Talk Heathen 09.42 with Christy Powell and Jamie the Blind Limey 2025-10-19

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/talk-heathen--3195702/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to talk Ethan. I'm Christy Powell, and while I'm
making this speech, I've had the privilege of spending the
weekend with my Christian family members who are watching along
from the other side of the house. While it really
is a privilege to have a family that is accepting
and loving in that way, I'm reminded that when we
look past the labels Christian, atheist, Muslim, humanists, we find

(00:21):
that most communities of belief or non belief share the
same goals to understand the world, to ease suffering, to
nurture compassion, and to live with integrity. We often express
that through service, ritual and shared meaning, ideally with reason, empathy,
and ethical responsibility. Different paths, for sure, but maybe in

(00:42):
the same direction building a world where kindness, curiosity, and
courage guide us more than fear or dogma. My hope
is that we can let go of magical thinking and
ancient tradition to walk that path in a way that
makes a little bit more sense. What does that look
like in a divided twenty two twenty five? Well, let's
talk about it, because the show is coming right now,

(01:11):
all right, Welcome everyone. Today is October nineteenth, twenty twenty five.
I'm your host, Christy Powell joining me Again's my good
friend Jamie the Blindlimey, Jamie, glad to be here with you.

Speaker 2 (01:22):
Hell oh, there we are. I am I'm here, So
I'm doing all right? Man? Yeah, sort of talk, you know,
don't want to get too much into certain weeds. But
there was big events yesterday, and I'm sure among those
thronging multitudes were a mix of both believers and non believers,
multiple faiths from all over the you know, their respective communities,

(01:44):
all coming together to exercise their First Amendment rights and
sort of fight for what they believe is correct. And
it brings me. It heartens me to see people who
may have certain like ideological or epistolal life difference, is
just kind of putting those aside until you know things

(02:05):
have settled and then you know, then we can have
a nice chat about whether God is real, over over
a point or whatever. Sure, it's just that I want,
I very much champion wanting people to link together for
the betterment of humanity, to embrace reason, to embrace humanism.
There are still people out there that use their faith

(02:25):
as a cudgel and as an excuse for their own
depredations and bigotry, and I can't bring myself to tolerate that.
But then again, I don't think a lot of other
believers can't either.

Speaker 1 (02:36):
Yeah, no, fair to say. I appreciate you being heartened
by the people coming together to, you know, express themselves.
The therapists can be a little bit of heat seeking
missiles for like problems in areas of distress. We're always
looking for that tender part that hurts. So the therapist
in me can't help but wonder about all of the
division in families as people are expressing their opinion and

(03:00):
standing up for what they feel is right, all of
the tension that comes with that. And I am interested
to have some conversations today about how we sort of
build bridges past some of this and learn to find
our common ground in the midst of all that division.

Speaker 2 (03:16):
Yeah, I'm hoping. I'm hoping for some believers to call in.
But if you are, if you're not a believer, but
you're having trouble navigating those kinds of conversations or reconciling
the fact that people around you may believe things that
you don't and that's causing friction, We're happy to talk
to you as well. Of course, you know we are
keeping it mainly towards matters of faith and connection, but

(03:39):
that kind of thing is kind of inextricably linked with
the human condition. Even us that do not have faith
in a higher power, that do not have a religious
belief or a god belief, we still have to believe
in things, trust in things, hold things as core parts
of our own personality. And when things challenge that, and
often for people in the circles, it's people challenging it

(04:02):
with their own supernatural belief and feeling that that superseds ours.
That's where that friction can happen. And that's where people
who otherwise would be very affectionate to each other, very
very filled with camaraderie, do break I have. I personally
have some divisions with my family over certain topics. We
have also had conversations about spirituality. Even though a lot

(04:25):
of my family are not explicitly religious, the fact that
I am skeptical of even their more esoteric beliefs has
caused arguments. I have been called a spoil sport. I
have been called a cynic. I have been called mean
and rude before now because I have a kind of
a zero tolerance policy to put to bullshit for my shame.

(04:49):
So yeah, how about yourself, Christy. I mean it sounds
like you've had a lot of quote terse conversations of later.

Speaker 1 (04:55):
Yeah, I mean it's actually been incredibly pleasant. You know,
there has been a lot of building bridges, but that's
been a huge part of my story. You know, we
don't have to get into like my whole genogram. But
while I am very privileged to have a mother and
a father who have both like attended these shows and
you know, taken an interest in the work that I'm

(05:16):
doing here, even though they hold a faith tradition, I
also have a stepfather that was very important to my
life and that very much helped raise me, who I
haven't spoken to in just about a decade because of
divisions around these types of topics. So, you know, building
those bridges is definitely something that I am passionate about
and have experienced a lot of privilege in, and it's

(05:37):
something that I, you know, have struggled to do and
have a lot of hurd around. So I'm very interested
to hear are our callers experiences and questions TALKI Than
is a live call in show and We do have
open lines, so get your calls in at five one
two nine two four two or from your computer at
tiny dot c c slash call THH you know, of

(05:59):
course on top hey, then we are open to all
of your questions about religion, secular humanism, atheistic morality, cosmology, philosophy, science, history, life,
the universe and everything. And we're talking today a bit
about building bridges between religious and non religious communities. But
is there a caller or a question that you're hoping
to hear from today.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
Jamie, Yeah, So there is something that just literally just
popped into my head. Many faiths, especially Abrahamic ones that
have a sort of profit figure, have this figure who
is a paragon. They are the exemplar Jesus Mohammad or
whomever that is the giver or at least the teacher

(06:43):
of morality and how to best approach the world. And
I'd like to ask believers in those kind of those
kinds of teachers, those kinds of and who feel that
their morals come from their faith, if can you forgive
me and be an ally with me if I too,
act in a manner that is congruent with with those

(07:08):
morals without believing that they came from a divine source?
Or is that still a.

Speaker 1 (07:15):
No go.

Speaker 2 (07:17):
Because I deny that it comes from God despite living
a good life and trying to help people. Is that
is that a game changer for you? Is that end
for it?

Speaker 1 (07:25):
Can we accept different pass up the mountain? Or is
the mountain itself built around believe that you know? God
sent his only begotten son who died for our sins?
Like do we need to adhere to these types of
credos in order to find meaning or fulfillment and common
ground together?

Speaker 2 (07:43):
Because I will tell you straight up now, and I'm
going to look straight in the camera. But despite the
fact that I will happily as a debate the existence
and reality of these figures, I currently don't really mind
or care. If you are exhibiting reasoned humanist standpoints and
a morality I can get behind because you believe that

(08:04):
it's what Jesus would do. I will happily, gladly, joyously
join you in whenever endeavor's going to make everyone we
care about happier, sipher, healthier, and more secure. And then,
like I say, when the fighting is done, when the
sea has calmed, we can go and have a hot
chocolate and I'll tell you I don't believe what you believe,

(08:25):
why do you believe it? And we can get back
to that kind of fun that we used to have
before the dark times.

Speaker 1 (08:31):
Fair to say. Yeah, Well, I'll remind folks that TAKI
then is a product of the Atheist Community of Austin,
a five oh one c three nonprofit organization dedicated to
the promotion of atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the
separation of religion and government. We are a live call
in show and we're excited to hear from you, so

(08:51):
we hope that you'll jump on the lines before we
do any of that. I do want to thank the
video and audio people, the moderators, knowes and stamp takers,
the call screeners that all help make this show work.
Thank you so much for all of your efforts. This week,
we want to send a special thanks to James Shutgart.
James is one of our audio techs helping make the

(09:12):
ACA productions of Takithen, as well as several others, a
continued success. Thank you, James.

Speaker 2 (09:19):
Thank you absolutely. James. He's kind of like part of
as close as we get, like air traffic control. He's
the voice in Aria just before we launch kind of thing.
You know, he's all the background, one of the last
voices we hear before we start the show. And if
he and the others weren't doing as good of a
job as they are, you would be able to see us,
or hear us, or even tune in, because everything would

(09:41):
be horribly broken, and neither Christy nor I know how
to fix it.

Speaker 1 (09:45):
Yeah, fair to say, All right, well, let's bring our
back up, host Aaron in because I am interested to
have a little bit deeper conversation here about some of
these questions of how do we build coalitions, how do
we make space for one another while also, you know,
holding steady to our mission and some of these other issues. Jamie,

(10:09):
let me pose this to you. Where do we draw
the line on forming those coalitions of different belief systems
while still being intolerant of the intolerable? What does that mean?
What does that look like as we're trying to approach
these things from different angles.

Speaker 2 (10:24):
Well, I'll give my quick answer, and then i'd all
like to hear Aaron's as well. Right the line I draw,
there are many things we can discuss. There are many
subjects where I am happy to have a discussion, because
there may be I may be able to change, have
my mind changed, or they may be wiggle room, there
may be a middle to come to. If there's a
place where there's a middle to come to, I'm happy

(10:45):
to come to it. Human rights is not that human
rights and person and personal autonomy is non negotiable. So
if your belief system requires you to essentially rob someone
of their agency or to remove a human right that

(11:07):
we have all agreed on to generally be a right
for all people, then there is no middle to come to.
I can't. I can't, but I will not be budged
on things like marriage equality, female reproductive health care access,
you know, LGBT rights, you know. And these are all

(11:27):
things that have been heavily assaulted by people who are
saying they are doing it in the name of their God.
So if that's you, I'm sorry. I don't think I'd
be able to agree on some of it and then
and then not all of it. And then, on the
other hand, I would think that a good coalition would

(11:51):
understand we have differences and allow those differences to be expressed.
So if you were to come into the Freethought Library
and join us as a believer and work with us
on projects, and we are hoping to do more stuff
in outreach in the future. We are not going to
need you to cry your faith. We're not going to
need you to defend your faith. We're not going to

(12:11):
need you to prove the existence of your deity to
work with us, because you're already through the door and
comfortable enough in our presence. Just don't say anything offensive.

Speaker 1 (12:21):
Yeah, okay, Well, so I heard you say, you know
human rights, like that's where we draw the line, and
you identified like bodily autonomy, and I suppose we wouldn't
necessarily say queer marriage, but rather like the right to
marry who we choose to or to love who we
choose to. But even that question of like human rights,
what is a universal human right gets really murky when

(12:45):
we're coming at it from different angles, when we have
different ideas about who bestowed upon us or how we
come to that understanding of human rights. Is there any
universality there? I know that's a really big question, but
can you try to walk us through how we can
even agree on what rights we as humans have?

Speaker 2 (13:05):
So I'm going to crib from a couple of people
who I am very much wouldn't my own one is
George Carlin. And then I'm also going to take something
that I stole from from another face base on our
space and say that human rights are actually just generally

(13:25):
agree privileges, like there is no like, there's no innate
right that anyone has, because rights are things that we
are allowed to do by the people around us. Like
you don't innately have a right to do anything, you
are allowed to express the things that everyone.

Speaker 3 (13:40):
Agrees our rights.

Speaker 2 (13:42):
That was George Carlin's thing, and that and that when
a system of power can take something from you, it's
not an innate right, it's a privilege. So we have
been granted these sets of privileges. But to quote another
another another person in the space, I am down for
allowing or at least entertaining the allowance of anything through

(14:06):
a lens of humanism, of secular humanism or just humans
generally maximum flourishing, minimal suffering, and then coming to a
consensus as to whether it promotes that flourishing or diminishes
that suffering, and therefore allow it. And if it doesn't
do that thing is if it increases suffering or diminishes
flourishing to a certain extent, then we he's not a right.

(14:30):
It may be circumstantial privilege, or it may be forbidden.
But I think we have to allow everything and then
take certain things off the table as they are proven
to be harmful, rather than to be completely restrictive and
give only certain rights, because that way you get only
certain people getting certain rights, and only certain genders getting

(14:51):
certain rights, and only certain creeds or religions getting certain rights.
So that's how I'd approach it. I don't know about you.

Speaker 1 (14:59):
No, I very much appreciate that lens, and it does
help us to have at least a shared language on
like where these things come from and how they're derived.
But it kind of gets us back to square one
if we can't even agree on what a human right
really is if we're coming at it from these different perspectives.
Because while I totally appreciate what you're saying about human

(15:21):
flourishing versus human suffering and trying to come up with,
you know, these universal maxims or however else we want
to frame it to try and maximize or optimize those things,
that's not how everybody's going to approach it. You know,
plenty of people are going to say, well, I have
the right to take dominion over the earth because God
told me to, and that's what makes it a human right.

(15:44):
So we're right back to how do we have these discussions?
How do we build these coalitions? Now, let me actually
go ahead and use this as a moment to bring
Aaron in and see if he has anything to add
to this or if there is any sort of universe
sality here. I am not.

Speaker 3 (16:03):
I probably couldn't. I can't name the universal I'm not
that educated or trained in philosophy and things like that.

Speaker 1 (16:10):
Sure, but even just on a fundamental level, like if
we can't even agree to what a right is, how
do we find common ground with other people about it?

Speaker 3 (16:22):
I think the struggle in the effort is a feature,
it's not a bug, right. I think it's always going
to be a struggle where we all have different opinions,
we all have different worries, we're different we're raised differently,
we have different values, so we're all going to see
things differently, and the only way that is going to
work together is if we come together, hash it out
and compromise. I've got to give up a little, You've

(16:44):
got to give up a little and somewhere in the
middle we'll meet and figure it out. And today's rights
might be different than tomorrow's rights because we have different
viewpoints today than people fifty one hundred, two hundred years ago, right,
and people in fifty hundred years from now, they're going
to have different viewpoints. I bet you the medical community
community is. And look back at how we did medicine
today in one hundred years and like, oh my gosh,

(17:05):
that was barbaric. I can't believe they did that.

Speaker 4 (17:08):
We do it.

Speaker 1 (17:08):
Or ten years, yeah, we love doing it.

Speaker 3 (17:11):
Right, fifteen hundred years, we're like, oh my gosh, I
can't believe these to treat people that way. Well, you know,
because we're all learning and we're all growing, and you know,
we live in a world of differences. That's that's really
the only common theme is that everybody's different and we
have to find a way of we need to find
some kind of baseline, and we're here arguing that that
baseline is Humanism is the intrinsic I don't want to

(17:33):
use the word divinity, but maybe the word divinity of
every human being, and that every human being has the
right to be here and live and live the life
they want to do. So let's make a society where
people can do that and they're free to do that.

Speaker 1 (17:46):
Yeah, okay, Well, so if we can't necessarily agree on
what is a right or what is a like intolerable
thing for people to be intolerant too, or a tolerable
thing for us to be intolerant of, or oh no,
I've gone cross eyed. If we're still kind of stuck
in that miry place of not having clear lines or

(18:08):
clear ways to draw those lines, how do we get
along with our family? Or should we get along? You know?
Is there a point at which we should no longer
be yielding ground or making space? Should we ruin thanksgiving?
You know? Like, what can y'all say on some of
those topics or how to walk through that at least
in a way that is wise and kind and curious.

Speaker 2 (18:30):
So I'm creivt a bit from your worksheet here, Christy
on language around these kinds of topics, because I've heard
it's setting boundaries and finding common ground where it's find
something to agree on, anything to agree on, at least
to start with, especially if fascism is broad something that
you may have agreed on in the past. Or something

(18:51):
that is so simple that you agree that you both
agree on, like we both like turkey. That's a start,
But flipp into that sounds it might be just that
little foot in the door. But be set around if
there are certain things that just will just be a

(19:11):
spark for the tender of argument and division. If you're
comfortable enough just putting it aside, even if you've got
that little voice in the back and head going they
still believe this thing that I don't agree with, then
you can do so for the sake of relationships. But
again there is there is only so far you can push.

(19:32):
That's if you come from a family who, through either
secular or religious reasons, does not believe that living as
a queer person or living as a trans person is
a legitimate, valid way to live, and you are a
queer or trans person in their family. Now, I don't
have firsthand experience of this, but I have been honored

(19:52):
to speak to and be friends with many people in
the community. It's incredibly difficult to sit there knowing that
the people around you who are supposed to love you
you think you're an abomination, think you're wrong, that you
are improper in some way. By your very existence, and
some people just can't ignore that. That's a claw in
the back of your head, that's an issue you can't scratch,

(20:14):
and so you just disengage. And it's sad. But I
do think that as much as we want to build
these coalitions and build these bridges, we have to build
them with people who at their very base are willing
to accept who we are for except who we are
in the moment. And if your family can't do that,
then it might not be entirely sanalvigible. But if they can,

(20:37):
if they can at least or at least acknowledge they
have these misgivings, but say, we're still going to support
you in any way we can, despite not understanding it,
despite actually being a little bit offended by it. Again,
it would very person to person and topic to topic
and boundary to boundary. But maybe you can live with
that and hope that they come around later. I don't

(21:00):
think be who's anyone, especially if they are marginalized or
on the outside. It's not their responsibility to make to
be the first one to come to the table because
they're not the one in the position of power, what
position of authority and majority?

Speaker 1 (21:17):
Sure, well, so if I take a lot of what
you said and try to find the I don't know,
the hard lines that the edges that we can maybe
wrap our hands around. I think I'm getting the sense
that we're talking about the difference between maybe accepting not
necessarily somebody's behavior, but accepting somebody despite their behavior is

(21:38):
one category of things, whereas failing to accept somebody because
of their identity is another. You know, a certain action,
a certain willingness to do a thing, is different from
rejecting somebody based on something that is like fundamental or
foundational to who they are, their race, their gender, their sexuality,

(21:59):
things along those lines. Yeah, is that an important line
to draw here?

Speaker 2 (22:02):
Yeah, I'd say so, Like, am I valid? Yes or no?
If the answer is no, then I'm sorry. Then there
isn't much we can do here. And this is why
as a as an atheist voice, as as a content
creator of sorts, I do get a little bit annoyed
when people try and straw man us by saying, Oh,
you hate religion, you hate religious people. You're just you're

(22:23):
just so full of hate for everybody. I'm like, I'm not.
I accept everyone of faith. I can disagree as to
the reasons they came to it, but I'm not going
to tell them that they are that they are intrinsically
wrong for believing in a higher power. It's that same
kind of it's that horrible slippery slope to calling people
mentally ill for being religious or stupid or crazy and

(22:45):
all these kinds of really denigrating terms. So I'm not
going to call people someone invalid. I'm not going to
say you're living your life wrong or you are you are?
You are offensive to me. I can point out things
I find offensive in the the dogmas and stuff around
their faith, but I'm not going to find faith itself
anything other than maybe bafflingly irrational, but not offensive, like fine,

(23:11):
And all I would ask is that they have the
same courtesy for me that because I am not I
am not religious, and because I am progressive, do not
then say because of these things, you are a wrong creature,
you are a bad thing, and you need correcting and
I won't accept you for this. And that sometimes gets

(23:35):
twisted into you know, love the sinner, hate the sin,
and it's like, yeah, but you think I embody sin,
Like I don't think a lot of people who say
that can actually extra, extrapolate or extricate, separate the sinner
and the sin, like's you're living in?

Speaker 1 (23:50):
What point does it become identity?

Speaker 4 (23:52):
Yeah?

Speaker 1 (23:52):
You can make this statement like no, no, it's okay
that you're gay, just don't act on your gayness, which
of course is is you know a pretty like bad
faith separation?

Speaker 2 (24:04):
Yeah, is send something I've done or something I am?
Because if you think it's something I am, again, we
are going to have problems.

Speaker 1 (24:11):
Yeah, Aaron, how does all that strike you? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (24:13):
I draw the line at abusive behavior and language like
if somebody is gonna be name calling, gonna be yelling,
gonna get violent, you know that we can't. We need
to go our separate ways and not have a relationship
because we you can't have relationship with that kind of
behavior is going on. Other than that, I think we
have to meet people where they are and if that
is a bigoted place and they have bigoted beliefs, so

(24:36):
be it. But if we can have a conversation about it,
then I think that's the win. If we can sit
down and have it and talk about, hey, this is
what I believe, this is what you believe, And if
we can walk away still having a relationship. I think
that's what's important. It's the relating with people that's really important.
Because once somebody want you a relations with somebody and
maybe they're a Christian, you're an atheists, and they get

(24:56):
to see that they're going to have a relasion with
an atheist, they know, oh, this is what atheists are like, right.
It's really change I think comes from relating to people
and maybe relating people that are different. So as big
as as some people are, Hey, if you're going to
have if you're going to be kind, and you're going
to be able to have a conversation, let's do it.
Let's talk about it. Because I think that's that's using

(25:17):
our big boy words. These are our big girl words,
these our adult words. That's where we can maybe have
a conversation, have a relationship.

Speaker 1 (25:24):
Yeah yeah, I hear that. Well, So setting aside people's beliefs,
I guess in like this fundamental values kind of way,
like putting that conversation aside a little bit. If we're
trying to just build community with people who have different values,
different beliefs than us, how appropriate, how acceptable quote unquote

(25:45):
is it to invite people to participate in our rituals,
or to participate in other people's rituals, you know, Thanksgiving
being just around the corner. Is it okay if your
family wants to open Thanksgiving dinner with prayer? Are you
obligated to sit there with your eyes open and your
arms folded? Like? How much can we play along? Is

(26:06):
it acceptable to go to a you know, a Christmas
night service sort of thing. What kind of lines can
your job for us there?

Speaker 2 (26:15):
I think at that point it's a question of are
they forcing you to or not? Because if they are
trying to compel you to do it and are going
to treat you badly if you don't, then it's not
your choice anymore, and then that's not appropriate. I would
be hesitant to feel like I must do these things
to be accepted. However, when you are stepping into someone

(26:36):
else's world, you may want to respect what they do,
even though you don't believe in the reasons they do it.
I think it is fine as long as the people,
the other people there, the people who do believe, don't
mind you engaging in the rituals and the procedures, knowing
that you are secular, knowing that you are not part
of their faith. But are wanting to get involved with

(27:00):
that which they are they are so closely tied. I
think that could build a bridge. I've been to like
Christmas masses. I've been, I've some like we've seen carols,
I've been in a Nativity play. Yes, it's kind of
societally enforced. But do I regret it. Do I think
it was a bad thing? No? No, I don't. I

(27:22):
think that it's perfectly fine to get involved in the
religious practices of you of your family if they're willing
to have you and you're interested to do so, as
long as they're not compelling you to do it on
pain of expulsion or something of punishment.

Speaker 1 (27:37):
That uncoerced consent component is incredibly important here, of course,
and I mean that's going to be true of anything
like if you are willingly joining along without feeling like
your arm is being twisted by all means. I also
just want to validate as we go into the holiday
season everybody who might feel really really triggered or uncomfortable

(28:00):
with some of the coercion that they experience from families.

Speaker 3 (28:04):
Absolutely, I think that's that's kind of the key. Is
it is it safe for you to participate if it's
safe for you to participate at a family event, then participate.
If it's not safe for you, then don't. If it's
safe for you to go to the Christmas pageant, then go.
If it's not, then don't. And that and that's going
to be an individual decision by everybody else, right, sure,
And I think it kind of also depends why you're

(28:25):
being invited. If you know you're being invited just so
that you could be proselyzed too, I'd probably you know,
I'm not interested in going, But if that's a genuine
bid from that person for you to connect with them
and to experience something that they is important to them,
I'd probably go, right, Because usually when somebody's asking you
to do something, nine times out of ten, it's just
a bid for connection. It's a bid for If somebody's

(28:45):
inviting you into their life, right, it would just be
like inviting somebody that may be a Christian. Hey, I'm
gonna be on talking this weekend. Wann't you listen in?
You might find this. This is part of my life.
Why don't you come experience part of my life? It's
a bid I'm making to connect with somebody else. So
if somebody's doing that. If they're trying to connect with me,
I'll go. Yeah, other than I'll probably stay home. I might,
I might skip out early if it gets too too boring.

Speaker 2 (29:09):
Oh yes, the memories of being a ten year old
and going and wanting to, you know, because it made
my because my aunt and uncle, especially my aunt was
still a very devoutly uh practicing Catholic and she would
go to midnight Mass and she would love it. If
the kids came with her, she would make her would
make her her holiday season. But it was so boring,

(29:33):
especially when you're a child.

Speaker 1 (29:34):
Safety is relative, right if by work degrees, it's not
is it safe? Is it unsafe for me? It's will
it give me a panic attack? Will it make me bored?
And you know there's probably a fair amount of space
between those two.

Speaker 2 (29:48):
Yeah, yeah, and so so yeah, I'm very much in
agreement with you, gentleman, on that. And I also think
about it as I don't want these rituals to go away.
I would like them to be divorced from their quote
unquote power. But I'm hoping we're still.

Speaker 1 (30:09):
Maybe granted a new one. Is that is that fair?
Like being imbued with a more wise minded intention around
forming communities per se rather than being imbued with a
belief that we are like literally summoning God, some of these.

Speaker 2 (30:26):
Ideas turning it into allowing it to fade to historically significant,
personally important secular tradition rather than like religious dogma. I'm
hoping that people are still singing carols and going and
maybe going to Mass, and being with other people and
and and even having passages read from the Bible to them,

(30:49):
understanding that it is tradition, understanding that it is it
is the story, it is myth, but also understanding that
some of those stories and myths can be useful, they
can teach lessons, and if we can bring it to
that point, then it doesn't have to be absolute. You
can you can you can go and here. Listen to

(31:09):
the reverend talk about the Sermon on the Mountain and
the wonders of Jesus' ministry, and how the ideas that
he expressed were ones we really could some of them
we could take into our own own lives and do
well without it being that he's also implicitly saying that
Jesus was a real and be God and came back
from the dead, and that kind of thing, and that

(31:32):
means that you can also you don't have to then
defend the parts of the Bible which aren't very nice,
which are more reprehensible, because you understand that it's a
collection of stories and tales and fables that have historical
context and significance but are not essentially true, and you
do not have to defend all of them. So yeah,

(31:53):
I'm hoping for a future like that.

Speaker 1 (31:55):
Yeah, right, Well, so a question in the chat was
something along the lines of, like, what happens when faith
contradicts reality? And I think that we have to embrace
a little bit of squishiness there and acknowledge that even
if there is a like capital o capital are objective reality,
that we have no ability to access it, or at

(32:17):
least that our ability to access reality is not objective
and has all of these different like filters that it
passes through. So at the level of experience, there is
no quote unquote objective reality. It's all sort of a
squishy matter of degrees. And I'm hearing y'all say that, like, Okay,
you know, we can sing along to songs that don't

(32:38):
necessarily mean anything to us, or participate in these rituals
that maybe we enjoy or kind of create our own
meaning for but that we don't literally believe we're consuming
the blood of Christ or some of these kinds of things.
As squishy as all of this is, I guess I'm
curious if there are examples of that type of like

(32:59):
mat thinking or some of these ancient traditions that might
really hold us back from understanding the world, and where
what it looks like to push back against that misunderstanding.

Speaker 2 (33:12):
That's where the robberty meets the road on these things.
I mean, I don't have the chat up in front
of me, but whomever was brave enough to ask that
question out loud, I want to take it seriously because
there are certain faith positions that are blatantly and harmfully
in contradiction to reality. And so if we can evidence

(33:34):
what reality is, you know, or at least come to
a consensus on the evidencing of what reality is, like,
nothing's going to well, say, nothing is bad. It's going
to happen to you. But there is no reason why
you shouldn't get a blood transfusion. And if your faith
is saying that you shouldn't, then it's patently a bad idea.
Right Like this thing can save your life, and to
reject it, for essentially your imaginary friend is bad. But

(34:00):
if you're a kind of person who prays for people
to do well in addition to you know, being proactive
and actually helping people and being a person, but if
you think, you know, I want to keep people in
my thoughts and if there is a higher power, I'd
like it to sort of intervene for people. I can
point to studies that say that that's not really going
to work, but that's true, and I do have this.

(34:20):
I still hold the stance of no zero safe dose
of bullshit. But much like things like alcohol, I treat
faith and I treat magical thinking like that. It's a
potentially dangerous especially in large doses, substance that is intrinsically harmful,

(34:42):
but it's okay if you have a bit of it occasion.
Make make things a bit of fun, you know, make
things a bit you know.

Speaker 1 (34:50):
That's actually a really fascinating framework, Like treat your magical
thinking like a beer after work, Like one might be
a good idea, two or three might be just fine,
Two or three every single day might be something to
be curious about. And fifteen or twenty could be really
problematic and painful.

Speaker 2 (35:10):
And if you can't go through your life normally without it,
then you have a real problem and need help.

Speaker 1 (35:16):
So yeah, interesting questions.

Speaker 3 (35:19):
There are a lot of reasons why we have religion,
but I think one of the things that keep people
in religion is this tendency of the human brain to
be dogmatic. And if I could get rid of religion
or dogma, I would get rid of dogma because religion,
it came from us, we made it up. It gives
us comfort, but we get it. Where we get into
problem is this dogma where well, my religion says it

(35:39):
has to be this way, this way, this way, and
this way. It's like chill man.

Speaker 2 (35:43):
It doesn't go into any hardcore fandom space. And you'll
see secular see dogma.

Speaker 3 (35:51):
You'll see dogma, not just in religion.

Speaker 2 (35:53):
Go and see what people talk about female Just just
google the term female custodes and see the schism of
nerds in the war space over. Some of your tiny
plastic figures may have bobs and this is a crime
against humanities for some people. No God involved anyway.

Speaker 1 (36:16):
No, that's wild, that's really beautiful. So Aaron, I really
appreciate you joining in on this conversation and everything that
we've been talking about. Anything else that you want to
add or make sure to hit before we jump on
the phone lines.

Speaker 3 (36:29):
No, just if you think that your experience is objective
and without fault, just do a Google search for optical illusions, right, Yeah, absolutely,
your brain does not interpret the world the way the
world is actually real.

Speaker 1 (36:42):
It just doesn't. No. Excellent, excellent point. Well, thank you
so much, and we'll see you closer to the end
of the show.

Speaker 3 (36:49):
See you guys later. I'll slip into the shadows.

Speaker 2 (36:51):
All right, to the shadow realm with you.

Speaker 1 (36:53):
Yes, no, Jamie, I really appreciate that that comparison with alcohol.
I don't want to get too bogged down into the
opiate of the masses, type of like cynicism, but I
do think that there's something to be said about accepting
the fact that we are never seeing reality objectively. We
strive to, but also sometimes we can embrace the goofiness

(37:18):
of a little bit of carefully curated in healthy doses
in objectivity, you know, a little bit of illusion as
a treat perfectly. Okay, Well, let's talk to d C
in Texas, who says universalism is a lie, DC, do
I do I have that right? What's on your mind today? Okay?

Speaker 5 (37:41):
Yeah, So so I'm a peis and I kind of
heard some of the conversations before I made the call,
I guess concerning the Christian religion specificly Christian ligims, I
think other religions Christian religion. I know. I kind of
peeped some universal talking points as far as like us
have a conversation and get along, and it seems like

(38:02):
the term kindness was kind of like miscontruting the sense
of like kindness being agreeable, and as far as me
being a Christian. You know, kindus is definitely one of
the proofs of the spill accordings of the Bible I read.
But kindness doesn't doesn't doesn't mean passive or agreeable.

Speaker 1 (38:18):
I absolutely affirm that we can play with some of
these definitions. I'm actually interested or curious what the word
universalism is doing here or what it means specifically here.
But yeah, I'll definitely agree. I don't have a dictionary
in front of me. I don't want to get too
bogged down in any one specific word, but I'll say
that any notion of kindness that I want to discuss

(38:41):
doesn't explicitly mean agreeableness or a passivity or a willingness
to get along. I do a lot of work around
the topic of compassion, and we often sort of separate
out a nurturing, gentle, agreeable, accepting type of compassion with
one that is is more fierce, more like yin energy

(39:02):
versus young energy. And a fierce compassion is a willingness
to do hard things for the better men or out
of care and concern for somebody, oftentimes ourselves. So, yeah,
fierceness has a place here as we're talking about kindness.
But tell me a little bit more about some of
your concerns or what maybe we said earlier that rubbed

(39:24):
you the wrong way, we threw.

Speaker 5 (39:25):
Me the wrong way. It's just more of I just
have have my objections as far as like, especially when
it comes to like, I guess the opposition when it
came to like the conversation I had about you know,
should prayer be happy at the Thanksgiving table? You know
what about if we go to the mass, whatever we
have a conversation with I would just say nine times
out of ten and I would say probably is an anecdotal,
but I would say probably this could be an objective too.

(39:48):
But nine times out of ten, the atheist is automatically
depending on where they land as far as like being
open to the Christian religion, they're mostly likely going to
be offended based off the ethical framework of the Christian religion.
So I don't think there's no common ground when it
comes to Christianity atheism, unless unless you're dealing with a
liberal Christian that have a so called faith that a

(40:09):
firm sin.

Speaker 1 (40:10):
Yeah. See, you're hitting on a really important consideration here
when you talk about a liberal Christian versus I guess,
ostensibly the right type of Christian. I don't mean to
put those words in your mouth, but when we're talking
about whether it's atheism or Christianity or any number of
other credos, we have to acknowledge that there really is

(40:31):
your own personal Jesus, right like we all have our
own understanding of these concepts, and there isn't a specific
or a set this is Christianity. All of these belief
systems are going to be very individual to the individual.

Speaker 5 (40:47):
Yeah. I don't necessarily fully agree with that statement.

Speaker 1 (40:50):
Okay, So tell me about I guess your understanding of
the correct Christianity, and maybe how you came to it.

Speaker 5 (40:56):
So I understand, I guess how do I put I know?
I guess within the Western world there are Christians that
do individualize their faith and don't properly as as I
would call it, execute the Bible in its proper context,
because I would argue that the Bible isn't just it's
a It is definitely a personalship of Christ. But it's
definitely like the Bible is very historical.

Speaker 1 (41:18):
From more, there's some objective like no, no, we have
to believe or agree to some of these different principles.

Speaker 5 (41:26):
Yeah, like like like say, for instance, in the Christian world,
Christians believe holistically biblicalt Christians, to be the more specific,
if you don't believe in the Trinity doctrine, than you
are a Christian. Like the Mormons, they don't necessarily believe
that Jesus is God. They believe that Jesus was just
another man that came to do good works and it's
a certain amount of people that's going to heaven when

(41:47):
that's not even recorded in the scriptures which I read.

Speaker 2 (41:50):
Well, I'm not a Bible scholar. I'm trying to get
read through the Bible, and I learn more about it
pretty much every day through osmosis, if not through direct exposure.
So whatever you say about at least your interpretation of
the Bible and whatever version of the Bible it is
that you are taking your interpretation from, I'm going to,

(42:14):
of course give you the benefit of the doubt that
you believe that that is correct. There are people better
equipped to maybe argue the historicity. We have other hosts
that work with the ACA, like just in the deconstruction zone,
who are biblical scholars. They are extremely well versed in
how the Bible was written and everything that came around

(42:35):
it and how it's interpreted. But we wouldn't have so
many dominant dominations if it wasn't for the fact that
the book was to interpretation and that the dogmas around
that book are set down by men, be it the
Council of Trent back in the day or more recent
re evaluations of it. You know, Martin Luther with his

(42:56):
with his note on the door. So when I'm asking
you is how do you know you're right and how
do you know that they're wrong?

Speaker 5 (43:04):
Well, it's for me, it's no matter about me being
right wrong, It's more about what the Bible being wrong. Now, granted,
when you refer to the Great Schism, when you're talking
about the multiple denominations, that really came from the Protestant,
Protestant separating from Catholics and Orthodox because before you had
the Protestant Church, you had Catholics, Catholic and Orthodox Church.

(43:24):
But marein Alude didn't agree with Purgatory and other other
other Catholics indulgence.

Speaker 2 (43:31):
He had beef with the beef with the Pontiff and
made it clear. I mean, I'm not really again really
evol verse, but I come from England. We are taught
quite in depth about the Christian Schism because a lot
of our history is around that, be it the War
of the Roses, Guy Fawkes, the troubles like that that

(43:52):
Protestants and Catholics don't get on. Trust me, I know
I have.

Speaker 5 (43:56):
Seen the first Yeah, I just I just explained this why, like,
because you're talking about you make the argument about multiple denominations,
and I was kind of giving my estimation why that
that's going to happen within the Western and I think
probably I don't know if the at least in the
Western world alone so under but.

Speaker 1 (44:12):
It brings back to it brings us back to Jamie's question, which,
whatever denomination, whatever side of whatever schism, whatever creed you
do or don't recite, how do you know that it's
the right one?

Speaker 5 (44:24):
Well, I guess to line it back to whatever the
scriptures say. Like for me, I'm in the presentation of
the nomination. We read out of the Western Profession of Faith,
and so whatever has been written and recorded by the scholars,
they back it up with the writing of the scripture.

Speaker 2 (44:40):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (44:40):
Yeah, I mean, that's a that's a nice idea, but
the writing of the Scripture is oftentimes very vague. In
some ways, it is directly self contradictory. And I'm not
saying that that is non negotiable or that we can't
work our way around that. There are certainly ways to
navigate that, and people have been doing so for thousands
of years. But to just say well, the Bible is

(45:01):
perfect and true, it does leave us pretty vulnerable.

Speaker 5 (45:05):
Don't don't don't don't disagree with that, you know, That's
when I talked to my elders about. Ironically, I talked
to one of my elders about that earlier last week,
as far as like, because I one part of Christianity
that I typically hate is the evangelical world. And I
hate the evangelical world because again it goes back to
individualist Bison where people can just easily privately interpret the

(45:28):
scriptures with the Bible is pretty clear, not the privately
interpret the scripture. You know, you get many non denominational
terches is what they call it, their own private interpretations
because they have beef with the historical Christianity, and therefore
there aren't they aren't binded by centralized doctrine like well,
the reform world. We're binded by creeds and confessions that

(45:48):
are that are aligned with how we see the scriptures.

Speaker 2 (45:51):
That that's the important thing, is how we we see.
Now again, I'm giving you all the benefit of the
dams that the scholars that you're trusting scholarship in within
your denomination, and you believe that they've got this right, okay.
In a similar way that I trust the people who
wrote the documents that I use at work, the medical documents.
They were written by doctors. I am not a doctor,

(46:13):
but I believe that they know what they're talking about.
So I will repeat their words and believe what they
have written as if it were true. Because I trust them,
and so that's rational to reasonable at least if it's
not rational to go along, it's reasonable to think that.
But by the very dint that you can talk to

(46:35):
an Episcopalian or a Baptist, or a Catholic or an Orthodox,
and they will tell you exactly the same thing. The
scholars of my faith have interpreted the Bible correctly. I
trust what they're saying, and their interpretation is different to
the one that you believe in, and from the outside,

(46:56):
I don't know if any of them are true. So
is there some mechanics method that we can use to
discern who actually got it right? Other than just trust
in authority?

Speaker 5 (47:09):
I guess to rebuttal I would, I would say there's
such thing called uh primary issues and secondary issues, like
as far as Christian orthodoxy in the Christian world, things
that are non negotiables is a trinity doctrine, the resurretion
of Christ. You know that since centers are bad ser sinners,
rebellion against God, and that there is a heaven and

(47:30):
there's a Hell, there are non negotiable issues. Secondary issues
will be like on the topics of like. Rather, you
can listen to secular music or watch secular movies or
you know, play sports. And so I guess that's my
robotal between prime primary Christian issues and then secondary secondary
Christian issue.

Speaker 2 (47:49):
So you're framing those primary issues as if you have
you have been provided the correct answer like for example,
what like trinity non trinity. That's a little bit esoteric
for me, but one definitely mean comes up a lot
is do you do you do you gain grace by
faithful by works?

Speaker 5 (48:05):
Are you asking me a question?

Speaker 2 (48:06):
Yeah, in your framework, I'm not entirely familiar with with
with Presbyterianism. So do you primarily gain gain uh entry
into the divine by by faithful bay works?

Speaker 4 (48:19):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (48:19):
So so so so, so I'll argue the right the
right understanding of the salvation is that you don't earn
your salvation. Your salvation was given to you the book
by the boy Christ. But if you are here's the thing.
Salvation is in the by works. But if you are
a Christian, you worked after your faith. So the Bible says,
says the dreams uh faith with doubt works is dead.

(48:39):
And then Jesus said, if you love to keep my commandments,
and so though I'm not saved by my words, my
works show evidence of my faith perfly.

Speaker 1 (48:48):
Okay, so yeah, so it also I guess further follows
than that, it's not once saved, always saved. That if
you are no longer showing good works, then you are
no longer connected to or committed to the free gift
that was given to you. Is that? Is that fair?
In following?

Speaker 4 (49:08):
So, I think I think the.

Speaker 5 (49:09):
Whole one safe. I always say that I'm not just
putting this on you, just in general the way I've
heard it, it's easily bad faith. I don't think because
I don't think one save. I think people take one safe.
I always say this, Oh I'm saved and I can
do whatever the heck I want, No one they I
always say, this is basically me putting my trust in Christ,
that Christ has saved. Christs wouldeep me, and Christ will
redeem me to the end because He put his holy

(49:31):
spitside of me to change my ways. You know, I
can't do good on my own. Therefore I depend on
the Father in Heaven the change in my heart. He
need to renew my mind according to my religious beliefs,
according the Bible.

Speaker 1 (49:44):
Okay, right, So I don't mean for this to be gotcha,
and Jamie, I don't mean to interrupt the flow of
where you were maybe headed with this, but I just
want to point out that just by answering these like
two or three questions, we have already taken you dc
and sort of category to you in such a way
that would separate you from maybe not the vast majority,

(50:05):
but at least a strong majority of Christians over the
course of the last two thousand years, Like your coalition
has already shrunk down in that meaningful way. So when
we talk about universalism and the ability for Christians to
operate and connect and communicate within their own faith, let
alone with the rest of the world, it does start

(50:28):
to get very murky and MESSI.

Speaker 5 (50:29):
Really quickly, Marky and MESSI, And in what terms.

Speaker 1 (50:33):
Murky and MESSI in the sense that you have already
sort of isolated yourself from the majority of Christians over
the course of human history over the last two thousand
years plus or takes since Jesus did or did not
appear the first time. So that division is just rampant.
Whenever we discuss these issues, there has to be some

(50:55):
amount of willingness to try and come together. I think
I'm trying to express.

Speaker 5 (50:59):
Well, I guess when it comes to division. I think
the division is, let's say, in and out the church,
especially when it comes to the Christian Church. Like I said,
there are non negotiables in the Christian faith, like automatically,
if you're not a Trinitarian and crently be a Christian,
I'm going to have to subject you not being in
the faith, and I'm going to have to refuge you

(51:19):
according to the scriptures on why you're in error. And
so I think there there are things absolutely is about
even Jesus was device of the Bible was pretty clear
is that I didn't come to bring peace, but I
came to bring a sword, and that in that.

Speaker 2 (51:32):
Yeah, I will turn mother against daughter, to a brother
against you know, something against father. Yeah, not to do
ral slightly. But I think the original context we were
talking about universal universalism is is it we want to
try and find things that would it came up under
the context of human rights like universal human rights. Right now, again,

(51:53):
I don't want to assume anything about you, and I
want to have a good faith conversation. Obviously, it's the
whole point we're here. But there are certain things that
have been said by certain dominations of Christianity to not
be human rights. So, for example, to be allowed to
marry and live as partners with whomver you wish, as

(52:15):
long as they are a consenting person, consenting it all person. So,
and again I don't want to put you on the spot,
but do you agree or disagree that that should be
a universal human right.

Speaker 5 (52:27):
According to the secular beliefs, should according to the Bible police,
Absolutely not.

Speaker 2 (52:31):
Okay, so we're our first log ahead. Okay, I'm not
going to try and argue again. I'm not saying that
you're specifically wrong. We disagree. So when we disagree on something,
and I want us to agree on something because these
rights are being attacked right now, and I want to
find people and join with people who will help me

(52:52):
defend those rights. If you disagree that they are a
right that should be defended, what steps could possibly retake?
Is there any step I could take to convince you
to help me to at least while allowing you to
feel in your faith that people, let's just call it,

(53:13):
what's like, gay marriage is not something that is commanded
by God that you should allow people who are who
are not of your faith to engage in that and
be legally allowed to engage in that and keep faith
to be faith and state to be stated and keep
them separate. Would you join me at the Capitol Building

(53:38):
to ask them not to ban gay marriage if that
ever came back up.

Speaker 5 (53:44):
So two things. So One, as much as I the
only disagree with marriage outside the confounds of how God
makes it, I would have to be the one to
give my balle beliefs to being compromised with that to
the government has already giving you all that civil civil
liberty to even be able to have saying sax marriage.

(54:05):
So although I the humity against it there, there's literally
adoptrin that was passed uh with with the gay gay
I think a gay gay rights activist to where it
was able to have the liberty in America.

Speaker 2 (54:17):
So yes, the vig you know Berger L. V.

Speaker 1 (54:20):
Hodges is you know, law or at least interpretation of
law that provides for the protection of gay marriage. But
it's also under threat. And I think Jamie is asking
you the question, would you help us in supporting or
maintaining that right? Should it continue to be threatened, should
it be even you know, outlawed? Is that something that

(54:42):
you would protest I.

Speaker 5 (54:44):
Will protest against it, not for it, because again it
goes against my Christian ethics.

Speaker 2 (54:48):
So this is where the loggerhead comes because we're trying
to build a bridge here. And if there was something
I could do to exemplify to you, to show you
that it's perfectly fine to let people, you know, let
them sin, let God sort about maybe i'd accept that,
if you'd be willing to come and say, I don't.
I believe this is an abomination, but I believe that

(55:09):
that is up to God's judgment, not the judgment of man.
It should remain legal, and if it so happens that
I am correct in my faith, then they will face
the punishment for their sin in the eyes of the
only authority that really matters. I'd be accepting of that.
I'd disagree with you, and we may have long and
rather terse conversations about that, and might go into the

(55:29):
examples of marriage in the Bible that are not between
one man and one woman, because there's plenty that aren't.
But i'd accept that. That's where i'd meet you in
the middle. I go, don't agree with what your faith is,
don't agree with what you feel. But if you're willing
to put that aside at least enough to go. I
want to leave it in God's hands. Let them sin
on earth if they wish, and then they can face

(55:52):
their judgment in heaven and let them live a happy
life here at least would that not be enough of
a compromise.

Speaker 5 (55:59):
Happiness is quite subjective, my friend.

Speaker 2 (56:01):
Well, I think you'll if you talk to any gay couple,
they would be much more happy of being allowed to
live an authentic life than not.

Speaker 1 (56:08):
Subjective but not arbitrary, right, Like, we do have these reliable,
valid measures of well being that are worth like taking seriously.
You know, if I punch you in the face and
you say ouch, that hurts, I don't have really the
right to be like, well, but does it really hurt?
I mean, what is pain really? So, so it brings

(56:29):
us back to the very beginning, Jamie. I don't mean
to interrupt you, and if you have more to say here,
we can certainly get to it. But it brings me
back to the question that Jamie asked you at the
very beginning of all this DC, which is just how
do you know that your interpretation, your understanding of the
Bible of Life, the universe and everything is correct. You know,

(56:50):
you talked about the fact that there are certain doctrines
that you are part of an organized movement or culture
that all adhere to that those doctrines, those inspretations, those
beliefs come from understanding the Bible and through biblical scholarship,
much of which you participate in directly, much of which
you participate in by following the examples of scholars you trust.

(57:13):
And I do respect and appreciate all of that. But
with each of those steps we get further and further
and further down the road until you find yourself in
a religion of if not one, then a very very few.
And that divisiveness doesn't make you wrong, But boy, it's
a long way away from saying I know that I'm right.

(57:35):
And when you say that you know that you're right
on these types of issues that are demonstrably causing harm,
it very much gives me concern. And I think I
would just appreciate some skepticism in your willingness to say
this is clearly the right way to view the world
when the right way to view the world through that
lens hurts a lot of people.

Speaker 5 (57:56):
What do you please define you a position on what
you mean by harm, I mean, just.

Speaker 1 (58:00):
To take a very easy example since we've been here,
denying one adult person the right to marry another adult
person when they both wish to is a harmful act.
You know, at the very surface level, it prevents them
from having access to the same like financial privileges as
other people, but it also causes incredible amounts of psychological, spiritual,

(58:24):
if you will, and social harm.

Speaker 5 (58:26):
I mean, I would argue that maybe this is why
I'm going to sound biggie, I would you sound more
safe thanful With one of the biggest ones, which is
not even just the biblical thing biology, is that keep
it a set. Gay people can can't reproduce. This is
why they tend to adopt.

Speaker 3 (58:44):
Down that road.

Speaker 1 (58:45):
There's plenty of people can't reproduce, and we don't validate
their love based on their capacity to reproduce.

Speaker 4 (58:53):
Like I have.

Speaker 2 (58:55):
I have an inherited genetic condition that would make it
very risky for me to have a biological child, and
therefore I shouldn't.

Speaker 1 (59:04):
Therefore nobody should ever love you, and.

Speaker 2 (59:06):
I should never get marries to marriage.

Speaker 1 (59:09):
Like you know, it falls flat on its face really
really quickly. So if you told me DC that your
values on gay marriage, for example, to pick one topic,
come from your understanding of the Bible, your understanding of
scholars that you respect and appreciates, understanding of the Bible.
You know, I can at least hear you When you

(59:30):
tell me that it comes from your understanding of biology
and philosophy. You make me mad because it just comes
across as lazy.

Speaker 5 (59:37):
Yeah, I mean would you would you say you wanted
the same chromolol or.

Speaker 1 (59:42):
Two different I think I personally was born with twenty
three roughly twenty three pairs. Actually, it's so much more
nuanced than that. And DC, I don't want to dunk
on you. I'm not even a biologist myself, but let
me just tell you very respectfully that if you are
using your compar prehension of biology as an excuse to

(01:00:02):
say things that other people would describe as bigo did,
let me just say, very respectfully, your understanding of that
biology is not sufficient.

Speaker 2 (01:00:11):
Yeah. And all I'm asking for, DC is a little
bit of empathy. Imagine yourself wanting to marry somebody and
you love them with all your heart, and they love
you with all your their heart, and you would be
great for each other, and you would do no harm.
No one would be harmed by your union, right, And
let's even take your thing like, they can't reproduce. This

(01:00:33):
person is infertile. They themselves cannot have a biological child
or or something of that nature. But you love them
so much and you want to marry them. And society
at large and faith groups in particular not only scorn
that marriage that person that you want to love and
have in your life forever, but deny you the rights

(01:00:56):
of marriage and make it essentially illegal for you to
be in that state. How would you feel, if you will,
if you were barred from from marrying that girl, that
girlier dreams.

Speaker 5 (01:01:08):
Well, let's just be said, I don't think the hit
of sexuality would Because.

Speaker 2 (01:01:13):
I'm asking a little, I'm sorry, I'm trying not to
fly off the handle with you here.

Speaker 1 (01:01:17):
A passion, it's the notion that you could relate to
or understand the feelings of others. We're not interested in
a government or a political policy or a moral society
that makes everything great for DC. We're hoping for one
that makes things as good as possible and limits as

(01:01:38):
much harm as possible, ideally for everybody. And I hope
that you could at least join us in that notion.

Speaker 5 (01:01:45):
Well, to be fair, it wouldn't be just DC will
be it will be the Christian ethical framework.

Speaker 1 (01:01:50):
The Christian ethical framework according to your understanding of it,
which we've already talked about as being severely mitigated by
your understanding of the Bible and your understanding of other
scholars understanding of the Bible. I feel like we're maybe
back where we started at the very top, Jamie. If
you have anything more that you want to add, we
can certainly go there. But I just want to say

(01:02:12):
I really appreciate you walking us through your framework here,
and I just want to push back and hope that
you can understand that these beliefs have consequences. They don't
exist in a vacuum. And when I hear you describe yours,
it's not even that I disagree with them, it's that
it feels like they're very convenient, they're not super well understood,

(01:02:34):
and they haven't been approached with a lot of skepticism.
I know I don't know you very well, and I
hope that that's all fair for me to say, but
it's very much the impression that you give me when
you quickly abandon your earlier explanations to grab some really
half mangled understanding of biology as a way of justifying
these beliefs that really do hurt people in the very

(01:02:55):
real world.

Speaker 5 (01:02:56):
Well, hurting is suggestive, it would be accordance to feelings
that nobody actually getting physically harmed for Christians beliefs.

Speaker 2 (01:03:03):
Okay, well, well, I can just.

Speaker 1 (01:03:06):
Gesture vaguely towards all of human well not all of
human history, but the last two thousand years of it
have included incredible amounts of people being harmed by unquote
Christian beliefs. And the more they're not the right ones,
but they're ones under that banner, and.

Speaker 2 (01:03:20):
It's more than just physical harm. Don't don't be don't
be reductive. You see, I want to give you the
benefit of that here, and I'm going to take one
more angle and then maybe we can we can bring
it to a close. So these are very simple questions. One,
do you would you want ideally for queer people to
be happy and healthy?

Speaker 5 (01:03:39):
I would have wanted them to understand how God made them,
which is either a man or a woman.

Speaker 2 (01:03:44):
Okay, right, I'm done. Then that's that's that's an end.
Because if you're not going to say yes to that, then,
I then here is an example of a bridge that
doesn't seem to be able to be built right now.

Speaker 1 (01:03:53):
Yeah, fair to say, DC, thank you for your time.
I hope you'll consider some of what we've had to say,
and uh yes, be very mindful about how much you've
spread some of those notions. I've got a quick super
chat that I wanted to read and say thank you
for from Anne Johnson. Actually, I'm sorry, I'm having trouble
pulling that up. What about hetero couples that don't want kids,

(01:04:16):
or older couples who have already had children with other
people and won't be having any more. Yeah, these folks
should have the right to marry. The idea that the
ability to create offspring is the best or only or
singular reason that people would be in a committed relationship
that is embodied with social institutions, obviously it falls flat

(01:04:37):
on its face. Okay, I'm going to take a deep breath.
I'm a little bit miffed, but I think I want
to jump into the next phone call. How about you, Jamie.

Speaker 2 (01:04:43):
I was slightly flowing off the handle there, and I
was going to make a point about that plenty of
gay people have biological children, you don't have to This
is also true. Yeah, But anyway, let's see who we
got next.

Speaker 1 (01:04:55):
All right, well, let's quickly talk to Benji and Alabama. Benji,
you maybe are pushing back on the idea that some
people believe the Bible trump's other civil rights. Do I
have that correct?

Speaker 4 (01:05:07):
Yeah? Yeah, well it kind of falls back on the
previous call.

Speaker 1 (01:05:11):
Too, And I think the previous caller would say that
the Bible trumps what other folks or what our culture
broadly would agree our civil rights.

Speaker 4 (01:05:22):
Yeah. I kind of went into that by accident, patsionally.
I went to Turt and me and someone got to
taunting and they mentioned something, and then I said, well,
you know, if the government is won, then the people
have a right to overthrow the governments, even in the
constitution itself. And actually, there's some Founding and fathers I

(01:05:44):
can't remember exactly. I believe John Hancock is one of them.
Possibly that was Icius that they didn't believe.

Speaker 1 (01:05:51):
Sure, I mean a great number of the Founding Fathers
were atheists or deists or these other stripes. We don't
necessarily need to get lost into the original intent of
the founders of America, because they are not the arbiters
of what government should be. They're just a bunch of
people who decided what this government might look like, at
least at the very beginning. And while we can like

(01:06:12):
honor that contribution and be very appreciative for it, I
think we can also have the right to improve upon
it and push back on parts of it. But regardless, Benji,
let me ask you this in a more straightforward way.
Do you believe or would you agree that at least
some Christians or some people who call themselves Christians, would

(01:06:34):
say that the Bible is more important or that it
overrides the civil rights of others.

Speaker 4 (01:06:42):
Unfortunately, I know the fact that there's a good majority
that do, even though it doesn't.

Speaker 1 (01:06:49):
Say even though it doesn't, where are you getting that from?
Or what does it mean to disagree? Because I certainly
am on your side here. I'm sorry, I know the
framing here is a little tricky. I agree that the
Bible is not more important than the civil rights that
we have sort of culturally agreed upon. But where do

(01:07:09):
you come to that from?

Speaker 4 (01:07:11):
Well, several places. I mean, if if the Bible was absolute,
which I don't believe in absolute certainty of anything or
any of that anyway. But let's just say, for the
sake of argument, that the Bible did clump the civil
rights or whatever, then the wall will.

Speaker 5 (01:07:27):
Be a completely different place than it is.

Speaker 4 (01:07:29):
Also, this idea that a two thousand, wealthy year old
book that had ideas in it from people that barely
even knew half of you know, anything really that we
know now, you know, it just doesn't make any sense.
And then these the Tristans or whatever. I mean, I'm

(01:07:50):
not going to go and do all of them. I mean,
I'm not going to try to strug with a general
of buss here. But that's kind of what it is.
Is that a lot of Tristans are the people that
would call themselves Christians despite their different beliefs a months
when another might agree and say, oh, well, the Bible's
absolute word of God and so it trumps everything. And
that to me is completely absurd and stupid because we

(01:08:12):
live in the here and now, and a lot of
stuff that matters to people is actually subjective. There is
not really any objective, material thing that matters absolutely the
people anyway, because everything's going to turn to dust and
people die and stuff changes, so there's not really anything

(01:08:33):
that remains constant throughout someone's life. I can speak from
that on experience, and everything change is after a while.
Society changes, Norms change, you know, wolves change laws, hands,
all of it, and stuff that I still see as
acceptable forty fifty years ago, people might see as odd

(01:08:54):
or strange or whatever, you know, because people sames with
the times. I don't, but other.

Speaker 2 (01:08:59):
People do now. To steal man their position a little,
I would say, well, if something is divinely inspired and perfect,
then it doesn't need to change it was. It was
perfect at the time it was written. It will be
perfect for all eternity. God is eternal, God is perfect. Again.
I don't agree with this, but I can imagine the
counter argument. What Christie I think was hoping to get,

(01:09:21):
and I think you did explain it quite well, is
that it's evident from the fact that things change over time,
that norms change and and and we accept those changes
in norms. He's saying, that's one of the reasons why
you don't why you don't feel that the Bible overrides Well, that's.

Speaker 4 (01:09:41):
Definitely one of the main one, because I mean, if
we was going off Bible laws here. I mean, you
would be Stone for having a job on the Sunday,
you would.

Speaker 1 (01:09:51):
Be you know, the people that was possibly eaten by
bears for for not having as much chair. I definitely
get it, and I agree that we can't use the
Bible as this like perfect document. Benji, you and I
have had that conversation before, and it does kind of
beg the question of this paradox of if the Bible

(01:10:15):
was written by a God and that document is not
endless or timeless or you know, does eventually change, Does
that God change or what does any of this even mean?
Can we have a imperfect document created by a perfect
eternal being.

Speaker 4 (01:10:33):
Well, see what I would argue on that too. I mean,
I don't know if any Christians typed this viewer or not,
but it literally said it in the Bible anyway, that
God is actually tanging. He's not unchanging. Because if you
remember in the books of Genesis, and there's several actual
accounts of Genesis, there's not this one version, there's Sevil,

(01:10:53):
but and one of them, when he flooded the os
he would dread it making humans in the first place.
So it's all is that God does actually change his mind.
Facty tenders his mind several times throughout the Bible. And
you know then people are like, oh, well, he doesn't
change anything, you know, every chance predestined. Like today the

(01:11:14):
preacher guy was saying that God knows all seeds, all
knows everything. And that gets into the argument that Matt Hiller,
Hunting and several of y'all had made in the past
that if God knows everything, and he knows all of
the bad stuff is gonna happen, he knows everyone that's
going to hell, he has all of the bad that
will ever happen.

Speaker 2 (01:11:34):
It's one of the Epicurean dilemma works, the way with
the way problem vivil works like that and the problem
divine hindedness. We were well aware of the contradictions in
the Bible and the fact that it also says in
the Bible that He is unchanging, you know, imperfect. I'm
fairly certain again, i'd have to Yeah, he.

Speaker 4 (01:11:51):
Was making humans, made them and had the flood the air.

Speaker 2 (01:11:54):
And we've pointed this answer believers, and and that's where
apologetics exists as a field to explain away these these
these contradictions in and logical and logical form opposite.

Speaker 4 (01:12:07):
What would the opposite of an apologist be, because I'm
very good at the opposite of that.

Speaker 5 (01:12:12):
Well, I'm kind of good.

Speaker 1 (01:12:13):
Anti apologetics, Is that kind of what you're meaning?

Speaker 4 (01:12:16):
Yeah, what would the opposite of apologetics be, because that'd
be a really good person.

Speaker 2 (01:12:21):
Well, I'd say skepticism, because apologetics is explaining contradiction, whereas
a skeptic wants to will will want to root it
out like we want we want consistency and rationality removed
and identified and called out rather than excused and painted over.
But yeah, anti apologetics is the actual term. It's just

(01:12:42):
we will counter these arguments because they are they are
usually dishonest as well.

Speaker 4 (01:12:51):
When whenever you're doing debate classes and I used to
do debate, and you would have somebody that would prove
the resolves like you would pose a lack a preston,
and then you would try to prove it long like
they would try to prove it. Why then your job
was to prove them wrong based on what they say
and use kind of tone it and use it against them.

(01:13:12):
And so I'm pretty good at that.

Speaker 1 (01:13:15):
But well, fair enough, I mean, I at the very
least I appreciate the back and forth, you know, the rigor,
so to speak, of trying to justify and understand these things.
I don't mean to overly reference the previous call, but
it really challenges me when I meet somebody who has

(01:13:36):
a belief system that is really opposed to my own,
and whose values and beliefs are causing harm to people
that I care about. But at least there is a
mutual sort of respect and a willingness to work together
and to try and understand each other to find common ground.

Speaker 4 (01:13:51):
But I lose my.

Speaker 1 (01:13:52):
Patience kind of the way I tit on the last
call when somebody doesn't even know what they're talking about
because they haven't gone through that rigor and through that
process of trying to work through some of the seeming contradictions,
or trying to be skeptical and push back against some
of these things. So, Benji, at the very least, for
whatever you and I do or don't agree on, I

(01:14:13):
appreciate your willingness to ask these questions and to be
curious and to push back, because as we started with,
there certainly are people who believe that the Bible, on
its own merit should trump our civil rights, and that that.

Speaker 4 (01:14:27):
Breaks my heart yeah, I do know several contradicts in
the Bible. I talk to Kristen's on it all the time,
but they just don't well and know me, and well,
let me ask you this because they don't want to
face it, or well, let.

Speaker 2 (01:14:41):
Me let me let me ask you this. Then, Benji,
you mentioned debate, and you mentioned in this sort of
classical form of here is the point. Here is that,
here's the debate afore and here's the debater against. Do
you believe that that is a useful a useful format
to come to consensus on a point?

Speaker 4 (01:15:03):
Well, yeah, I mean if you if you listen to
one side of something and then you point out the
flaws to what that one side says, you can Sometimes
it depends on if they're willing to consider or not,
but usually you can come to some kind of middle ground.

Speaker 1 (01:15:20):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:15:20):
I noticed with the last caller that that wasn't possible.
But usually people that you know use their brain. If
you say, for example, that slavery is okay, which believe
and I've seen several videos of that that and I
would I would.

Speaker 2 (01:15:35):
I remember a conversation with you about that while ago.

Speaker 4 (01:15:39):
But yeah, so it's you say slavery is okay. And
then you have someone else that points out the problems
with slavery. Usually those people can come to some kind
of a middle ground and say, well, you know, slavery
was bad with this and this and this and this,
and maybe it was good to the economy. Like me,
you talked about several years ago, you actually bought up

(01:16:01):
your ancestors, you know, and I remember all of that
by the way, just off memory. But and then you know,
but we can to a consensus, we can the kind
of the middle ground, and we did well. But you know,
slavery health the economy, but it still wasn't good for society.

Speaker 2 (01:16:16):
Yeah, So arguing a point of that nature, But we
weren't you know, that wasn't a that wasn't a classical debate.
It wasn't that we had been set in the task slavery,
slavery is good actually yet yea or nay. It was
that you at the time seemed to have a belief
that it was justified in the past, and I I
disagreed with that belief, and we had more of a conversation.

(01:16:37):
And what I'm saying is is that being good at debates,
while it's an interesting intellectual exercise and something that I
quite enjoy and it's quite enjoyable to watch as well.
I think it has become as it can be too adversarial.
If we actually want to concentrate on what is right
rather than who is right and divorce our egos from

(01:17:00):
the process, I think we can better sort of move
forward towards actually coming to some kind of consensus or compromise.
There are many things that I've had to compromise over
over the past few years, especially living in the US,
I've had to think about certain things that I held
very specific beliefs on and still hold beliefs on and idealize,

(01:17:23):
but unwilling to compromise on to a certain extent. And
I think that the fact that those who have nefarious
means those people who want who thrive on our division,
who want us at each other's throats, because if we're
not at their throat, our throats will be at theirs,
want us to drive that wedge. And it's why things

(01:17:44):
like that format where they have twenty people around one
person and it's it's all circus right, right, And so
what we're hoping to do, and what I would encourage
you to do, is to have is to not make
it like I have the right and I'm going to
make you see it. It's that I want to know
what you think and what you feel. I want to

(01:18:07):
understand you, and then if there are parts of that
that I disagree with, I will present to you why
I disagree with them, along with evidences as to why
I disagree with him. That's why the conversation we had
before was a fated That's what I'd recommend to you.

Speaker 4 (01:18:24):
But a lot of times people don't listen to that
side of the story they like they do with me today.
They just kind of sweep it over the world and
just believe what they want to them. It's also also
I would say that the standard the standard setting for debates,
whether it's you know, the way that Matt Dilla Hunty

(01:18:44):
does it where he hears kind of one side of
it and then he tears it down step by step,
which I don't know if he's still doing the baits
or not or how you know, somebody would call him
like they're so, and then they would say, you know,
I would say, well what do you believe? And then
you know, why do you believe it? And that kind
of saying, and you kind of go step by step
that way. Well, you know, there's been several accounts in

(01:19:07):
human history of war and herding people, destroying Thames and everything,
especially in the Crusades. And that was one of the
sayings that just up to me during the last till
when the guy said, oh, well, then am in that
example where you know.

Speaker 2 (01:19:23):
Yeah, and we can think, I think we're straying, Benji,
I don't mean to just jump because we are straining
a little bit. I think from the point and I
want to keep this back over to Christie in just
a moment, I want to make this point real quick,
is that debate as a format has its place. But
when we're trying to uh, when we're trying to actually
come to consensus, there are certain things in my mind,

(01:19:46):
and again this is what we were talking about earlier,
universalism's absolutes, there are certain things that are not up
for debate. In my mind, human rights are not a
subject that I can debate, and that's what causes a
lot of friction, especially again I get too much into it.
But in politics, I can debate certain policies and things

(01:20:06):
like that with people who may have a different political
opinion to me. In the same way that I can
debate epistemology around the existence of Christ, or the divinity
of Christ, or the you know, any of that. But
when it starts coming down to where the rubber hits
the road, and our belief is in contradiction to a

(01:20:27):
generally accepted human right, and that to not have access
to that human right causes demonstrable, provable harm, there is
no debate to be had. Case in point, slavery, there's
no debate on that. Yeah, okay, so yeah, the most I.

Speaker 4 (01:20:43):
Could do on that subject with you was just kind
of point out the economic benefit. And that was the
only benefit there even was, honestly because it was.

Speaker 2 (01:20:53):
And we shut it down thoroughly. But what do you think, Christy?
Do you think that that it's sensible to say that
there are certain things that are not up for debate?

Speaker 1 (01:21:01):
Yeah, I ultimately do, And I think that that is
where the wisdom of all of this lies. You know,
we started off this whole episode by sort of asking
the question, where do we draw those hard lines when
do we say that we cannot tolerate this level of
intolerance while also hoping to build bridges. And I don't

(01:21:23):
think that there is a lack of a better word,
a correct answer to that question. I don't know that
there are hard and fast rules that we could philosophically
derive and say that this is the point at which
But I do think that we need to be willing
to draw those lines from time to time, or at
least draw them for ourselves in any particular moment, because

(01:21:43):
people like our previous color do exist who would say
that we can take away certain what I would express
is inalienable human rights and that tension is a problem,
That tension is something we have to be mindful of. So, Benji,
I hope that we can at the very least be
rigorous in these things and asking these kinds of questions.

(01:22:06):
And I don't know that there is a hard and
fast place that we can draw the line. Any anything
else that you want to add before we wrap up
for the day.

Speaker 4 (01:22:14):
Yeah, So in some of my calls, I want some
of my old videos on YouTube where I call in,
and I saw some of the comments, and there's been
people repeatedly, I don't know if the trolls or not,
but they would sit there and say, oh, well, you know,
either I have a point, or people would sit there
and say that I'm a lunatic who just calls in
every day or every Sunday or whatever, and then you know,

(01:22:38):
waste time. But I bring up very good points a
lot of the time unless I just can't say anything else.

Speaker 2 (01:22:44):
I don't. I don't mean to run on your p Benji.
There was one more point I wanted to make, and
that is a great little victor for me to do it. One,
how good your points are are not for you to decide.
That's for the pub that's for the people watching them
and judging them to decide. And secondly, if you are
engaging in these kinds of conversations to feel the thrill

(01:23:04):
of being right and having intellectual perceived intellectual superiority over
someone else, yes, that can feel very good, but it
is It is essentially hollow, and it can be counterproductive.
Ask me how I know. So, like I said, it

(01:23:27):
behooves us to take our egos out of this fight.
The mission is bigger than the man. So I would
encourage you, and this is my final word on it,
to if you want to get involved in these conversations,
do it for the right reasons, not to make yourself
feel big or good or clever, but because a point
needs to be made.

Speaker 4 (01:23:45):
I don't really do it from the ego. I do
it to help, you know. I do it to tease
also to spread knowledge, kind of like what y'all do
pretty much would so you spread knowledge to other people
that might not know about the Bible, or you know,
point out the problems with it, because a lot of
the stuff that y'all brings up isn't never brought up

(01:24:06):
to the general you know, Tristan, the person that goes
to service, they're not going to hear about fallacies or
the problems with what's in the Bible because, appreciate God,
it's just sitting there within the Bible as if it's true,
you know, And so they don't the people that's in
the pews, they don't take the time to press in
that to you know, ask well why, you know, why

(01:24:26):
is this well event or you know, how would this
makes other people feel? They don't never take the time
to do any of them.

Speaker 1 (01:24:32):
All fair to say, so, I appreciate you raising these
questions again, engaging in that rigor being skeptical about what
we believe, being willing to challenge ourselves and one another
in a respectful way to hopefully derive it something resembling truth.
We appreciate your time and your call today, Benji, and
I hope you have a great weekend.

Speaker 4 (01:24:53):
I do have one of the message for Jamie. Have
you tried looking in the cybernetic eye so all place
the one for the damage.

Speaker 2 (01:25:02):
That's a whole kettle of fish that we don't have
time to get into. But the fact that I don't
want my eyes to be owned by someone else and
I don't want to have to pay a license for
them to work. Would I would say in response to that,
you might want to google stories of support ending for
medical implants because it's happened before and it ain't great.

Speaker 1 (01:25:26):
So I believe I saw that episode of Black Mirror.
It kept me up at night.

Speaker 2 (01:25:31):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:25:32):
With that fascinating thought, Benji, I hope you have a
wonderful weekend. Well, so, Jamie, I don't want to dive
too much deeper into much of anything, but before we
do walk out, I wanted to at least take a
moment and acknowledge your experience of Benji there and what
it's like to have somebody sort of assume certain things

(01:25:53):
about you or about your interests or your desires when
it comes to any disabilities or any anything else.

Speaker 2 (01:26:00):
Oh that's I will always try, especially now to be
to because I'm trying to hold myself to intellectual and
emotional honesty as best as I can. Not perfect, far
from it, but I will always ascribe to actual curiosity
and ignorance, innocent ignorance, anything that is said that might

(01:26:22):
potentially offend me. One of the things that actually annoys
me most is when people are hair trigger about their
like their their sort of minority status, where any kind
of something that could be slightly construed as offensive set
someone off into a right into righteous indignation because you're
not correcting, you're not teaching, you're not informing, You're just

(01:26:45):
you're just viewing. You're just you're just using this person
as a verbal punching bag at this point. So when
someone makes an assumption as to i'd be interested in
like cyber eyes and stuff, that is a conversation I'd
be willing to have. And again, there are nuances around there,
and I'd be happy to educate. I don't take that
kind of sentiment, as you know, it might sound a

(01:27:08):
little bit condescending, like how you person who has lived
this life your entire life and has probably thought about
all of these things I'm gonna I want to suggest
this thing to you, just in case.

Speaker 1 (01:27:20):
As if it never occurred, as it never occurred.

Speaker 2 (01:27:22):
To me to think about it or investigate it. I
think that avoiding being that person is something that we
should all strive to do, because again, I haven't lived
the life a lot of people have lived. I have
not other than my disability. I have no other minority status.
I am a straight CIS white male from a wealthy

(01:27:46):
Western country. I am educated. I am relatively I mean,
I'm not rich, but I'm comfortable enough. I have many
privileges and advantages.

Speaker 1 (01:27:55):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:27:56):
I would never deign to think I could know what
it's like to be some people, to live some people's lives,
or think I have some solution for them that they
haven't already thought of. But if I think of something
that I think might be useful, and I am talking
to someone, just a little bit of reframing might help.

(01:28:17):
Don't say have you thought about this? Say I thought
about this? Could you tell me what you think about that?
Because it's not I think you were too like saying
I don't think you've thought about this. It's saying I'm
going to assume you know yourself well enough to have
considered this. I'd like to know more about what you
think consideration. Can you film me in on your standpoint

(01:28:39):
on it so frame it from from an eye I
think this, I've thought of this, and I'd like to
know what you think of it, rather than have you
thought about it? That would be my advice.

Speaker 1 (01:28:51):
Yeah, well, fair enough. I just appreciate you taking a
moment to kind of walk us through that experience a
little bit. But yeah, now that we're here at the
end of the show, I do want to make sure
to spend some time thanking our top five patrons, as
we do every week. I'll say a quick thank you
to oops All, Singularity, dingle Berry, Jackson, Clevey, Helvetti, Ja Carlton,

(01:29:12):
as well as Casey Kickin Doll and then this week's
honorable mention in the number sixth spot, we've got Stephen McDougall.
Thank you to everybody who gives to us on patron
and if you want to have your name read on
the air, please consider supporting us at tiny dot, cc
slash Patreon. Th I of course want to again thank
our crew and everybody who helped us put this together

(01:29:35):
and to thank Aaron for helping us out today, Jamie,
is there anybody in particular that you want to send
love rings out too? Hoot? How about you, Aaron, anybody
that you want to send love rings to or thank
or just comment on from the show today?

Speaker 2 (01:29:48):
Well, we did have one more quick old Piki swooper
chat coming one dollar from a Crispin slit. Thank you
very much. Every little helps, so love rings to that person.
And I've really on and again this might say and stupid,
but I'm sending love rings to every single person who
yesterday was out in that crowd, who today is has

(01:30:09):
their hands clasped and their eyes closed and these and
he's sort of sort of saying, I hope I did
a good job, big gpe, Hope I manage proud, hope
I was.

Speaker 1 (01:30:18):
I was.

Speaker 2 (01:30:19):
I was the love love of thy neighbor in incarnate
for people.

Speaker 1 (01:30:23):
Willing to work out their faith in that way. But
you know, supporting civil rights of others, I definitely hear that. Yeah, Aaron,
any any thoughts on the show, any love rings you
want to send out before we say goodbye.

Speaker 3 (01:30:33):
I've sending out love rings to everybody who is over
who overcome by dogma in hopes that you can free
yourselves from that dogma.

Speaker 1 (01:30:43):
Well said fair to say, honestly, I think I will
leave it there. I want to say thank you to
you two gentlemen, to everybody watching the show, and then
of course just say that if you don't believe, this
is your community and we appreciate you being here. And
if you do believe, we definitely don't hate you, which
is we're just not convinced. We want the truth. So

(01:31:21):
watch Truth Wanted live Fridays at seven pm Central Call
five one two nine nine one nine two four two
or visit tiny dot cc forward slash call tw