which there's no extra biblical proof of that.
	think somebody would have wrote down if harrod slaughtered all the kids because people wrote people Yes.
	And that's just a retelling of Moses and the Pharaoh killing all the kids, too.
	It doesn't, because it doesn't matter to these people.
	You're talking about a pagan culture.
	They don't see that as an event.
	No pagan would write down when Herod, the Israelite king of that area killed all the firstborn sons for all the boys under two, I think it was.
	Yes, I believe so.
	Nobody would write about that.
	It's just another thing that we would expect to see somebody write about that we don't have any proof of.
	The Romans, when they get bloody angry that someone did something they didn't like, they just went and drew random people up the street and crucified them in front of the city.
	We're talking about the Romans.
	You know what Romans do?
	They crucify people and torture them.
	No Roman wrote down that Herod killed all the firstborn.
	Why would he?
	As I told you, they would pick random people up.
	Okay, you there.
	Let's crucify you as punishment.
	You don't think they'd be like, wow, he did it just like the Pharaoh did to Moses.
	Who would write that down?
	Romans?
	Anybody could have.
	Anybody could have.
	I'm just saying this is just another example of something that's in the Bible that there's no proof of outside of the Bible.
	I also think that's the same thing.
	And What would they write it on?
	Do you think they went out and bought a notebook or something?
	This is a problem that all of these miracles, very convenient that all these miracles happened in ancient times when there was no cell phones, there was no internet, there was no TV, there was no video recorder.
	So there is no proof of all these things.
	There was people that wrote things down.
	There were sculptures.
	We could have had sculptures of Jesus.
	We could have had anything, but there's nothing.
	Okay, if I brought you over here to Serbia and brought you to the doctors that of a case I knew about personally from medical experts of a person getting miraculously healed, would you believe that?
	It depends if it was like if there was a consensus and there was good proof.
	I wouldn't believe it just on somebody's word or if somebody wrote it down in a story.
	No, I wouldn't believe it.
	No, no, no.
	I'm telling you, if I brought you here and I brought you to the doctors and if I brought and they showed you the diagnosis of a person, guys, we got to move on.
	Right, but someone who was pregnant and her kidneys were absolutely in a horrid state and was told she had to have an abortion, but then prayer and not to get through the entire thing, told to go to a monastery, she does, and the next time her kidneys are perfectly fine.
	If I showed you that, would you believe that?
	No, because I'm saying the kidneys can't regenerate.
	But people can't.
	Right, right.
	This is what I was talking about the entire time.
	To give that example, where has there ever been proof that somebody was resurrected?
	Where's the proof that the saints rose up from the graves and walked around Jerusalem after that?
	There's ever been a protocell rising from inorganic matter.
	We don't have that.
	Thank you.
	Okay.
	Moving on from there, Red Scare tipped $4.20 near the beginning of the debate after your opening and said, Mike dropped from No More News.
	Made by Jim Bob sent in $10, said Adam.
	If evolution is true, then Christianity is just another expression of evolution.
	On what basis ought one reject it if it's just their evolutionary process?
	This is an argument made by J.F. Gariepi that human beings evolved to accept Christianity.
	Well, you can argue human beings evolved to be religious.
	That's why so many people believe in religions and gods.
	And I think it's based on the fear of death and having so many unanswered questions.
	But there's something else I wanted to say.
	I think atheists are evolving into not into not having to fear the consequences of death.
	I can reverse it.
	Why did God provide so many atheists?
	God doesn't create atheists.
	He does.
	He creates the atheists.
	He knows whatever God.
	You're going back into predeterminism again.
	No, no, he creates atheists.
	He knows the people that are going to believe in him and that aren't going to believe in him.
	He knows what it would require to turn an atheist into a believer, but he doesn't do it.
	But you believe I've evolved into fearing death, even though atheists believe you die and that's it, so you can do whatever you'd like before.
	You might not fear death.
	I'd fear death more if I believed religion was true than if I didn't believe it was true.
	And there are people who would fear death more if there wasn't.
	If Christians really believed in Christianity, they wouldn't fear death.
	They'd be ready to die and go to heaven.
	Some of them are.
	They want to be raptured away.
	It's like a death cult with the, I know you guys don't believe that, but millions do.
	So that's a manifestation.
	That's the rotten fruit from a good indication that there's rotten roots.
	Okay, guys, we got to move on from there.
	2.2 Acres In Iver said, God, no answer me 30 years ago, God, no real.
	Kind of following up from his former.
	I've already said that before.
	No, that's not the case.
	Vanessa Rio sent in $5 said, If Green could have a magic wand to force people to love him, would he use it?
	No.
	It's because you're evil.
	Ah, dude, that's a bad bullet to fight, right?
	That's a terrible bullet to fight because your criticism against God is that.
	No, no, I get it.
	I get it.
	I understand the argument, too.
	I see how that argument makes sense, but that doesn't mean it's true.
	You can't force somebody to love you.
	That's the point I'm making.
	You can show yourself to them, though.
	It's crazy to demand somebody believe in you and love you, but then hide and give every indication that you don't exist.
	That is not what we're talking about, because we're talking about the transcendent being and how you interpret the world will rely on your presuppositions.
	That is why I gave the miracle thing.
	And you said you wouldn't interpret that as divine intervention.
	I would believe in miracles.
	But that creates a contradiction to the point where you can't actually use the argument of if God, you know, why doesn't God already predetermine that you love him?
	And then at the same time, to say, I would not predetermine people to love me, it's self-evident then why he does not do that.
	No, I get it.
	I'm saying that he's still, I mean, it's not really free choice if you say, believe in me or there's consequences.
	That's not really a free choice.
	That's the point I'm trying to make.
	That's the point we are trying to make.
	It's not the same thing.
	Yes, because one is you and the other wouldn't be you.
	So it's not the same thing.
	You can't scare somebody into loving you.
	And the whole thing is just a fake solution to a fake problem.
	It's carrot and stick, fear-based mind control to get you to believe.
	And if you God could at least show himself and then people could still decide to worship him or not, but he doesn't even show himself.
	Oh, yes.
	If an omnipotent being showed up before you would say, Hmm, I wonder if I should do something about this.
	I probably would worship him, but just out of fear.
	If I knew he was real, I would still worship him.
	Yes, that's what I mentioned, Dostoevsky.
	Yeah, but God, but God's the scepter in this, in the paradigm here, that God is the scepter.
	So, if you had a magic scepter that could make everybody love you, God is the scepter that would do that for God.
	You say, claim no, you wouldn't do it if you had an external scepter.
	But what if you were the scepter?
	I get the argument.
	You're saying God has to give you free will because we wouldn't be able to love him if we didn't have free will to not love him.
	But I'm saying that's not really the way it is because the scenario set up that there's a punishment.
	There's a consequence if you don't love him and if you don't believe.
	So there would be a consequence.
	Let me in and let me save you.
	Otherwise, there's a punishment.
	It's not really free will.
	Yeah, but there's a consequence if you have the rod and don't use it too.
	What rod are you talking about?
	So this magic wand that made everybody love you.
	Wand.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Sorry.
	This magic wand, there would be a consequence if you didn't use that as well.
	I wouldn't, if I had a parent that's never helped me and never communicated and was absent and was never there and then demanded my love, I would think that was a psychopathic parent.
	And force me to grovel and beg for him to, you know, heal my sickness or, you know, answer my prayers, even though he knows what I want, has a predetermined plan.
	None of it makes sense.
	What if nobody's life changed and nothing in their life changed ever?
	The only difference is that now they love you.
	Would you use the wand then?
	So everything else stayed totally equal with everybody and you had the wand and it just made everybody love you with zero consequence.
	Would you use it then?
	This is such a hypothetical that I just, I can't even answer it because the magic wand that makes you makes like say my wife didn't love me.
	She wanted to break off with me.
	Would I wave a magic wand so force her to stay with me?
	No, it wouldn't force her to stay with you.
	So all things would stay equal.
	So this would like speak to omnipotence.
	God could, if he's omnipotent, I would assume, make everybody love him without ever creating any negative consequence whatsoever in their life from not loving him, right?
	If God wanted people, if he was real and he wanted people to love him, he would show himself.
	He would do things that makes people want to love him, not use threats and fear and consequences.
	Yeah, sure, sure.
	I understand what you're saying.
	I'm just saying, let's just assume that if you use this, everybody would love you, but it would not affect their lives.
	Nothing would change in their lives whatsoever.
	It's just that they would love you also.
	It would still be.
	You still wouldn't use it.
	I wouldn't use it because I would feel like I keep thinking of like, what if I had the power to hypnotize women and make them love me?
	Would I do that?
	And I consider that immoral.
	Something about me inside me makes me feel like that's cringe to do that because it's not real.
	Just like if I said, hey, this woman better love me.
	Otherwise, I'm going to beat her and torture her.
	That's what God does, basically.
	No.
	Sure, there's consequences if you don't believe in him.
	Red.
	Yes.
	And there are consequences if I tell you to take a medicament and you don't.
	There's consequences to that.
	To that.
	It's not me threatening you.
	It's me telling you, listen, if you don't take this syrup, you're going to have this problem.
	And you say, why are you threatening me?
	Sorry, I got interrupted.
	I didn't hear you.
	I had a Skype notification.
	Apparently, Kanye was just kicked out of Skecher's headquarters.
	Can you say that again?
	Sorry.
	I got a notification and it beeped with me.
	I've lost my faith in God.
	Okay, sorry.
	I feel like we're going in circles a little bit on Red School.
	He gives the rocker demon horns for $6.66.
	Sterling Fuentes and then $5 says, is the Bible false because it's subject to interpretation?
	Is that claim based on your interpretation?
	No, it's not just mine.
	Other people see it the same way.
	But yes, just like it's your interpretation that the Bible's true and you believe that the version of the Bible is true as the Orthodox version.
	You've determined that based on your own interpretation.
	Like, let me ask you a question.
	Is God moral?
	Yes.
	How do you know that?
	Because God can't lie.
	So God says he's moral, so he's moral?
	No, because God can't lie.
	So does he say he's moral?
	If a being can't lie, they likely have no choice but to be moral.
	Isn't there more to being moral than just if you lie or not?
	Well, how would you get away with immorality if you always told the truth?
	How do you judge?
	How can you judge if God is moral or not?
	Because he can't lie.
	How do you know that?
	Well, because this is how we test whether or not our God is the real God is because we know our God cannot lie.
	The Muslim God can lie.
	The Jewish God can lie.
	Our God cannot lie.
	It's one of his metaphysical attributes that makes us aware that we can always test this being for anything that's moral.
	How do you know he doesn't lie?
	Because he says he can't lie.
	So you know that he's moral because he says that he can't lie, so he's moral.
	And how do you know that's moral?
	Okay, so if a person says to you, if a being that always tells the truth, if you ask him, do you always tell the truth?
	He would have to say yes because he always tells the truth, right?
	So you believe it because he says he always tells the truth.
	Well, I'm saying that if the omnipotent creator who has never told a lie tells you he always tells the truth, and you can test whether or not a being is him or not by whether or not they lie, then you can test it.
	So you don't have to take him at his word.
	You can always test for the truth.
	God has lied because he says in the Bible, ridiculous Stuff about the waters above being held up by pillars.
	That's a lie.
	That's not true.
	There's lots of stuff in the Bible that's every, yeah, every major scientifically true.
	But every single major civilization on planet Earth has a flood story of the firmament breaking.
	Just a moment.
	He also says that Adam and Eve is like 6,000 years old, right?
	It happened in six days, creation, thousand years for everyone.
	That's a lie, too.
	Why does it say waters?
	Do you know?
	Waters above, waters below.
	Firmament above.
	No, it says he separated the waters.
	What does that mean?
	Waters below and above.
	It probably has an allegorical meaning because it definitely isn't like the physical world is.
	And that's the problem.
	How do you know what's allegorical and what's not?
	Why do they not always clear the formative authority?
	Allegories is not a very good way of communicating your message.
	What is water in the ancient world?
	What does it symbolize?
	Holy Spirit.
	No, probably many things.
	Not particularly Christianity.
	I don't know.
	H2O, what you drink, what you bathe in, what?
	No, no.
	Just tell me.
	Waters represent chaos.
	Because you can imagine, if you live in a world where there's the sea, ocean, etc.
	And nowadays we take for granted that there are people, I sort of see them as insane people in scuba die, scuba gear, who go in and, you know, go and film things.
	We sort of think we know, we think we know what's under there.
	But from their perspective, waters are just things that is this thing that keeps having these waves and storms and this.
	So they use it as a symbol for chaos.
	And when we talk about God, guys, if we stay here, we're never, so you got to wrap it up or whatever.
	It's like almost 3:30 a.m. for me.
	So just to clear up this point, they see it as a symbol of chaos.
	And when we talk about nothingness, to create something out of nothing, the waters mean that you have this primordial chaos, as in there is nothing that you can distinguish.
	I know we say nothing, we reify it.
	We sort of say, there is this nothingness.
	Well, no, that's not how that's not how things work.
	But the waters in Genesis 1 just represent that there is this tumultuous thing, so tumultuous that you cannot discern anything.
	That is as close as you can get to saying nothingness.
	Because, as I said, you can't say there is this nothingness.
	Because saying this would already identify it in a certain way.
	That is why it says that.
	And we have that context because of the church, because we have a normative body.
	And if you just picked it up and said, oh, there's waters above, there's H2O above, H2O below, that means that is something you interpret from your modern perspective.
	Jesus made prophecy that the end would come in this generation, before this generation or past.
	And then something else about until the gospel goes to the other nations or something like that.
	So was that a lie?
	Also, for God to lie, he would actually have to say something or show himself and make claims.
	But we don't have that.
	We just have men, Hebrew prophets, supposedly speaking for God and what he says.
	And it's funny how they decipher what's a true prophet and what's not a true prophet is if it's well, if they agree on it, but if it supposedly comes true or not, then it was real.
	So that's not very good methodology.
	Bosh, I already know.
	I already know we're moving on because we have to.
	Dale P sent in $10 as a super chat, said nothing.
	My favorite kind of super chat.
	Hen Moore sent in $7 says believing in outer space is a faith-based assumption.
	I'm guessing he's attributing that to you, Adam.
	Yeah, nothing faith about looking up in the night sky and seeing all the all the stars out there and all the planets.
	It's not faith.
	made by Jim Bob sends in $5.
	Adam, we wouldn't have this Zionist plan without evolution.
	Rut row.
	Uh, Sure.
	Yeah, we wouldn't have anything without evolution.
	Bloody Darwin.
	Yeah, fucking.
	I get that's like a joke, a joke point.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Rosiel.
	And it isn't because he's saying if people evolve to do certain things, that is what they're going to do.
	Yeah, they create religions, they create deceptions, they create atheism.
	They speak for God to have control over other people.
	And they say nothing ever matters because it's all just matter in flux.
	Yeah, well, I don't think that nothing matters.
	I think you evolved to say that it's not the case that nothing ever matters.
	Raziel for $5 says, if God is outside the dimension of time, couldn't he be both omniscient and give us free will with no contradictions?
	That's why what I was alluding to kind of earlier with the scepter argument.
	I don't see what being outside of space and time has to do with giving us free will.
	Well, no, he's saying, couldn't an omnipotent being give you both free will and be omniscient without contradiction because he's outside of the bounds of logic.
	So we have free will.
	We can all choose our paths, but no matter what, the prophecies will still be fulfilled and Jesus one day will float down from a cloud and rule from the temple.
	Yeah, this goes kind of back to the problem of can you make a rock too heavy to lift, right?
	Can an omnipotent being make a stone that's so heavy he can't lift?
	If I may mention, this is what I talk about on Jim Bob streams a lot.
	People think of omnipotent, right?
	Omnipotence, or what's it in Greek?
	Right.
	When people take it as it's like humanity times infinity, it's God is like a human times infinity.
	But we're saying God is in a completely separate category.
	Because there is no such thing as actual infinity in the created realm.
	You can have virtual infinity, as in, as I said, between one and two, you can have infinite one point, and then the decimals can go infinitely.
	This is all just speculation and hypotheticals, because there's no proof.
	Nobody's ever offered any proof that God is real.
	If they did, there wouldn't be dispute.
	They would win the Nobel Prize.
	They would win the Nobel Prize if they got a bloody protozo together from components given to them by through biotic means.
	And they haven't, yet we're supposed to believe it.
	You keep going.
	You keep going to that.
	Because it's a necessary prerequisite for your system.
	I find it far more likely than the Genesis story.
	I find the Genesis story in your story.
	Just so you know, God has been proven mathematically.
	And I have a mathematical formula when we're off the air that I'll show you, where via deductive mathematics, it's impossible to have universal constants without some type of creation being.
	Now, whether that's Christian God or not, you could argue that.
	But there is mathematical proof to show some type of divinity or intelligent designer must have.
	And this is, by the way, he did win a prize for this mathematical formula, just so you know.
	That's a good point.
	That's a good point that you made there, though, that any of these arguments, you know, philosophical arguments or whatever, they hope to prove that a God is real, but they do nothing to prove that the Christian God or the Bible God is real.
	That's a whole nother thing.
	So I think, I do think, but you have to always start with, is there a divine being?
	And then you kind of match up the coherency.
	I don't know how else you would go about doing it.
	God should have put this formula in the Bible, and then there wouldn't be so many non-believers, so many people separated from him in heaven.
	Drow sends in a $2 super chat.
	Dry owl, I'm sorry, sends in a $2 super chat and says, I like this.
	That's great.
	We like having you here.
	Variable pain tipped $1 with nothing attached to it.
	My favorite kind.
	Casey Bear says, what's Adam's sign?
	Uh-oh.
	And when is Andrew going to make me a mod?
	Great matchup tonight.
	Really enjoying it.
	All you have to do is slavishly devote your entire life to me for the rest of your life, Casey, and give me all your money.
	Then I'll make you a mod.
	That is the Fuentes model.
	Go ahead.
	No more news with what is your star sign.
	Oh, let's not do that.
	I literally got to go in like five minutes.
	My wife's leaving.
	Gotcha.
	I didn't think we'd go three and a half.
	Adam's position on Christianity being a deliberate deception does not require him to defend atheism.
	Adam, you rock.
	The Gnostic church says, I just want Posh 2.0 and Adam Green to know I love them.
	Hugs and kisses.
	Made by Jim Bob says, Adam, if we made a lab, it would merely prove that life required a mind and intent.
	No, I already disproved that.
	I said they're replicating what could happen in nature.
	Gotcha.
	Keo for six bucks says, just because Christ hasn't returned yet doesn't mean he won't.
	Very master says, I should.
	Sorry, sorry.
	I'll just be very quick.
	This is what I was saying with the temple argument.
	Just because no one has ever, if someone made a temple, that does not prove that nature can make a temple.
	Gotcha.
	We're not talking about a temple, though.
	We're talking about a very basic.
	No, we're talking about something much more complex.
	Got to move on, guys.
	Ben folds chair for $10 says, certified chair folding.
	Verimas says, I should have gotten beer.
	You should have.
	Me and Vosh came prepared, you idiot.
	Wicked Wally says, I said posh.
	No, you didn't.
	No, I did.
	I said posh.
	I said, but you're a fucking linguist and he didn't.
	Lay back the dates, sir.
	Wicked, wicked Wally for $5 says, do you know why some things make us upset?
	Because they're Sadducees.
	Stephen Morani said, covering part of Ben's appearance fees.
	Adam, if God made himself identifiable, this from Samaria, in our world right now, do you think we would try to kill him?
	That's a good question.
	It wouldn't matter if we tried to kill him because could we really kill God if we wanted to?
	Yeah.
	That's true.
	But Del Bridge says, Adam, if a scientific consensus was established, bestiality and cannibalism is okay, would you accept it?
	No.
	No.
	Adam, this from Tim, about prophecy.
	You believe that Jews from thousands of years ago have the power to successfully concoct a plan to take over the world in the modern day.
	You worship them the same way we worship God.
	I saw this one.
	It's so absurd.
	I don't worship them at all.
	It's not even remotely the same.
	I think they came up with a deceptive psychological manipulation religion.
	That's not worshiping them.
	That's not giving them supernatural powers.
	That's just saying that they were clever and they're using theology to dupe the nations.
	That's what I'm saying.
	It's not worshiping them.
	Esben sends in $5 and says, what's a good way to get into Orthodoxy if not the Bible?
	Well, there's churches.
	Dell says, if morals are fickle, then why aren't the Jews wrong?
	This was something that we talked about In the last debate, why are they wrong?
	Because they think that they're chosen to be above the rest of the nations.
	They consider Gentiles to be lesser than them.
	They think that they're destined to lead the world and heal the world and all these things by thus requiring to control the world or influence the world.
	I mean, there's lots of things.
	The Bible condones slavery.
	They want us to serve them.
	Esau must serve Jacob.
	The elder shall serve the younger.
	There's many reasons why it's not good.
	Okay, can I?
	We can't.
	We can't.
	We just got to do what they're directed at.
	We're almost done with the super chats.
	Adam said he has to go.
	Anonymous for $13 says, Adam, why aren't you a Satanist?
	God is fake and gay.
	Why not strive to be the ubermensch God-emperor of man?
	This is what...
	Sorry, finish up.
	You seem to be clinging to these weaknesses.
	And he puts that in quotes of Christian morals.
	And I want to know why.
	Satan is a Jewish construct, sorry, a Hebrew construct.
	It's when Satan is the bad guy, that directs you towards Yahweh and Jesus are the good guys and keeps you all in the Judeo paradigm.
	That's why, even like modern-day Satanists, they're doing it.
	They don't even really believe in Satan, at least most of them.
	They're doing it just to kind of trigger and oppose the Christians, but they're still kind of playing into the Christian paradigm and reinforcing this satanic threat.
	So, no, I'm not a Satanist because Satan was created by God and basically works for God.
	So it's not considered evil and I wouldn't want to worship evil.
	Tim asks: if the God of the Bible is cruel and merciless, why is it very common for people to convert to Christianity after a period of profound suffering?
	Great question, by the way.
	If he's evil, this kind of seems like a non-sequitur.
	If God is evil and merciless, why do they convert?
	The fact that so many people do convert when they're in prison or when they're addicted to drugs or they've suffered a huge loss shows that it's like a coping mechanism.
	It's like a crutch that comforts them and makes them feel better, gives them some type of some answer.
	Made by Jim Bob asks, and this is a great question.
	How can mind control coexist with evolutionarily determined beliefs?
	Mind control.
	All it takes is, I mean, mind control.
	I'm getting tired.
	How can mind control work with evolution?
	That's the question.
	No, with evolutionary determined beliefs, meaning evolutionarily, it was determined that having faith inside of an institution like Christianity is good.
	Therefore, how can it be mind control if you're hardwired to do it?
	Oh, it's mind control because they can, with the belief, you get certain attitudes and then you behave on those attitudes.
	Like why we see it's mind control with so many Americans worshiping the God of Israel in the Bible, they give so much support for Israel.
	That's where the control is.
	They control their minds and they're able to influence and send their money to Israel or think that criticizing them is you'll be cursed.
	That's how it's mind control.
	Okay, almost done, guys.
	Jason Schul sent in two bucks for nothing.
	Thank you so much.
	Jason, not a verse.
	It says, serious question, why is Adam having this discussion?
	He clearly resents his free will because it comes with accountability and consequences.
	Free will does have.
	My actions do have accountability and consequences.
	If God put the equation in the Bible, like 1% of the people would understand it.
	That's a good point.
	The basic people can understand a lot of the Bible.
	That's why that's the point I've been making all night.
	God, not only we shouldn't even have to rely on ancient scriptures that we don't even have the originals from.
	If there was a real God, he would make himself known.
	Otherwise, he's hiding and it's playing a mean trick on us.
	Hydronic Bear sends in $4 and says Posh versus Andrew in a boxing match just for funsies.
	I would do that just for funsies.
	The Aquarian TV sent in a $5 super chat and said, love the God voice versus J conspiracist.
	Turns out Christianity was created by this thing.
	Damn, I'm going to have to rethink things.
	Serene Ocean Breeze sends in $2 and says, Adam, find the comments after this vid to get smoked.
	And then we had a big one, a $25 super chat.
	And he, what did he say here?
	I'm sorry.
	This is the last one, guys.
	And then I'm going to let you go about your way.
	But for some reason, the biggest super chat seems to seem to have disappeared.
	I don't understand.
	Everything else came through.
	Well, we appreciate the large super chat.
	Appreciate everybody tuning in tonight.
	I'm going to answer this one last question.
	A moderator called my mom a bitch earlier, but timing me out for asking questions.
	Fuck you.
	I don't care.
	Cry harder, bitch.
	Adam Green, shout your channel out.
	Tell everybody where they can find you before you go.
	No morenews.org to find all my links.
	And I stream on Odyssey and post on BitChute.
	And I'm on Twitter, Telegram, and Gab to find my social medias.
	Thank you.
	Yeah.
	Thank you so much, Posh Redneck.
	Well, as things stand, you know, just go to Made by Jimbo.
	I will stop making videos and editing them.
	Okay.
	Thank you guys so much for the spirited debate.
	Adam, of course, you know you can do whatever you want with the content.
	If you want the raw vid, let me know.
	Take care, gentlemen.
	We're up.

▲