Me Thinks the Apes Doth Protest too Much. Reason doesn't work without a Reasonable Creation

‪@CosmicSkeptic‬ Is Religion Even About Truth? • Is Religion Even About...
‪@rationalityrules‬ Political Christianity is wild! Unpacking Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Conversion • Political Christianity...
‪@GeneticallyModifiedSkeptic‬ The 5th Horseman of Atheism is Christian Now (and I don't care) • The 5th Horseman of At...
‪@JordanBPeterson‬ A Conversation About God | Dr. John Lennox | EP 394 • One Of The Deepest Con...
‪@triggerpod‬ Ex-Muslim: This is a Difficult Conversation | Sarah Haider • Ex-Muslim: This is a D...
‪@UnHerd‬ Ayaan Hirsi Ali: From New Atheist to Christian convert • Ayaan Hirsi Ali: From ...
‪@ChrisWillx‬ Jordan Peterson - How To Destroy Your Negative Beliefs (4K) • Jordan Peterson - How ...
Vanderklips channel / @vanderklips
Bridges of Meaning Discord / discord
www.meetup.com...
My Substack paulvanderklay...
Estuary Hub Link www.estuaryhub...
If you want to schedule a one-on-one conversation check here. paulvanderklay...
For the audio podcast mirror on Podbean paulvanderklay....
To listen to this on ITunes itunes.apple.c...
If you need the RSS feed for your podcast player paulvanderklay...
All Amazon links here are part of the Amazon Affiliate Program. Amazon pays a small commission at no additional cost to you if you buy through one of the product links here.
paypal.me/paul...
Also on Odysee: odysee.com/@pa...
/ paulvanderklay
Paul's Church Content at Living Stones Channel / @livingstoneschristian...
To support Paul's work by supporting his church give here. tithe.ly/give?...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulvanderklay
-Randos Level for Members Only Videos
-No Wait No Ads Level for Early access to upcoming videos
-Supporter Level for special Supporters Only Calendly Link

[@GrimGriz]

I watched 'It's a Wonderful Life' yesterday. There was a sign, probably an embrodiery, I paused the film to read - something like: "You can only take with you that which you've given away" It's my new understanding of 'Store up your treasures in heaven'

[@ChadTheAlcoholic]

I love that principal

[@Neal_Daedalus]

Did Cardinal George get that from It’s a Wonderful Life? Interesting. Look up Cardinal George last words

[@Pseudo_Boethius]

Yep. I have the 4K version of the movie, and for the first time ever, I was able to READ that sign, and was impressed that they made sure to put that in the movie.

[@ChadTheAlcoholic]

He is not so unbalanced as they might think. Many of us have experienced dad's elation. We have indulged in spiritual intoxication. Like a gaunt prospector, belt drawn in over the last ounce of food, our pick struck gold. Joy at our release from a lifetime of frustration knew no bounds. Father feels he has struck something better than gold. For a time he may try to hug the new treasure to himself. He may not see at once that he has barely scratched a limitless lode which will pay dividends only if he mines it for the rest of his life and insists on giving away the entire product.

[@matthewkilbride1669]

I watched it yesterday as well. The older I get the more I love it.

[@AvB2106]

„Your goal is to establish a case. Her goal is to live.“ This is brilliant stuff, Paul, honestly. The more time passes since this first JBP-SAM Harris podcast, the more I understand what JBP meant with ideas being „true enough“.

[@GrimGriz]

The transcription keeps saying 'Allah combinatorial explosiveness' and I thought everyone should know

[@Ehennings10]

Vervaeke runs in, "Allahu Akbar" and just makes everything REALLY complicated for everyone.

[@ChadTheAlcoholic]

That did cross my mind

[@iankclark]

😆 oh the humanity

[@SanjuroSan]

Set strikes again...

[@williambranch4283]

@@iankclark Don't smoke around a zeppelin?

[@Charlies_Little_Corner]

Made it to the end, as usual. Now I feel blessed. As usual. Thanks for your great work Paul❤

[@purpleniumowlbear2952]

Great job putting into words so many of the things I was thinking when I watched these guys’ responses. I’m so glad for the work you’re doing in this corner of the internet.

[@jimluebke3869]

"Blessed are you, who make it to the end of the sermon." =D

[@williambranch4283]

The rabbi was successful in doing a worship change-up just this weekend past. The Saturday morning service was extended from 45 mins to 90 mins, all of us all while standing. Though a fall risk, I endured to the end, thank G-d ;-)

[@ChadTheAlcoholic]

5:43 Guess what book this comes out of. Arrived at this point, we were squarely confronted with the question of faith. We couldn't duck the issue. Some of us had already walked far over the Bridge of Reason toward the desired shore of faith. The outlines and the promise of the New Land had brought lustre to tired eyes and fresh courage to flagging spirits. Friendly hands had stretched out in welcome. We were grateful that Reason had brought us so far. But somehow, we couldn't quite step ashore. Perhaps we had been leaning too heavily on Reason that last mile and we did not like to lose our support. That was natural, but let us think a little more closely. Without knowing it, had we not been brought to where we stood by a certain kind of faith? For did we not believe in our own reasoning? Did we not have confidence in our ability to think? What was that but a sort of faith? Yes, we had been faithful, abjectly faithful to the God of Reason. So, in one way or another, we discovered that faith had been involved all the time! We found, too, that we had been worshippers. What a state of mental goose-flesh that used to bring on! Had we not variously worshipped people, sentiment, things, money, and ourselves? And then, with a better motive, had we not worshipfully beheld the sunset, the sea, or a flower? Who of us had not loved something or somebody? How much did these feelings, these loves, these worships, have to do with pure reason? Little or nothing, we saw at last. Were not these things the tissue out of which our lives were constructed? Did not these feelings, after all, determine the course of our existence? It was impossible to say we had no capacity for faith, or love, or worship. In one form or another we had been living by faith and little else. Imagine life without faith! Were nothing left but pure reason, it wouldn't be life. But we believed in life - of course we did. We could not prove life in the sense that you can prove a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, yet, there it was. Could we still say the whole thing was nothing but a mass of electrons, created out of nothing, meaning nothing, whirling on to a destiny of nothingness? Of course we couldn't. The electrons themselves seemed more intelligent than that. At least, so the chemist said. Hence, we saw that reason isn't everything. Neither is reason, as most of us use it, entirely dependable, though it emanate from our best minds. What about people who proved that man could never fly? Yet we had been seeing another kind of flight, a spiritual liberation from this world, people who rose above their problems. They said God made these things possible, and we only smiled. We had seen spiritual release, but liked to tell ourselves it wasn't true. Actually we were fooling ourselves, for deep down in every man, woman, and child, is the fundamental idea of God. It may be obscured by calamity, by pomp, by worship of other things, but in some form or other it is there. For faith in a Power greater than ourselves, and miraculous demonstrations of that power in human lives, are facts as old as man himself. We finally saw that faith in some kind of God was a part of our make-up, just as much as the feeling we have for a friend. Sometimes we had to search fearlessly, but He was there. He was as much a fact as we were. We found the Great Reality deep down within us. In the last analysis it is only there that He may be found. It was so with us. We can only clear the ground a bit. If our testimony helps sweep away prejudice, enables you to think honestly, encourages you to search diligently within yourself, then, if you wish, you can join us on the Broad Highway. With this attitude you cannot fail. The consciousness of your belief is sure to come to you.

[@ChadTheAlcoholic]

@axileus9327 It comes from the chapter “We Agnostics” from the book of Alcoholics Anonymous

[@RandyVanderveen1]

Made it to the end 💪🏼❤️. Thanks Paul. Aim ☝🏼tell the truth. I appreciate everything you do.

[@samuel20301]

This was great Paul. I'm a long time lurker and bible-curious type. I was surprised you thought people wouldn't get to the end. This one hit home. Appreciate you. Thanks

[@mlts9984]

It will be a sad day for the atheist pundits when the answer the “why?” question truthfully and discover it’s that they like walking in the shoes of the playground bullies who picked on them when they were little.

[@williambranch4283]

"let go of the consequences" - Jordan Peterson ... Krishna said this to Arjuna, a peerless warrior daunted by conflict.

[@ButterBobBriggs]

There's a lot of quotes in this compilation of videos about "truth" as if it were a system or a philosophy or a religion. They think they're innovative with their smug modern questioning, but they have no original idea, Pontius Pilate, already beat them to this by 2,000 years. On the other hand, there is the Christian definition of Truth. Christians know the Truth not as a set of propositions, but as a specific historical Person named Jesus. The Truth is a Person named Jesus. Ayaan looks at the story of the Truth in her despair and is healed just like the women with an issue of blood. She is healed by merely touching the hem of the garment of the Truth, which is the Person of Christ. She might or might not have doubts about "the facts," but she has been healed, she has been set free from the despair of nihilism by the Person Who is the Truth.

[@williambranch4283]

In Messianic circles, no mere fringe, but the tzitzit of Jesus's tallit. Which is to remind you constantly of G-d's covenant with Israel.

[@ButterBobBriggs]

@@williambranch4283 in all branches of Christianity this is well known, not just in messianic. The woman with an issue of blood, known as St Veronica in tradition, probably didn't know very much about the facts. She just wanted to touch some part of the Truth. To me, this is what Ayaan has done. She might even be hostile to certain propositions. But she knows one thing, Jesus healed her. Like St Veronica, she spent a fortune going to doctors but gained nothing, but she touched the fringe of the story of Christ and was healed.

[@sunrhyze]

@@ButterBobBriggs I've watched the Unherd interview segment three times now, and I'm just now realizing how impressive that therapist actually was, even to utter the words "spiritually bankrupt" and to encourage Ayaan to imagine a different God from the one of her childhood. That therapist was a stepping stone.

[@WisdomFoundry814]

These are the kinds of videos that are needed. Pastors, your boldness directly correlates to the boldness of the laity.

[@jamesburns4226]

A punchy vid every now and then is a good thing, Paul!

[@agapologia]

I love that many of the prominent atheists state something to the effect of "Even if material evidence of God's existence presented itself to me, I'd just assume my senses are failing me." Meaningful relationship - not reason - inspires belief (and thus words and actions). Ethos and pathos trump logos (in the rhetorical sense, not *the* Logos) every time. Of course, ethos and pathos divorced from logos are also insufficient (I reluctantly refer to some in my own evang/charism/pente circles). That's all to say nothing of kairos and telos, both being necessary for those ineffable *aha* experiences. Treating man's orientation to the world solely or even primarily through the lens of reason is really pretty silly. It seems to be the case that *why* trumps and properly precedes all other questions.

[@williambranch4283]

Rationalists are irrational, materialists deny material evidence ;-p

[@williambranch4283]

@axileus9327 Too bad these reasonable people are just lunatics too ;-(

[@Pseudo_Boethius]

This is why I insist that the the idea of God being a Trinity is the only correct way of understanding Him, because that idea contains the most important concept of all: the foundational importance of RELATIONSHIP as the means of understanding all reality. The fact that there is a material world "out there" is meaningless. The fact that we are in an inescapable relationship with a material world is the beginning of meaning. When you look at what really makes God angry in the OT, it always has to do with how His people abuse relationships. Primarily, they abuse their relationship with Him, and secondarily, they abuse their relationships with others. The habitual abuse of relationships is the real unforgivable sin. Even atheists get angry and upset when relationships go sour. Once you realize that it's the growing and maintaining of relationships that is our primary purpose on this earth, not wealth creation, manipulation, or knowledge accumulation, then you are on track to living a truly fulfilling life. Yet so many people have been in abusive relationships with authority figures or family members, ESPECIALLY in the church of all places, that relationships become to them a poison to be avoided rather than a pursuit to be enjoyed. Woe to those who are the cause of such things. When you look at the wisdom of the 12 Step programs, the "secret sauce" that helps make them worthwhile is the focus on the restoration of relationships, primarily your relationship with yourself, and your god. Now it certainly takes reason to see and understand these things, but reason is always and forever at the service of emotions, and will never be king. The right use of reason is to help us feel better long term, and to get us out of the destructive cycles that we so easy to fall into. Reason is not an end in itself, rather it's a means to and end, that end being an emotionally fulfilling life on this earth.

[@williambranch4283]

@@Pseudo_Boethius EQ over IQ. Personal over impersonal. Relational vs self. Doesn't take a rocket scientist ;-)

[@TheDrb27]

Sarah Haider talking about truth reminded me of Vervaeke talking about truth with examples of finding out you are adopted and trying to believe otherwise.

[@williambranch4283]

Being adopted I can say, family life is more mysterious. "Where do I come from?" ... has a richer answer. With G-d we are all adopted.

[@TheDrb27]

@@williambranch4283 would you want to know the truth about someone being unfaithful in a relationship even if it destroyed the relationship? I very much agree with your comment.

[@williambranch4283]

@@TheDrb27 That is hard to answer. It ties into "would you like to know the past" vs "would you like to know the future". In my experience, the facts of the matter are necessary to make a competent decision. Unearthing past or present family secrets requires a strong stomach and charitable humility. PS ... That which does not destroy us makes us stronger. In a marital relationship more than just the couple is involved. A Gordian Knot.

[@TheDrb27]

@@williambranch4283 I definitely fall into the group that would destroy everything for truth.

[@williambranch4283]

@@TheDrb27 Then gird up your loins with humility and charity. Having imagined fictional situations myself, one thinks of how to react to the truth of the relationship. Sometimes it is best to let go in peace. But what was true, never turned out to be what I imagined. My Ex and I are still good friends.

[@lkae4]

From my lifetime of trying to reason with other humans, I've found that reason is a luxury or something many find when everything around us is dust and ashes.

[@williambranch4283]

Common sense? Not if the usual suspects are still doubling down on their narcissism.

[@jeremygriffin620]

Been enjoying your talks. Subscribed as of this one! An interesting duo in Carl Benjamin, an atheist and Fr. Calvin Robinson - talking about the need for Faith in The West got me started down this path of meditations.

[@robertbrabham2999]

Thanks for the video Pastor Paul. I enjoyed it...

[@Roger-r7s]

I like the way that this man is capable of seeing past the reality warping distortions biases and irrational baggage that seems to always get in the way when dealing with matters of faith, spirituality, and religious based worldviews. I also totally agree that you can't have it both ways you can't have total confidence in the competency of reason to be able to understand reality if our reasoning capacity is only the consequence of haphazard and accidental but incremental marginal improvements in an organism ability to survive and reproduce. The astonishing extravagant abilities of the human mind is so far beyond a simple survival reproductive utility value that it actually makes a purely evolutionary explanation to be preposterously inadequate. Like for example the resolving power of the human perceptual apparatus the subtle shades of colour and sound, which is necessary to perceive beauty in the world but is completely excessively overdeveloped from an evolutionary point of view. And he is also right in that human nature has many modalities to understand reality including the intuitive, emotive, imaginative, the visionary as well as the analytical and rational intellect. The poets and mystics and not the scientists are much more accurate in their ability to recognize how far beyond our rational understanding the wonder and mystery of existence actually is. Like Walt Whitman declaring that a mere mouse was enough to stagger 10,000 atheists! If something as humble and lowly as a mouse transcends our rational understanding how much more would our own human nature be, the vanity and presumption that we can explain everything by rational intellect alone is not only the supreme intellectual arrogance and hubris it can even be seen as a kind of one dimensional unbalanced madness and mental illness.

[@emy_2510]

Thanks Paul. Great video

[@KRGruner]

One of the most important uses of Reason is to understand the limits of Reason. Most rationalists have no such understanding. The vast majority of human knowledge is evolutionary in nature (i.e. derived from trial and error), not derived from "Reason." Nevertheless, one can easily go too far in the other direction and dismiss Reason as powerless or irrelevant. Neither view is correct. Reason cannot by itself reveal the whole Truth, but it certainly can detect error with a good probability of success. And this is absolutely critical to the human condition, in fact it is what differentiates humans from animals.

[@TeamDiezinelli]

I’m still here and I loved it!

[@TonyPPX]

A great video worth sharing.

[@terminatoreggs]

There was an conversation with Peterson and a catholic priest where they talked about faith being the will to adventure. Wish I could find that again. Stayed with me.

[@yosefrazin6455]

Something that needs more unpacking - Logos as objective vs transjective/emergent. This is where Vervaeke is key- but the problem is its less of a Christian "slam dunk" (though fully defensible in some forms of Christianity as Vervaeke has shown) BUT a materialist can equally believe in the emergent argument for logos

[@williambranch4283]

Emergentism is incoherent. G-d descends, matter doesn't ascend.

[@ddod7236]

But doesn't the logos within us apprehend the descending Logos?@@williambranch4283

[@treesurgeon2441]

Reason isn't everything for you can and probably will reason yourself into being unreasonable. Modernity is full of examples of this.

[@quentissential]

In my teen years, there was a book that was so very attractive to me 'The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate' by Dr. Jason Lisle. It was produced by Answers in Genesis. The book, as described, "goes beyond the battle over 'evidence,' and demonstrates why and how we are to defend the faith.... [it] shows why secular worldviews cannot stand up to logical scrutiny, and how only the Christian worldview can account for the world we live in." In short, the book argues that evidence and reason logic are staked upon a Creator. That has been the rallying cry of fundamentalists in the face of modernization. Problem is (and this is my critique of AiG), their rallying point is slowly titrating and losing it's potency the more they play the modernist's game of eschewing 'the master' (right-hemispheric thinking) in favor of 'the emissary' and it's logic. It's an understandable move because the right-hemisphere's world isn't filled with shamans, sacrifices, angels, spiritual bodies, and Peterson talking about Jung's 'Red Book' in Psych-101. It's a compelling move because it feels honest to agree to the terms of debate and square-up with modernism according to it's own limits. Furthermore, and more subtlety, it feels safe to avoid how 'strange' Christianity is (I recall Tom Holland at one point during a Q&A arguing that Christians need to own how 'strange' it all is... if anyone can find that please let me know...). My point is, I generally find that the atheists and logicians (enlightenment-types as JBP calls 'em) are arguing against a straw-man. They are arguing against fundamentalists who have adopted enough of the modernists game so as to be easy-prey. They have a much more difficult time with types like Peterson, Vervaeke, Pageau who, upon entering the game, expand the arena to include that pre-modern/right-hemispheric world; Barfield's 'original participation'. They are calling out the idolatry of the 'emissary'. The idolatry is cultivating ignorance (disguised as a-gnosis) leading towards a very interesting 'final participation'. The American Left and modernism is progressing towards (returning to?) that paganistic and original participation. Equally ironic, the American Right is, conserving and building it's fundamentals in a framework (modernism) that can't hold. We live in interesting times. Thanks for the video Paul.

[@williambranch4283]

Wow. Modern men are Strawmen indeed, they should stay away from holy flame ...

[@vinnyrac]

You wrote: "The book, as described, "goes beyond the battle over 'evidence,' and demonstrates why and how we are to defend the faith" Don't you see how illogical and duplicitous that is on the part of the authors? It's a bait and switch. They can't use evidence and logic to defend their claim, so they defend something unrelated. And you fell for it. Maybe if you relied on logic and reason you wouldn't have? Just saying.

[@quentissential]

@@vinnyrac I do see it. I did fall for the logical bait & switch tactic; largely out of trust that those around me who praised the book were oriented towards doing and being well. I think if I trusted more in my own logic and reason (as weighted against trusting those around me) I wouldn't have been attracted to the book as much.

[@williambranch4283]

@@quentissential Don't knock immaturity, we all start there.

[@quentissential]

@@StevenSmith-1863 wasn’t trying to knock their apologetics. I’m sad it came off that way. Was more so trying to come to their aid. I listen to their apologetics now and see they mean so much with so very little. It takes some graciousness and a bit of patience and translation to explain it to a modern atheist/agnostic who isn’t dissuaded from being harsh or unmerciful.

[@ian111]

Thanks Paul. Well put together and very helpful

[@davidbusuttil9086]

She mentions the virtue of duty them immediately says she can’t operate as if religion true even if it’s the best way forward… doing something regardless of your feelings is the definition of duty

[@QuixEnd]

I often find I have a different opinion laying down than I do standing up. I know reason and logic more than most, but neither come to my aid when it's me that's the problem.

[@williambranch4283]

Wise

[@TheApprentice007]

got to the end, Based.

[@craigbirdwhistle8671]

“My heart throbs with a sleepy haze, Like I knocked back some strange drug, Or gulped down an apathetic potion, Just a minute ago, drifting towards forgetfulness.” “The world blurs like a dreamy mirage, Reality twists, and reason slips away, As if I sipped from a cup of amnesia, Draining towards a river of oblivion.”

[@hekate314]

"You should not imagine that your reason can evolve to the extent of understanding God." O'connor is not that bad:D very genuine and honest. And probably will covnert in his life :D

[@pandjbruno]

Really enjoyed this ❤

[@zachtollen1031]

Great job. Such a variety of clips, all also great.

[@nathanprindler]

This was such a low-key scathing response to the atheists, I loved it. 😆 Also yes, I am way behind on videos. Lol. Was off work for a new baby.

[@anselman3156]

11:09 In the souvenir shop, can you buy pieces: tufa the price of one?

[@briandonohue3608]

Paul this was great. Thank you.

[@agapologia]

12:00 you might say it is their dog(ma)doody. On that note, my dog is barking to go outside. brb

[@williambranch4283]

Cat woke me up at 4 am, where have you been ;-)

[@dalibofurnell]

39:05 ❤ To God the Father through Jesus Christ , perhaps at a church where community could be found,or at least some connections could occur.. To nature. I agree with JBP when he says truth, and I think that God is good and thoughtful, having already created and provided us with beautiful opportunities to get in touch with truth. With this I pray that there is an encounter with love . The love of God. I suppose I could add , to go towards the light, the good.. there is a way, hope is not lost, so perhaps also to go to life and decide to choose it or at least go look , seek, find , grow gratitude for the guide inside .. ❤Go to God , The One who sent His son, Jesus. ‭‭God , the name above all names. Perhaps what comes to the mind here, is something like "easier said than done", but then I suggest to take that thought and consider it as something that has truth in it, and so then grant yourself the grace to try and seek that truth , and if possible with a little trust in the process of endeavoring to pursue that truth and , because if not now, then when? How about an adventure ❤ You are blessed to be a blessing ❤ Zephaniah‬ ‭3:17‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ [17] The Lord your God in your midst, The Mighty One, will save; He will rejoice over you with gladness, He will quiet you with His love, He will rejoice over you with singing.” ‭‭II Timothy‬ ‭1:7‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ [7] For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. ‭‭Psalms‬ ‭139:13‭-‬14‬ ‭NKJV‬‬ [13] For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. [14] I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. ❤Shalom Shalom

[@anselman3156]

20:30 "restrict". There's the revealing of the intolerant and persecuting mindset of this atheist. I imagine she could team up with your friend Jacob to approve a law punishing Christians for the "idolatry" of worshipping the Lord Jesus.

[@williambranch4283]

Alas, the violence of the pious is the most damning of all.

[@WhiteStoneName]

7:03 post hoc reason If by reason you mean; conscious, articulable, propositional, conceptions of why you think you’re doing x versus y, then it is indeed post hoc. Rupert Sheldrake talks about this in his book, the science delusion, referencing scientific studies that measure act versus conscious awareness of the act. We act before we think, and then we map the thinking back onto the act and we do this so quickly that we think that the thinking comes before the acting. Again, I would reference Michael Polanyi’s modernist assumptions of knowledge: 1. all knowledge is focal 2. exhaustively explicit versus tacit 3. articulable (all knowledge is information that you can put into words)

[@Zhalfrin]

Thank you for your videos Paul

[@kathleenthompson9566]

Paul, I had trouble following the line of reasoning of the Cosmic Skeptic. And I had trouble following yours in response, for a while. Maybe it’s my lack of sleep. But one thing stood out the whole time, which is something you said at the end. It’s the smug, self-satisfied attitude used to criticize this woman who they don’t know, parsing her article and reading their own worldview into what she does and doesn’t say. AHA talks about duty, meaning, and honor. These criticism videos seem to be made not to convince anyone, but to bolster their sense of self importance. At least that’s how they come across to me. But hey, what do I know? I don’t know them, so I won’t go make a video accusing them of that. Like you, Paul, I’d much rather spend time with AHA any day.

[@vincegremillion1533]

Thinking we are wise, we become fools. There is nothing new, but this and previous generations are hard bit to invent a Godless world. It must be so frustrating for them.

[@verntweld51]

I think it is important to include what the “all things will be added into you” is. The seeking is just framing your worldview to line up with a kingdom with a king and being a subject of it gratefully and hopefully with all your heart though sometimes that takes a while.

[@peachnehi7340]

everyone has a Christ-shaped void especially atheists

[@williambranch4283]

Everyone is a bit inhuman. Are we part angels or part demons?

[@stevenmathews7621]

makes me think of When I had to go to court, I was sitting waiting for my case to be heard, I heard a few cases before me. Before this, I was under the impression that - if you commit crime X, you get penalty Y (Y can vary a little bit) Well, nope - this old guy (maybe ~75) before me plead guilty to (can't remember what it was - something very minor) some crime, and it was his third time commiting this crime. The charge was going to be a fine. He said I'd rather do jail time than pay the fine, I can't afford that The judge ended up letting him off with a reprimand - after commiting the crime 3 times clearly a pointless gesture seems to me the vast majority of reason (outside of actual science or engineering) is there as ex post facto rationale for people's actions See this so many times (including in myself).. people say they believe this or that or do this or that for reason X, but it turns out that reason X was formulated after the action which of course reminds me of the split brain patient experiments where they 'suggest' to the right-brain to do an action (e.g go grab a drink), then they ask the patient why they did the action, and they always have a perfectly reasonable reason for doing the action - which has nothing to do with the 'suggestion'

[@lloydgush]

Worst thing is, I can use reason with a toddler best than them... And they love when I do it to their toddler and it works... they hate to hear that I'm treating their toddler as a dog. "Hey, the analogy works... to some extent..."

[@anselman3156]

I was about to ask what was the definition of "Biblicism" in the book you quoted. I have found an explanation of how the term is generally used, in the Got Questions site "What is a Biblicist? What is Biblicism?" This is both a clarification and a response to the derogatory use of the term.

[@williambranch4283]

If scripture is attendant on your relation to a living God, then you aren't a biblicist. This criticism usually applies to many free church Protestants whose religious practice is so desiccated that misquoting scripture is the whole of it ;-(

[@anselman3156]

@@StevenSmith-1863 Dependence on the Bible, as the inspired, infallible word of God has from the beginning been the Catholic and Orthodox position until the embracing of liberal Protestant attitudes to it by the modernizers in the modern papal and Eastern Orthodox circles. The creeds and fathers were thoroughly Biblical, the Holy Scriptures being their authority. They did not demean the Bible, placing human ideas above it as the modern pseudo traditionalists do.

[@anselman3156]

@@StevenSmith-1863 I know well what the differences are. My only point is to note the tendency of much anti-Protestant rhetoric is an attack on the authority and infallibility of the Holy Scriptures which itself is an attack on what is the true Catholic and Orthodox esteem for the Holy Scriptures. The liberal Protestant sceptical attitude to the Bible is found among the modernist apologists for the current "new catholicism" (to quote von Balthassar) papalist and e orthodox establishments.

[@anselman3156]

@@StevenSmith-1863 I appreciate your contribution. I have only really encountered the "Biblicist" insult in PVK's channel. I wasn't looking for a scrap, just further explaining what I meant to say, and my measure of agreement with you.Don't misunderstand me trough my inadequate communication here. Peace, my friend.

[@polodude19]

Maybe one reason Cain kills Able is to prevent Abel from being a transformational inspiration

[@williambranch4283]

Cain wanted at pat on his head, I think Abel did sacrifice without expecting any reward. See parable of the prodigal son.

[@ddod7236]

I'd never thought of that before....brilliant. Explains why goodness incenses some people.

[@sunrhyze]

@@williambranch4283 I'm too lazy to get up and page through my Bible right now, but something in Isaiah a couple days ago made me think about Cain and Abel. I'm wondering if Cain's sacrifice was unacceptable to God because God could see that Cain was just going through the motions (letter of the law), while Abel's sacrifice was given out of love. We (the readers) can't see into the brothers' hearts, but God could see.

[@falcondark5338]

Almost quit halfway but the second half was very good

[@johnpittman6]

I really enjoyed this video. I can’t help but be struck by the quote Alex said about religion being an invention to deal with the senseless and accidental nature of existence. Yet he appeals to “reason”. Does he really think “reason” comes from a senseless, accidental, random universe? Why even trust reason?? Thanks Paul.

[@LordBlk]

Good stuff.

[@jimluebke3869]

Makes sense. No notes. =) (Not that that matters, much.)

[@allyourbase888]

Thank you. 🙏🏾🇺🇸❤️

[@theyesbeforeno9036]

So the last shall be first, and the first last.

[@ShowMeMoviesInc.]

I think a reasonable creation is not much of a dispute as we think it is. I think the real fight is had with intelligent ends, telos, and final things.

[@williambranch4283]

Final Cause is in G-d's mighty hands.

[@treesurgeon2441]

This is also the issue with objectivists.

[@williambranch4283]

Reason usually means ... agrees with me or I use big words ;-) Even when a youth I found the world to be fascinating and mysterious. The material world was glittery, but not everything was gold. The rational world of mathematics ("rationality" as a word is based on the idea of the ratio of two non-zero/non-negative counting numbers) ... which comes to us thru the competing cults of Pythagoras and Parmenides. But I didn't lack interest in the human world. As Socrates said, the proper study for a man, is mankind.

[@MrTTnTT]

Just responding to the title: Reason doesn't work without a reasonable world. This is not a given and will inevitably be a matter of faith/hope, but it does not presuppose creation, just world.

[@porkpiecap]

"I don't think you need God." This is so casually said! Appalling comment!. Convinced by the proof of Avicenna, Muslims believe that Allah is the only necessary being. This is something that Christians must also find compelling.

[@williambranch4283]

Anselm et al did the same for G-d, they probably learned their reasoning from Avicenna. ;-)

[@kendra9688]

Still here. Great job!

[@mostlynotworking4112]

Dogma Tags

[@punkeasy]

Jordan Peterson says. There is an infinite number of facts. How does he know this?

[@PaulVanderKlay]

"infinite" is hyperbole. There are a sufficient number that human attention is exhausted, and by that I mean all the attention of all the people during their individual lifetimes.

[@williambranch4283]

Too smart for your own good. How do we know what "infinity" is? Georg Cantor went mad trying to explicate this bugbear.

[@williamdavidwallace3904]

Almost everything that we think we know is an article of faith which is why I attach probabilities to almost all propositions. If one holds a YEC or OEC origins position then the fall from moral perfection has caused our reasoning ability to be degraded. If one holds an EC position then an evolved brain, which we inherit from the Apes is highly suspect. Science is a very limited area and often helps us to find truth because science tends to be self-correcting due to it's experimental nature. Science may take quite a long time to correct an error eg General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

[@TK-en2hq]

I started attending an orthodox church because some nice orthodox people visited me in the hospital. Was that reasonable? Probably not. But it worked.

[@mrockley1194]

23:00 .....soooo, how you gonna make them (fulfill their "duty" of sacrificing themselves)....that gets scary. Yeah, it is scary, given the history of what happens when the athiests are in charge.

[@joeyvitamins]

Thank you, Pastor Paul, for making some sense of so many important discussions and debates that Algo brings to This Little Corner

[@Draznock]

There is not enough time in one life to try to reason every choice in life a priori (if possible at all) without taking some assumptions on faith. Call it culture or tradition if the word religion scares you, but unfortunately, many atheist materialists do not want to grapple with this issue and the ones that do devolve into nialism saying all meaning is an illusion created by biology/evolution to propagate the species and that free will does not exist (in which case why not buy into the illusion if it is adaptive and beneficial)

[@vinnyrac]

You're very confused. You're conflating inferential generalizations with faith. We make plausible inferences every day. That requires neither a priori assumption nor faith. All it requires is rational generalization from incomplete facts. (ie inductive rather than deductive reasoning). Atheism and Nihilism are not germane to the argument of reason.

[@Draznock]

@vinnyrac I think you are the one confused. Inferential generalizations still rest on preconceived assumptions picked up from our culture, tradition, faith, etc. Otherwise, what are you making the inference from.

[@vinnyrac]

@@Draznock Can you give an example of an inferential generalization made by "faith"? I think we're talking about different things. When someone makes a claim, for example, Aliens have visited the earth, and I want to judge the reliability of that claim, I ask i) is there trustworthy evidence placing that claim in doubt and ii) is there a body of evidence from disparate fields implying that the claim is true? The answer to i is yes, there exists evidence to place that claim in doubt and the answer to ii is no, evidence from Astrophysics and Astronomy indicate that probability aliens visiting the earth, given the vast distances, is low. Therefore, I can infer that the claim is false or the claimant is mistaken. This has nothing do with culture, tradition or faith. It has to do with methodology for parsing claims.

[@Draznock]

@vinnyrac If you read my original comment, you will see I reference a choice, not a claim like you are talking about. This is where I think the confusion is coming from. A choice depends on a subjective value judgment. For example, when deciding what to do this weekend, should I visit my parents, go to a party with friends, or spend extra time on a project for work. Reason or inferential assumptions could be used to justify any of these choices, but what I choose will come down to what I value more (family, friends, fun, career, etc.) and this value is shaped by my culture, faith, tradition, how I was raised, etc. A fact claim like if aliens have visited is, of course, a different thing altogether as there is no subjective value judgment.

[@vinnyrac]

Fair enough. The video is about reason, so when I read your comment I assumed (mistakenly) that you were talking about pure reasoning and not reason used in decision making. I think your use of the word "faith" threw me off. Deciding to believe a claim or not is entirely different from deciding what to do with one's free time. The former requires some methodology while the latter depends upon a myriad of other considerations, all of them personal and experiential. There is no "lie" or "falsehood" to be fleshed out when deciding what to do with one's weekend. On that we agree!

[@chadnine3432]

People unsatisfied with pure materialist rationality keep searching for meaning. 🤔

[@cashkideven]

Reason is not infallible, not all powerful. It is however, the best tool man has for navigating life and reality. With man's life as standard, and his own happiness as goal and purpose, Reason is his best tool

[@virgilcrowe7795]

You know that’s just a blind assumption with zero empirical evidence right?

[@cashkideven]

@@virgilcrowe7795 which part?

[@virgilcrowe7795]

All of the second paragraph. There is no proof that individual subjective “happiness” is the product of reason and I can point out an almost infinite number of exceptions. If by reason you include the appeal to science and materialism that is implicit in the context of the atheist position in the video happiness is the product of deterministic chemistry and physics that completely rules out free will and human agency. If free will and the experience of consciousness are illusions created by nature so is reason

[@cashkideven]

@@virgilcrowe7795 let's unpack this "With man's life as standard" - We recognise that man is man, and as plants need water and sunlight therefore man has specific 'empirical' needs, according to his nature. 'His own happiness as goal'- a plant seeks to grow, a lion to hunt, these action further their lives and happiness. Just as soda won't make plants grow, not everything man can do(and mostly does) is good for him, there are specific 'empirical' actions he must take to survive and thrive. "..Reason is his best tool" - To know the specific actions he must take to survive and thrive, reason is his best tool for dealing with reality. It is through reason we know to cook before we eat, and that electricity can be used to cook a man's meal, let a man try to live without the responsibility of rational thought and action, his death is assured. Now which part of this is just an assumption without empirical proof?

[@anselman3156]

30:55 It is strange that she should think of Queen as "maybe the only human being who nearly achieved" living up to the high standard of Christianity. That displays an ignorance of the great company of holy men and women throughout two thousand years of Christianity, most of lower status and less privileged background. It seems to me that she is still speaking to appeal to a particular kind of political establishment.

[@williambranch4283]

The faults of rulers are crimson.

[@anselman3156]

@@williambranch4283 As in Lady MacBeth's hands?

[@williambranch4283]

@@anselman3156 To be a murderer is bad enough, but to be the authority behind the murder of many others ... how weighty is the stone around their neck ;-)) As a descendent of King Malcolm Canmore ... I must pause to consider my duty and responsibility ...

[@anselman3156]

@@williambranch4283 Nice to meet you, son of Canmore. I seem to be related to the ancient kings of Scotland on my mother'side. Wha's like us?

[@williambranch4283]

@@anselman3156 Mathematically, it isn't if, but how far back is our most recent shared ancestor. If some Scottish women hadn't gotten up to hanky panky with King James V, King James IV and The Black Knight of Lorn, I would have nary a drop of royal blood, just good honest husbandmen ;-))

[@bionicmosquito2296]

“She’s trying to drink herself to death and you want her to fill out a form!” Funny line. Sad that “reasonable” atheists think this way. True that this is what they wish. Pathetic that they don’t see it. PVK, I understand not wanting to step into conflict. But we all have something we live for, would kill for, and would die for. Otherwise, what's the point of any of this.

[@chrisintoronto7137]

Thanks.

[@resilientrecoveryministries]

00:21 There's nothing like the real thing, nothing like Church.

[@GroundZero_US]

Atheism is in crisis mode. Amen.

[@gregorytoews8316]

32:30 Alex, by what standard do we as material phenomena judge the world to be a confusing and senseless place? Doesn't the material universe play out the only way it can? Why are most of us (atheists and believers alike) unsatisfied with such explanations? Eating pie, on a quilt, in Steinbach.

[@bionicmosquito2296]

This idea of reason without God. We are living in this world. It is the world where the strongman’s reason wins because the strongman has bigger guns than you do. Without someone or something higher to appeal to - something above and outside of man’s creation and control - the strongman always wins. It is, in fact, quite reasonable that he does so.

[@gravytopic]

Do you believe that a jury deciding a defendant's fate should ever use any decisional method other than reason to determine whether he is guilty? I understand your talk here as one that is not primarily propositional. So "x and y are problems with reason" is more like a sigh or a chuckle (but far more like sigh) than a descriptive statement. Carry on!

[@benjaminfranklin7263]

I am still working on a comment for the previous video. I had to do some research on Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, who I found out (not surprisingly in retrospect) was a Protestant Christian. My impression is that she was responsible for a lot of Jesus smuggling into the milieu. --- I think I'm fully colonized now about Hirsi Ali's Christianity. I guess I didn't fully appreciate that people come to Christianity via. different paths. Some people have pragmatic pursuits, and I suppose that's not so bad. I guess it's impossible to be fully un-pragmatic. Even the pragmatic quest for the truth may have an element of pragmatism embedded within it. But, it's recursively pragmatic. The object of the quest for truth is the discovery of the truth, but the truth amounts to what? When that latter question is asked you are in the framework of a different kind of pragmatism that is necessarily technological. I suppose it has to do with the difference between "basic science" and what we think of nowadays as science, which most people think is connected to technology. My pov is that basic science may be a religious concept or atleast a pseudo-religious concept. Imagine trying to discover something without any other pragmatic aim than the discovery of the truth. A quest to unravel mysteries for no other reason than to unravel mysteries. There is something nihilistic about it, certainly, but there are unintentional pragmatic outcomes that sprout out. If you de-clothe the glorified abstractions and identities you suddenly begin to see some kind of connected-ness. Maybe this is something that is missing from the world nowadays because people are too technological. I spoke a little bit in an earlier comment about how Peterson is a transhumanist without knowing it. He replaces the soma or the anti-depressants or the CRISPR modification with self-help, but it's still in the realm of technology if you de-clothe the seperated-ness between these identities. They all serve the same function of serving human function - a technological result. But, because people are too far into pragmatism, and not far enough into the relatively unpragmatic (or recursive/nihilistically pragmatic) quest for the truth, the machine of the individual and the machine of civilization has become a headless machine. It truely knows not what it is doing. The machine is in fact nihilistically pursuing, just like the nihilistic pursuer of the truth, but its nihilistic pursuit is outside of its consciousness. It doesn't know why it's doing what its doing and and doesn't even care to ask. Who needs the thinkie-talkie, let's do. Given this condition of the machine, it's easy to forgive a statement like "Give em hell [my team captain]". If the nation or a civilization is a technology or a home, what is the foreign nation? Ofcourse it's a neighbor. The "em" is our neighbor. Does Jesus tell us to give our neighbor hell? Notice that each side can say the same thing, "Give [my neighbor] hell [my team captain]". It's a mirror. An infinite recursion of conflict. Competing headless machines pragmatically questing for violence. These violent delights... All identities are framed by mutual antagonisms. The partial informant of a certain kind of individual antagonism may be scarcity in material resources. Herbivores seem to peacefully co-exist in massive herds, whereas carnivorous creatures seem to reside within smaller competitive groups, like competing lion prides, or they are completely individualist survivors, like the leopard. Notice that the pride may ultimately be a civilizational technology. I don't think the DNA necessarily informs the lion to reside within the pride and the leopard to reside individually. Maybe this difference in behavior between the carnivore and the herbivore may be caused by relative abundance of vegetation vs. meaty neighbors? I don't know. --- On the subject of dogmatism. I think you are absolutely right that the atheists are dogmatic. Dogmatism is inevitable. I'm also dogmatic. But, maybe it's important to notice that your observation is maybe a "rational" observation (whatever that means), and to the extent that you have successfully colonized me and others, maybe you have done so via the means of rationality? I don't know. I think there is some kind of shared ground that must exist for colonialism to occur. Maybe the shared ground is something like the truth or patterns in reality. If one abandons that shared ground of the patterns, and one is only living in the nice pragmatic narrative structures that one has built up in imagination, I don't see how colonialism is possible. I don't deny that we need faith leaps, but we are all leaping from certain ground. And if the ground is too far away, the leap begins to become harder and harder, if not edge entirely edge into the category of deception or self-deception. I agree with Elisabeth Kübler-Ross on a lot of leaps she makes, but I can't agree with her on a certain leap (spoiler for my other comment). I've found it worthwhile to occasionally retreat to the individual, if only momentarily, in order to re-ground and re-discover all of the faith leaps we implicitly do. The faith leap is also a kind of technology that allows other technologies like the pride or the various narrative identities like national identity, money etc. possible. Maybe we need to do this process of retreating and re-discovery in order to constantly give a head to the pragmatic machine. --- I really enjoy parasitically sucking your unreasonable propaganda videos, and if you are reading this comment, I hope you enjoy parasitically sucking from my unreasonable propaganda comments too. Let's parasite eachother. :) I guess that's sometimes called symbiosis. Remember even our individual body is in a state of symbiosis between competing agents which are outside of our consciousness. The headless machine perfectly instrumentalizes the heart or the gut bacteria. The nation state is certainly a symbiotic machine. But, what about the Chinese or the Vietnamese labor whose labor we also suck? And they suck our consumption, they need our consumption, they desire to sell their product, they consume our consumption. Similarly, if they consume and attend to our Hollywood propaganda, they are consuming, but we are also consuming their consumption and attention. There is already a kind of symbiosis between the neighbors, but maybe it's outside of the attention of the headless war machine.

[@Andre_Louis_Moreau]

Is the main issue with her critics, their misunderstanding of "religion"? In that her critics imagine they aren't 'religious'? Tom Holland correctly points out our current colloquial understanding of the word 'religion', is a historically recent Protestant idea. Imo, IF they're 'reason' led them to accurate assessments, accurate conclusions, they might see themselves more accurately as an unacknowledged denomination of Protestantism? I started studying authoritarian thought reform tactics as 'atheism plus' came along. After gaining an understanding of it, I began to disagree, and not play well with atheists like these... and Christians started comparing me to this guy Tom Holland, I'd never heard of. And when Jordan Peterson came along, he made sense, and was congruent with my understanding of psychology, which was limited to cognitive dissonance theory. What cognitive dissonance theory revealed to me, (it's a bit different than what most think it is) our mind is wired to accept 'homogeneous moral frameworks'.

[@michaelkistner6286]

Truth: that which orients us appropriately to reality. Ali's 'conversion' then seems to be a recognition that Christianity (hopefully) will allow her to engage reality in a life affirming way. So is she wrong to believe? Has she failed her epistemic duty? How will she manage the cognitive dissonance generated by her internalized world views? I have no idea. She might benefit from a deep dive into John Vervaeke's work.

[@tgrogan6049]

The current cosmological picture doesn't seem that "reasonable" to me. Mass extinctions for example.

[@gentlemanbronco3246]

The woman with Konstantin sounded funny to me. It was funny because she was trying to keep God out while smuggling Him in without realizing it. We need something bigger than us in order to unite us? Something that could give us a sense of duty to unite under? She cant come to believe something she perceives as literally not true but sure loves clinging on to the good things that those untrue things believed to be true. Ancient religions are back. Paganism is out in the open and ironically, it was atheists like her that paved the way for it.

[@joelmontero9439]

This video is just so on point. As an ex- atheist, who got converted by finding Jordan Peterson, William Lane Craig and Bishop Barron, I just can not express how good this video is

[@Fool0f4Took]

40:33: "A hippy's wet dream"? Oy vey. Just what is JBP superimposing over Saint Francis (and so many others throughout history) with that cocksure dismissal? Does "turn the other cheek" and "love your enemies" also need to be saved from being turned into hippy hogwash? In Lewis' analogy of nearness by proximity and nearness by approach, I sometimes feel the skeptics are making more forward progress, even if they're plainly wandering through a darker wood.

[@williambranch4283]

The end of skepticism is nihilism. Reason will help you throw out the bathwater, just be careful with your baby (brainchild).

[@Fool0f4Took]

Although I'd quibble that skepticism doesn't need to end in nihilism any more than faith needs to end in fundamentalism, it's a solid cautionary point-and that bathwater analogy is top notch!

[@RobotProctor]

I enjoyed a past video of yours, and thought I'd try another. The beginning was off putting bc of the sheer number of strawman ideas. Would you consider talking to Alex O'Connor about the pitfalls of atheism? I suspect you'd give your listeners a better idea of what an atheist actually thinks.

[@PaulVanderKlay]

I'd talk to Alex. I doubt he has time to talk to me. Status and all...

[@WGPower_Nonchalant_Cafe]

Can I give this video 121 thumbs up?

[@lynnlavoy6778]

Okay boomer! 😂. I love Alex, how many gen z'ers are at the big boy table? I don't understand all these argument stuff but I do recognize cojones when I see them & Alex has them! Debating all these old folks including Ben Shapro. Go Alex!

[@sunrhyze]

Hmm. I'm wondering if Alex is older than he looks, and Shapiro is only 39 or 40. Anyway, my favorite Gen-Z kid right now is Redeemed Zoomer. If anyone had told me, a few years ago, that I would enjoy watching someone play Minecraft while talking about Christianity, I would have asked them what they were smoking.

[@lynnlavoy6778]

@sunrhyze just finished watching VerVeke & Alex convo what a interesting interaction. I don't play video games, they discuss video game addiction.

[@yosefrazin6455]

15:06 is a weak point. Ive seen reason work both in academic and religious contexts- what you are describing is observing reason in unhealthy, zero-sum style debates and not what we call "debate for the sake of heaven" (or even for that matter peer review)- vervaeke's series ln jazz and democracy has been exploring this in great ways

[@williambranch4283]

I have never seen anyone, except an actual logician, use reason properly. Logic is overrated. And argument without logic is verbal fisticuffs.

[@yosefrazin6455]

@@williambranch4283 this is why we value talmudic argument so much- how it trains you to think especially re:logic but also trains you how to have healthy arguments

[@williambranch4283]

@@yosefrazin6455 But the 4 levels of PaRDeS are just pre-Derrida. Is Sod rational ;-) I give credit to the rabbis for good argumentation. But to what end?

[@yosefrazin6455]

@@williambranch4283 the sod of peshat and and sod of remez are quite rational

[@nancyc9169]

Thank you, Paul, for all your do!

[@yosefrazin6455]

But would you say any sphere (emotion, embodiment, religion) isnt contextual and limited in some way?

[@williambranch4283]

Humanity is limited. Human grasp is limited. Can we even speak of higher things?

[@yosefrazin6455]

@@williambranch4283 for better or worse we are called to, whether we can or not. Perhaps apophaticism is the way

[@williambranch4283]

@@yosefrazin6455 "apophaticism" negative theology, seems playing with fire. Don't try this at home, kids! G-d isn't worth having a relationship with, if we reduce G-d to a cipher.

[@williamdavidwallace3904]

Paul essentially says that there is no reason to believe that reason works in this world for somebody who holds an evolutionary view of biological origins. Christians posit no antecedent for God, God as revealed in scripture just is. Someone who is an atheist can posit an initial state of the universe that just is and has no causal antecedent. By initial state one means the various constants and initial conditions that rule our universe. Possibly other universes existed but either failed or reached heat death, who knows.

[@lordmaddog6003]

Agreed. Corner sounds so smug and proudfull in his attack on her it hurts. It frankly sounds quite fake and contrived. While she seem so true and vulnerable. She is some one you can talk to while he is someone you can only argue with. I also now understand why God has never revield himself to Corner even though he has claimed to seek God. Jesus is looking for those who have come to the end of themselves those with broken contrite sprits. Saldy Corner is truely the exact opposite of that at his core. I pray one day God brakes him so he can see past his own ego and reason to see the truth.

[@williambranch4283]

We don't seek G-d. G-d seeks us and we run away in shame. See Genesis. Also Moses had to flee Egypt and live 40 years in the desert of Midian, before G-d would bother with him ;-)

[@ChadTheAlcoholic]

5:00 😅😂

[@williambranch4283]

Duty, duty, duty - Clark Gable?

[@cinhofilms]

God wants us to learn to be reasonable in a bio-logical way as bio-logical stewards of the ecosystem; when we are bio-logical we flourish through a respect of each other's bio-logical responsibility to learn to bio-logically steward. We are called to bio-logically repent and have that repentance bio-logically mediated by Jesus Christ before the Father as the basis for Jesus Christ to ask the Father to send the Spirit to prompt the particular bio-logical politics of the victorious Kingdom of Jesus Christ.

[@TheIndependenceThinker]

Doodie is a real problem.

[@treesurgeon2441]

Especially in San Francisco.

[@tgrogan6049]

Ever heard of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy folks? Based on clear thinking and very very effective. Try it before you fall for the nostrums of gurus like JP and PV.