All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 7, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
55:25
Hell is Not Enough!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hope you're doing well.
So, I come, in a sense, in a way, I come to curse.
Now, this is more theology than politics.
So, I guess, like most people in the world, certainly in the West, have been following Doge's drilling into the USAID data about how Artificial matrix-like cue the sun astroturfed people's,
quote, opinions are based upon the billions of dollars that the US government has been bribing, I would say, bribing, I mean, not officially, I'm sure it's legal, but to me that's the implication.
Morally, I'm not talking legally.
Or influencing, let's say, influencing.
Whoever pays the piper calls the tune.
The US government has been influencing news organizations.
Around the world for many decades.
And see, this is what, I mean, what corrupt people do is they will try and figure out what you care about and then use that as a cover for their own corruption.
So, what's been going on with USAID? I mean, it's nothing that I didn't talk about almost 20 years ago.
We, in fact, remastered a couple of shows from 2006, the round trip of the foreign trade dollar and the truth about.
Foreign aid.
There's a good book I read many years ago called White Man's Burden that goes into this in rather gruesome detail, just how hypocritical and manipulative this sort of so-called foreign aid stuff is.
So, that's nothing new.
That's nothing too shocking.
Now, I think what is a little bit shocking, though, is the churches, are the churches as a whole.
This stuff with the churches, Look, I have my sympathies for Christianity.
I really do.
And most of the best people I know are Christians.
So this is nothing to do with individuals.
This is to do with the institutions as a whole.
So I don't know if you've been following this.
This is coming out of AI. I asked AI, how much money did Christian organizations get from USAID? It's shocking.
This is the reply.
The amount of funding, Christian organizations receive from USAID varies year by year.
Based on recent reports and posts on X, bullet, Catholic Relief Services was noted as receiving $4.6 billion.
Okay, just simmer in that sycophantic stew for a moment.
$4.6 billion.
From USAID, between fiscal years 2013 and 2022, making it the top NGO non-governmental organization, although if you're getting $4.6 billion, it's pretty hard to call you non-governmental, making it the top NGO recipient during that period.
$4.6 billion.
In 2024, Catholic Relief Services was reported to be the largest USAID Recipient among Christian organizations with, drumroll, $476 million.
Other Christian organizations like World Vision, International Justice Mission, and Samaritan's Purse also received a significant funding from USAID, though specific amounts for each of these organizations in 2024 were not detailed.
There are mentions of World Relief receiving about $123 million and Christianity Today, it's a magazine, receiving $1.8 million in USAID grants in 2023. These figures suggest that Christian organizations collectively receive hundreds of millions to billions of dollars from USAID annually.
Depending on the specific programs and years in question.
However, exact aggregated amounts for all Christian organizations in any given year would require a comprehensive review of USAID's funding allocations.
That is mind-blowing to me.
I asked AI, is it good in Christianity for churches to accept money from the government?
Now, It's one thing, I suppose, if the government is lockstep with Christianity.
Let's say that you have a purely Catholic ministry accepting money from a purely Catholic government voted in for by purely Catholic voters and funded by purely Catholic taxpayers.
The potential for corruption there, of course, is still significant, but at least there's some alignment in values.
So I asked, I have my own thoughts on this, but I wanted to get some of the major doctrines.
Is it good, I asked, is it good in Christianity for churches to accept money from the government?
Remembering, of course, that there are many non-Christians and some anti-Christians in the American government.
In Christianity, the question of whether it is good for churches to accept money from the government involves a complex interplay of theology, ethics, and practical considerations.
Here are some perspectives.
Separation of church and state.
Some Christians argue that accepting government funds could compromise the church's independence, potentially leading to governmental influence over church activities or doctrine.
This is often linked to interpretations of Jesus' statement, render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.
Mark 1217, suggesting a clear demarcation between secular and spiritual realms.
Others might see government funding as a means to fulfill the church's mission to serve the community, especially in social services like helping the poor, which aligns with Christian teachings on charity and stewardship.
They might refer to scriptures like, for I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, as justification for accepting funds to do good works.
Except, That is a complete falsehood.
For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat.
Well, you see, that more than implies, but in fact specifically states, that what you are giving to a hungry person is food you in fact own.
It's yours.
You gave me something to eat.
You didn't steal and provide something else.
You didn't shake down someone with a shiv.
To give him something to eat?
Oh, and you know what you didn't do?
You didn't sell the unborn on the altar of international banksters in order to fund your supposed charity.
I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat.
You can't give something you do not own.
National debt is unowned.
Unfunded liabilities is unowned.
So the idea...
That Christian charity is involved with stealing from the unborn, which is how this, quote, charity is largely enacted, it's a little, well, it's completely impossible to maintain from even a basic theological standpoint.
I mean, it's not that complicated.
If I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I don't know, let's throw that in a quick frappe blender with thou shalt not steal!
So you can't steal.
So whatever you give in charity, you have to first own yourself.
Jesus did not say, well, the best way to help the poor, you see, is to be a counterfeiter.
You know, shake up a bag of gold coins, take the gold flakes, make some new coins.
Just, you know, counterfeit, fake, pretend.
Inflate the currency, replace gold.
Silver and bronze with tin, copper and other garbage minerals, and then give the devalued currency to the poor so that they can't afford the price of bread.
It's not complicated, for I was hungry and you gave me something to eat.
Ethical considerations from the AI, accountability and transparency, there's a concern about how funds are managed.
If government money comes with strings attached or requirements for transparency, it could be seen as a positive, ensuring that the funds are used appropriately.
Dependency.
There's also the ethical issue of dependency on government funds, which could potentially shift the church's focus from spiritual to administrative or political concerns.
Practical implications, funding for social services.
Many churches operate or support programs like food banks, shelters, or educational programs.
Government grants or contracts can significantly expand these services, reaching more people in need.
Legal and regulatory issues, accepting government money can involve navigating complex legal landscapes, ensuring compliance with regulations that might not align perfectly with church practices or beliefs.
I mean, is it really moral to take, as a Christian organization, a lot of money from a government that is also sending money overseas directly to people who are Attacking and suppressing Christians?
I mean, come on!
This is not complicated.
This is not complicated.
Is it fantastically Christian to use government money with the express purpose and being given that money for the express purpose of settling a lot of people in supposedly Christian countries who are non-Christians or sometimes even hostile to Christianity?
This is not complicated, people.
So, I want to share with you Matthew 4, 1-11.
This is from the New International Version.
Let's see.
Let's get the King James Version, because that's the better one.
That's the better one.
Satan tempts Jesus.
I can't even tell you how many times I read this as a kid.
Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward he was hungry.
Now when the tempter came to him, he said, If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.
But he, Jesus, answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.
Then the devil took him up.
To the holy city set him on the pinnacle of the temple and said to him, If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, He shall give his angels charge over you, and in their hands they shall bear you up, lest you dash your foot against a stone.
And Jesus said to him, It is written again, You shall not tempt the Lord your God.
Again the devil took him up on an exceedingly high Mount him, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.
And he said to Jesus, All these things I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.
Then Jesus said to him, Away with you, Satan, for it is written, You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.
Then the devil left him.
And behold, angels came and ministered to him.
So, the three temptations of Jesus.
Feed your body.
Nope, I must feed my spirit.
Throw yourself off the pinnacle of a temple because the angels will catch you.
No, because virtue, God, Jesus, and miracles are not.
For show.
And the devil shows Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and says, you can own the entire planet.
You can own all human beings.
You can be the recipient of all the tax money in the world, because that's what it is.
I will give you all the kingdoms in the world, which means you will be The ruler of a one-world government, and you will be the receiver of all the taxes forced out of the people's mouths.
You will get tax money, because that's what it means.
The king is the one who gets the money.
So, the devil offers him food.
Just use your magic.
Use your power.
Nope.
The only power is not to command matter, but to control temptation.
I do not want power over the natural universe turning stones into bread.
I want power over my own temptations.
And a human being is not a mere...
Fleshly evolved carcass designed to turn bread into babies.
Man shall not live by bread alone.
I will not feed my body at the expense of my conscience.
It's like, then the devil says, you can jump off the top of a temple.
The angels will catch you.
No, integrity and virtue and allegiance to the word of God is not a parlor trick or magician's slate of hand.
Designed to have the angels save you if you willingly and knowingly put yourself in danger.
The angels will help you if you are not the author of your own disaster.
Because all of these things are about charity, right?
If I am pushed off a cliff the angels will save me.
If I accidentally stumble off a cliff the angels will save me.
But if I voluntarily step off a cliff it is not For the angels to save me.
And this is what is meant by rational charity, of course, right?
Rational charity is when you say, well, if somebody is harmed and they are an innocent victim of crime or fraud or some sort of nefarious activity, we should help them, because they are not significantly to blame for the disasters that have befallen them.
What about if somebody is a gambling addict?
Do we rush to cover their debts and press more and more gold into their hands?
Well, no.
Because that person is not a passive victim of nefarious others.
That person has instead authored their own poverty.
Right?
So, if an accident befalls me, the angels will help me.
But if I am the author of my own disaster, in other words, if I voluntarily step off the roof of the temple, then I am demanding charity and salvation for a disaster that I am the full and total author of.
If a woman living a virtuous life is tragically raped and becomes pregnant, we owe her charity.
I think it's reasonable.
On the other hand, A woman who voluntarily sleeps around and gets pregnant has stepped off the roof of the temple on her own.
The only power is self-control and integrity.
We do not give charity to those who are the authors of their own disasters.
And you do not take tax money!
What would it mean to own a kingdom if you did not In fact, take the tax money.
Well, that would be a ridiculous position.
Without the tax money, you have no power.
So, none of this is particularly complicated.
And again, I can understand the complexity of the argument.
If you are a Catholic ministry in a Catholic country with a Catholic population voting in Catholic policies, Then, should you take money from the government?
Well, I would still say that you shouldn't, because charity, all moral acts, must be voluntary for them to be virtuous.
A man forced to do virtue is not doing virtue.
If a criminal returns the money that he has stolen, that is a slightly nicer action than keeping it.
However, a man who steals from another man And then returns the money only because the other man, his victim, has a gun and points a gun at him, then the thief has learned nothing about virtue.
He is simply surrendering to power.
For an act to be morally virtuous, it has to be freely chosen.
So, again, I can understand the argument if we're talking about a monotheistic, monocultural, but none of that exists in the West and hasn't for two generations.
None of that exists in the West.
So what would it mean for Christian charities to take money from increasingly non-Christian or anti-Christian governments?
Has there been a debate?
I mean, I talked about this some years ago, so I won't get into any details about that.
But this has been known for a long, long time.
Has there been a debate?
I don't think there's been much.
Now, certainly, when the government gets into debt and has unfunded liabilities, that cannot be moral, because the unborn can't be pillaged for the sake of virtue signaling in the here and now, and that be considered moral at all.
If a man gives to a charity, he gives $100,000 to charity, and the charity then finds out Shortly before they're about to cash the check, they find out that he got this money by selling his child into slavery, and his child isn't even born yet.
What would we say about a charity that found out that the source, or the asset for the $100,000, the check they were about to cash, what would we say about this charity if they found out that the man had gotten the money by selling his unborn child into bondage?
And they just whistled, strolled down, and merrily cashed to check.
No issues, no problems, no reflection.
Well, that would be demonic.
That would be demonic.
You cannot say that government money reflects the will of the people when massive proportions of that government money is printed and borrowed.
And promised.
The unfunded liabilities in the U.S. economy are more than 10 times the GDP, let alone the tax receipts.
So, it doesn't seem to me to be that complicated.
And this is the challenge that I have.
I'm going to go real raw here, people, because I just want to talk about the passions I have in this area.
So, let's just talk Catholicism.
So, in Catholicism, there is, and, you know, forgive me if I'm not up on the latest wrinkles of the Catholic faith, but in Catholicism, there are two states, well, there are three states after death.
There is a purgatory, hell, and heaven.
Right?
Now, in when you die, The inevitable accumulated sins of your life, which are inescapable due to the fallible nature of your human soul, the flesh, you are put into a limbo where you have to work off your sins for thousands of years or tens of thousands of years or hundreds of thousands of years before you are purged of your iniquities and can enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Nobody, I think, other than Jesus and some of the saints, goes straight to heaven.
So, if you have sins which are mortal, mortal sins, defaming the Holy Spirit, murderer, few others, then you go to hell and there's no chance to work off your sins in purgatory, limbo.
And this is one of the things that provoke Protestantism.
Of course, was that the Catholic clergy were selling what were called indulgences, which is, if you were going to do something immoral, you could pay a priest to have you forgiven for it ahead of time, and they were also selling reductions in the amount of time that you would end up sending in purgatory.
So, if you had 10,000 years in purgatory, you could reduce that to 5,000 years by giving money to the church.
I've really heard and listened to and deeply pondered on this question or this issue, which is, you know, but without the Christian morals, society, you know, turns to hell.
That without Christianity, we just don't have any moral center or moral foundation.
And I understand the argument, I appreciate the argument, and I think that there are good merits to the argument.
However, however, and it's a big freaking however for me, which drove UPB. It's not enough.
It's not enough.
There should be truly robust and tortured debates within Christianity about the virtues of taking billions of dollars from a fairly corrupt government to promote policies often antithetical to Christianity.
I mean, that should be a pretty robust debate.
I don't think it should be a very complicated debate, but it should be a debate about virtue versus vice.
I mean, it was the government who killed Jesus.
So, getting in bed with the state should give Christians pause.
Now, the people in charge of these Christian organizations Significantly Catholic, though certainly not exclusively so.
The people in charge of these organizations have a far deeper conception and understanding of Christian theology, certainly than I do.
I mean, these are people who would have studied it their whole lives, and I am certainly far from an expert in these areas.
Morals, I would say yes.
Theology, I would say not so much.
So, I do not have the benefit of cursing those who disagree with UPB with eternal hellfire, damnation, or purgatory.
I do not have the option of saying, if you act against UPB, I will make you, or you will be, immortal, and you will be tortured in the most vile and horrendous fashions, forever and ever, By the ultimate sadists in the universe.
Right?
I don't have that.
I... Exhortation guy.
You know, you should live rationally, you should live virtuously, you should try to obey your conscience, there are benefits for it, and there are curses, in a sense, of the bad conscience if you don't.
But I'm exhortation guy, and I hope, you know, to some minor degree, I am inspiration guy, in that, you know, I truly try to live my life according to these principles, and try and correct myself when I go astray.
And I think I've shown that they work and provide great benefits, and so on.
So, I don't have the infinite fiery club of hell itself with which to beat those who disagree with my virtues.
Christianity, and more specifically Catholicism, does.
So that is...
Baffling and very much leads one to despair regarding virtue.
And it is a very deep hole I am about to show you in your soul.
And this is not a subjective issue.
This is a very big and powerful and horrifying issue, which for those of us who were raised Christian, as I was, The possibility of despair in these areas is immense.
Immense.
And I'll tell you what I mean.
What I mean is that people can't be good even with the threat of hell, infinite torment and punishment, torture forever and ever without respite, without let-up, with no end.
People Can't be good, even with the threat of infinite and eternal torture and punishment, the kind of torture that would be completely illegal in any civilized society.
It's not enough.
Eternal torture is not enough.
Now, I dare say, I'm not speaking about any particular individual, I'm just talking in general, I dare say, That the people in charge of these Christian religious institutions, they certainly claim to believe in hell and eternal punishment.
They also know that being a shepherd of the flock carries within it particular additional punishments should you go wrong.
Because it's one thing to succumb to temptation yourself.
It's quite another thing.
To claim to be a spiritual leader and to lead thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions or hundreds of millions of people into sin and eternal error.
Which means, of course, that the debate about saving souls and avoiding hell regarding taking money from a corrupt institution like the state which no longer reflects essentially the Christian values.
It may have in the past The idea of taking money from the state would be a massive, deep and powerful question.
And what would you do?
Well, you would say, Jesus was offered the tax money of all the kingdoms in the world by Satan because the power of the state is the power of taxation.
Nothing more, nothing less than by taxation.
I also include money printing and borrowing.
Because that's the one thing that differentiates the state from other organizations in society is the capacity to initiate force for the transfer of property or legal counterfeiting.
So, the debate about taking money from the state would be fairly simply resolved.
Which is, Satan offers Jesus all the taxes in the world.
So, what kingdom is?
Kingdom is the right to collect taxes.
And Jesus says, Nope!
Not even one drachma!
Not one felic!
Not one penny!
Get thee behind me, Satan!
I don't want the fucking tax money!
Now, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God's what is God's.
Well, it means pay your taxes, obey the state.
But it doesn't say anything about receiving money from the government.
It simply says, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and pay your taxes, obey the state.
So, that's nothing to do with receiving tax money.
So, all of the people in charge of the churches are not even having the debate.
Which means that, and this is where the pit of despair truly is, my friends.
There's a way out.
Let's be frank about where it is.
Bottomless holes open up under us when we process this simple information.
That hell itself, eternal torment, sadistic agony forever and ever, beyond mortal lifespan, no respite, no recovery, no absolution, no end to the sentence.
That is not enough to even bring about.
A debate on these difficult and contentious issues.
You have a religion centered around the perfection and divinity of Jesus, and Jesus specifically rejects taxation.
He rejects being the recipient of tax money, which is what he means when he says, no, I'm not taking the kingdoms, as the kingdoms are the tax collections.
And he says, even if you're starving, it is better to live by the word of God than to eat bread.
I mean, that's powerful stuff.
If you're not religious, I get it.
It's the Howard Rock idea.
It is better to work in a quarry than to compromise your integrity.
So we have a great deep and abiding mystery, which is, why is there not even A robust and passionate debate about the propriety and morality of taking borrowed, printed, and coerced funds from the government for the church.
I mean, if everyone truly believed in hell, this would be an absolutely urgent and essential question to discuss.
Now, if the church feels it needs more money, for whatever reason, Then the church can, of course, go to its parishioners, its congregations, and say, we need more money, and here's what we're going to do with it.
And here's the good that it's going to achieve, right?
Here's the good that it's going to achieve.
But it has not done that.
I mean, I'm sure churches do ask for more money, of that I am certain.
But they have not said, well, we don't want to be taking millions or hundreds of millions or billions of dollars from the state.
So, we want to retain our independence, but here's all the good that we want to do.
So, we're going to ask you to increase your tithe or your donations to the church.
So, the simple empirical fact is that the example of Jesus, the promise of heaven, and the threat of hell is not enough to even provoke a robust debate.
Oof!
Can you feel that hole open up?
In your soul, and the falling, and the falling, and the falling.
The example of Jesus, divine, perfect Jesus.
The example of Jesus, the promise of heaven, and the threat of hell, is not enough.
Not enough, not even for people to just do the right thing, but for there to even be a debate.
Now, if You take this from one angle, and it's the most common angle, and it certainly is the widest angle.
This would give you nihilistic levels of complete despair.
Because you'd say, well, there are billions of people around the world who believe in the perfect divinity of Jesus, and Jesus gave them very clear moral rules, and promised heaven.
And not Jesus himself, but God, threatens hell.
And that's not enough.
It's not even close to enough.
It would be one thing if the divinity of Jesus, the promise of heaven and the threat of hell, provoked a robust debate which the, quote, right side just barely lost.
Okay, at least there'd be a battle.
At least there'd be a conversation.
But it doesn't even, and I'm not saying there has been no debate.
And I'm also not saying that I follow these eddies and threads and currents in any particularly great detail.
But what I am saying is that I have not seen a wholesale revolt of significant portions of the Christian congregation saying, Hang on a second here!
Slow your roll, bishops!
What are you doing?
You are taking billions of dollars from the government.
Shouldn't we talk about this a little?
Because the potential for corruption there is enormous!
And this is kind of what we were warned about by the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the High and Most Holy Jesus himself.
Do you want the fruits of government power, said Satan to Jesus in the wilderness, and Jesus said, Nope!
Not even a bit.
Oh, but think of all the good things we could do with all that money.
We can just, like Raskolnikov, we can just do all of these great things with that.
Oh, my God.
Jesus explicitly and clearly said, Nope!
Jesus didn't say when Satan offered him all the taxes in the world.
Jesus didn't say, Well, you know what?
I could build a pretty powerful ministry with all of that, and I could teach people a lot about virtue and God and conscience.
Integrity man, you name it.
Nope.
There was not even a bit.
There wasn't even a pause when Jesus was offered all the taxes of all the kingdoms in the world.
Has there been a great deal of wrestling with this issue?
Have the bishops and other forms of theological leadership, have they put forth to their congregations and said, you know what?
We're being offered massive amounts of money by an increasingly non-Christian or anti-Christian state.
Ah, this is complicated.
We think we can do good, but that's, I mean, that's the first thing that everyone says when they're offered something for nothing, is think of all the good I can do.
But that's the obvious temptation.
That's how people lie themselves.
One, they say they're entitled, they deserve it.
And two, they say they'll do all this good.
They'll turn shit into a sandwich.
Has there even been much of a debate?
Has there been schisms and splinterings and, oh my God, no, I mean, because this imperils my very soul.
This might doom hundreds of millions of people to hell.
If we succumb to this temptation of money from the state, this might imperil my soul, your soul, the souls of congregations, and through The spread of this through the priesthood we are putting hundreds of millions or maybe billions of souls at risk of hell forever.
It's one of the reasons why I couldn't stay in the theological mindset is I take this stuff extremely seriously.
If I believed that Satan was stalking the world, constantly tempting people with threats and bribes to give up their integrity and virtue and condemn them, To eternity in hell.
Well, I'd have a different kind of life.
And I would stand, body and soul, between this flood of semi-corrupt or wholly corrupt money and the hearts, minds, consciences, and souls of Christians around the world.
But that's not happening.
So that's the problem.
That's the problem.
It is at the very best.
A complicated situation when churches take massive amounts, billions or millions of government dollars.
And you understand that it's not directly the amount of money that matters.
It is the proportion of income.
So isn't that the weakness?
Isn't that the weakness of theology as opposed to philosophy?
Because philosophy, Is you and your conscience and your reason alone?
Now, it is through the actions of reasoning and through compliance with the conscience slash UPB that we gain contact and connection with others.
Yep, that's good stuff.
That's important.
But it starts alone with the spark of thought in a basement or a garret or a street or a boat.
Or for me, sometimes it was lying in a hammock in Mexico.
For six hours.
But it starts with us.
And it's you and your conscience.
So the problem is, if we look at it from a theological standpoint, when you have these kinds of leaders, then the first place that the devil would go to corrupt Christianity would be to the state and to the religious leadership.
Because here's the problem.
Here's the problem.
This is the Achilles' heel.
What if you're a, quote, religious leader, but you only pretend to believe in hell?
You don't believe in hell, but you pretend to.
That's a problem.
It's not a problem that philosophy suffers from.
If somebody pretends to believe in UPB, But acts in a manner inconsistent or opposed to UPB, that's pretty easy to figure out.
If somebody says I promote the non-aggression principle then goes around robbing people, I respect property rights, right?
I mean, the guy who says I promote honesty and then lies through his teeth every opportunity, that's pretty obvious, right?
You'd have to work pretty hard to avoid processing that basic contradiction.
There's no Faking UPP because the principles are open to everyone.
Somebody can't pretend to be good at math.
If they say the two and two make five, their pretense comes crashing down.
I can't tell you what it would mean for me, and I dare say not just me, but a lot of people who were formerly of the faith.
I can't tell you what it would mean to me.
If the various churches had engaged in incredibly contentious soul-searching and said, well, we're being offered billions of dollars by a pretty corrupt government, I don't know, man.
What's the catch?
What's the downside?
What are the problems?
Nope!
Scoop it up and spend it wildly.
I can't tell you.
What it would have meant to me if Christianity had deeply wrestled with the problem of state money.
But, and I'm sure there are some exceptions, of course, right?
But in general, no.
I mean, I did an entire course on the rise of Protestantism in graduate school.
I know what a schism looks like, and I didn't see it.
I didn't see it.
I didn't see wrestling.
Say, well, you know, if we take billions of dollars from the state and it's the wrong thing to do, then we are putting literally countless souls, including our own, at risk of hell forever.
Now, should that not be enough to promote a debate?
Let's put it to you this way.
Let's say a husband and wife are parking a car.
Parking their car.
They want to go for a nice little walk around the lake.
And they park their car.
And then there is an ambiguous sign about whether they're supposed to pay for their parking or not.
It's a little confusing.
Could be interpreted one or two ways.
Do they need to pay for their parking or not?
Now, let's say that the penalty for getting it wrong Was death.
It was an insane place, right?
Well, there would be quite a debate with those stakes, wouldn't there be?
Let's say it's ferociously expensive parking.
It looks like you might not have to pay.
It's not entirely sure.
And the penalty for getting it wrong, for paying when you don't have to or not paying when you do have to, is death for both of them.
But they got to park there for some reason.
Maybe it's a really pretty lake.
Now, there would be a big debate about that, right?
Now, the stakes are infinitely higher in taking money from the state for the churches, because it's not just death.
It is everlasting torment if you get it wrong.
So, where is the debate, my friends?
Where is the debate?
I see a lot of rock and roll shows.
I see a lot of lasers.
I see a lot of prosperity gospel.
I see a lot of women prancing around the stage saying, where I am, so is God.
Where I am, so is Jesus.
I make the ground holy by walking on it.
Haboo-ga-ba-gee-ba-ga-booga-booga-ba.
Speaking in tongues.
Autistic screeching.
Okay.
Interesting.
Seems to me a little blasphemous.
To identify it means one thing for Fauci to say I am science is another thing for a woman to say wherever I am is holy ground.
Yeah.
Okay, that's nice.
But, where's the debate?
Were the priests going to the congregations or the priests having public debates about, ooh, you know, that's a lot of money, but we're supposed to be not tempted by money.
In fact, money is supposed to be considered a temptation of the devil.
Nope!
Ka-ching, ka-ching, ka-ching, baby!
Cash them checks!
No debate, in particular.
So it's not enough.
The example of Jesus, the threat of hell and the promise of heaven, is not enough.
And I don't know why.
I don't know why.
It should be.
If people genuinely believe it, if people genuinely believe, well, the government is offering you billions of dollars, but if you get it wrong, you go to hell.
And Jesus seems to be pretty clear that you should reject tax money.
It's not enough.
Why is it not enough?
I don't honestly know.
Certainly, if I believed that eternal damnation or eternal paradise was the result of a moral choice, my God, I can't even tell you how much work I would put into that moral choice.
It would be my obsession.
So, why is it not happening?
It is impossible to reconcile the lack of centralized debate on this issue.
With people actually believing in heaven and hell and actually loving and worshipping Jesus.
I mean, nobody's saying that people have to go march up to Calvary and get crucified.
It's just saying no to a bunch of money from the state.
Now, I'll tell you this sort of close off with this.
I'm happy to get your thoughts on this.
I'll tell you a little story which I'm going to keep intentionally vague for reasons which will become obvious in a moment or two.
That, I'll just talk about one occasion, it's been more than one, but in one occasion, I was offered a lot of money and prominence by an organization.
Now, I don't think of myself as like some super virtuous guy, I, you know, work at it and so on, but I suppose I had done enough research and thought and practice and training that this offer, and this is many years ago, This offer, other than a vague flicker of, oh, wouldn't that be cool?
Think of all of the people I could reach, right?
But I didn't really find it very tempting at all.
I'd rather sleep under a bridge with a good conscience than live in a palace with a bad conscience.
Now, peace of mind and relative degrees of self-content and happiness in your decisions is good.
I mean, it's worth everything.
Isn't it?
Isn't it worth everything?
I've known a few people over the course of my life who have really bad consciences, and, I mean, that is hell.
That is hell.
I mean, I guess it ends with death, so it's not eternal, but it is, it is hell.
It is, I mean, it's funny, I was going to say it's not a life I would wish on my worst enemy, but that's not really my choice.
It's not really a thing.
I don't have that option to.
Wish or not wish it.
It's like if somebody smokes like a chimney and then they get lung cancer.
It's like, well, I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
It's like, but wishes is not what caused the lung cancer, but the smoking.
So, it's not something I can wish or not wish.
It's just the inevitable result of corrupt actions.
I mean, imagine how powerful it would be if the churches had been offered all of this money and had stood up and loudly said, no.
No.
And maybe some did, right?
Again, I... It's not like I've spent a week researching this issue, so I'm not saying it never happened.
I'm sure it did.
But not enough for it to be a robust debate.
That's what matters.
It's not enough for it to be or to have become a robust debate.
So, I mean, this is one of the reasons why I focused so hard on UPB. It's that, for whatever reason, I can't speak for the people to whom the promise of heaven The example of Jesus and the threat of hell is not enough.
I cannot speak as to their motives, other than I strongly suspect that they don't really believe it.
But it's not enough.
If the church can't even have a debate about the ethics of government money and the potential for corruption, then the example of Jesus, the promise of heaven and the threat of hell is not enough.
Now, you could say, but you can't have!
You can't have!
A bigger incentive than the example of a perfectly moral man-god, the promise of heaven and the threat of hell, you cannot have a bigger set of incentives than that.
Yes, that's true.
Absolutely true.
That is, infinitely more punishment than even the most aggressive, a bad conscience is a bad life philosophy could promote.
Infinitely more punishment.
Okay.
But the problem is, the problem is, You can just disbelieve in it.
That's the problem.
You can't just disbelieve in UPB. That's why it annoys so many people and encourages so many more.
But the problem is, you can just pretend to believe in the example of Jesus, the promise of heaven and the threat of hell.
You can use it as a mechanism by which to gain power over others.
You can fake it.
You can fake faith.
You cannot fake reason.
And it's the non-fakery element of UPB that is, really, mankind's only chance to escape sophistry.
Because a sophist can pretend to believe in the promise of heaven, the threat of hell, and the example of Jesus.
And the sophist can praise Jesus.
Live, he claims or she claims, in fear of God, speak in tongues, handle snakes, can do all of this kind of stuff.
And how do you disprove it?
How can you?
Well, you can't.
But somebody cannot pretend to believe in UPB because there's no speaking in tongues, there's no rituals, there's no proclamations.
If somebody says, well, I accept UPB, but I also think that rape, theft, assault and murder are fine, Well, that's clearly somebody who doesn't accept UPB. UPB is like math.
You can't fake it.
If somebody says, I'm really good at math, and then adds up a, I know you're playing mini-putt, and they add up a column of single digit numbers incorrectly and loudly proclaim how good they are at math and they got it perfectly right, well, then they're not good at math, and you can test that.
But theology tends to be so complicated that it's easy to hide in the fog.
The way that I Work with these things in my mind, you know, rightly or wrongly, I should tell you, maybe it's helpful to you, is I say, well, if you genuinely believed in the example of Jesus, the threat of hell and the promise of heaven, there would be an incredible and powerful and deep debate about the propriety of taking money from the state.
Because charity is supposed to be voluntary, and again, to reiterate the point I made earlier, if it was a monotheistic culture with a monotheistic population, that would be one thing.
But that's not the case in the West and hasn't been for generations.
It is worthy of debate and it is not being debated much, much.
It might be now.
It might be now.
I mean, have the Christian organizations justified their acceptance of government funds to their congregation?
I mean, in America in particular, the Christians tend to be conservative.
So, for the majority of the years, from 2013 to 2023, the majority of those years, it was not a Republican president.
And the Republican president that was in, Trump 2016 to 2020, was attacked and undermined at virtually every turn.
So, did they say, well, I know that there's a lot of Democrats who are offering us money, But we think that it's worth it, you know, but it's complicated because we know that most of you are Republicans and it's democratic organizations or administrations that are continuing to offer us the money.
Is it good?
Is it bad?
I mean, these are topics worthy of debate.
Yet the debate does not really materialize.
And because the debate does not really materialize, I suspect that the answer is indefensible.
I mean, why was I deplatformed?
I was deplatformed because people could not answer my arguments.
If you have a robust answer, you don't need to censor people.
So, these are just thoughts that have been bouncing around in my brain over the last couple days.
That, and it's so funny watching people in the mainstream media complain about the fact that one of the young men involved in the Doge examination of the...
Hellscape, known as USAID, once used the nickname Big Balls.
And the more upset by the fact that a teenage boy used the nickname Big Balls, rather than the fact that massive amounts of money had been going to highly corrupt and sometimes criminal organizations.
The weaponization of female contextless contempt is really a major curse in the modern world.
That kindergarten lip sneer, it's like they need abusive mothers so that men get programmed.
to respond with compliance to female contempt.
Ugh, it's so gross.
All right, well, just for the record, I did ask people for comments, but I guess people are at work, so comments were not to be had, but I really do appreciate everyone's time, care, thoughts, and attention.
I look forward to your feedback about this, freedomain.com slash donate to help out the show.
I don't want to be funded by the government like that's ever going to happen, either from a supply or demand standpoint.
But yes, if you could help out the show, I'd really, really appreciate it.
Have yourself a glorious day, everyone.
Thank you for your time and attention today, as is the case every day.
Lots of love from up here, my friends.
I'll talk to you soon.
▲
Export Selection