I think we're live. Facebook changed the interface for Facebook Live once again, if you can believe it. So they change it like every month. It's nutty. I think they want to make sure nobody knows how to use their product. Anyway, welcome to the live stream of the Faith Debate. We're going to do a series of shows that will be airing over the course of the next month or so on 930 WFMD on the radio. So if you're watching this, then you get a sneak preview, a sneak peek at what we're going to be doing on the show. And Joy, we won't be able to interact with you a whole lot because we're busy doing the radio stuff. But if you have any comments, I'll try to check them later, maybe in between shows. I'll see if I can figure out how to do that. Don't hold me to that, though. All right, you guys ready? Yeah. Welcome to the Faith Debate on 930 WFMD. Thanks so much for tuning in and making us part of your Sunday morning. You can find us online at WFMD.com. And if you want to follow along to the sorts of things that we talk about and do outside of this show, the easiest way to do that is to connect through social media or if you want to email me or even text me or whatever, find all that information at HouseholdOfFaithInChrist.com. I'm Troy Skinner, and if you've been listening the last number of weeks and you know who's with me, we've got Imran Razvi. His friends call him Raz, so most people here call him Imran. And Daniel Razvi is here as well. And David Forsey, all four of us are pastors of house churches in the area. We've got the house church that meets at the Razvi's house or Edwin Ron's house or whatever you guys call that. And then David's is the church at David's house. And mine actually has a name, Household of Faith in Christ, which is why I sent you to the HouseholdofFaithinChrist.com website. Since we are a newly assembled group of pastors talking about this sort of, you know, theological things in the Bible, whatever, we spent some time getting to know each other in recent episodes and started talking about what it is to have a house church and what people can expect and that sort of thing. I thought it'd be good for people, one, for us to get to know each other better. And also for the audience to get to know where we're coming from on some things and just back up the history needle a little bit. Go back in time, not back to like, you know, the third century or something like that, but go back a handful of years to deal with the kinds of things that are still impacting our life today and people are still talking about and wondering about. It'll help them know where we're coming from. if they're right-minded good Americans who agree with us and if they're you know commies and they're gonna disagree with that's okay, so So I just showed my hand on that So I've got a list as you can see a long list of If you're on Facebook, we're live streaming this on Facebook, so there you go. Jordan's got like 18 pages of fine print. Yes, I know. I've got to get out my magnifying glass to read this. But we're going to start going back, I don't know, five, six, seven years ago when there began to be the rise of a spirit of populism in the Western World we saw this. I the first time I took notice of it was with Bernie Sanders on the Democrat side and Then we saw it playing out with what was going on in Europe particularly with England the UK wanting to break away from the European Union a populist uprising there that caused the whole brexit thing and and then the whole Trump phenomenon. I think that it's interesting, different ideological viewpoints there, different political commitments, and yet they have in common a populist uprising. I don't know if you guys noticed that same thing, if so, or if you disagree. Before we go any further, can someone define populism for me? Are you all asking me to do that? Absolutely. We talked about that before. Define the terms we're going to be using. Well, I'm meaning by that it's an uprising of the will of the people. So it's the people trying to take back control from the institutions that have dominated their life, that sort of thing. So anarchy? No. Pure democracy? Not necessarily. So I guess we do have to try to define our terms here. The definition that you just posited that kind of describes all the communist revolutions such as the Bolsheviks and everything else. It would also describe the American Revolution. Right. So basically people that are not happy with the status quo. So that's not really a new thing then. I'm wondering if populism is a really broad term or how narrow should we make it? The fact that it got traction. Bernie Sanders, there are those who still think he beat Hillary the first time and that he had it stolen from him by a bunch of shenanigans behind the scenes from the DNC who didn't want Bernie Sanders, they wanted Hillary back in, I guess, 2016. so he has a lot of he's faded now because he's getting older and people realize he's not the future of the movement kind of thing, but I mean Bernie almost won the nomination so populism like Brexit did win like from the grassroots Yeah, it's a grassroots uprising the people The way I said it was the people try to impose their will. That's really what America is about, is the people voting in and limiting, but things change. I would go back as far as Obama. I think Obama was really underqualified to be president. He didn't even show up for most of the voting. He voted present when he was there. uh... is a record show yet he became president with really no qualification whatsoever and he got reelected and people voted for him just because he was black and uh... even uh... at that time biden what do you say about uh... obama good-looking articulate uh... black man and so it may be easy it's something that i think i'm clean yet clean exactly so i think that's when it really kind of started where people were not really voting on trying to maintain what this country was about, but to change it, to dramatically change what this country is. And I think it started there, and it continues to this day. Maybe it would help if I were to clarify, again, the way my mind thinks about this is what it's the antithesis of. So they're reacting against a statist ideology. So it's a reaction against the power of the institution, the state. The deep state, that's where the whole deep state thing kind of comes in. We want to drain the swamp, get rid of the deep state, and replace it with the will of the people. And again, as Imran said, that's kind of what America was based upon. It's Abraham Lincoln, a government of the people, by the people, for the people. That's a populist idea. So it's interesting that you lump Bernie Sanders in that, because he advocates for a communist Agenda, which is that everything is run by the government not by the people. Well, yes to get there, right? That's I mean I disagree with your ideology but that's the point of their argument is you have to travel through the dictatorship and the socialism and the overbearing government system so that on the back end of that you can have kumbaya and everybody's living communally and the people are doing what they want to do and you know, they never seem to get there and So populism isn't necessarily an ideology as much as it is a, I don't know, a way of the people moving towards what they desire? I always thought populism, or I've been hearing populism linked with nationalism, the idea that it's more about us as our own country, our own, whether it's an ethnicity or whether it's a culture or whether it's just a nation, but it's us versus them, as in them being people outside the country, not the whole world as one. And so when I hear the term populism in recent years, most often it's in the same sentence as nationalism. That's the way it tends to play out or be characterized, anyway, from the conservative point of view. But as you rightfully mentioned, I mean, Karl Marx was a populist, right? The proletariat's going to throw out the bourgeoisie. And so the proletariat's the populace, and they have control kind of thing. But to clarify for those who don't pay attention to these things in their everyday musings, In an ideal situation, if there were no such thing as human sin, then the Marxist ideal could actually happen. The problem is there is such a thing as human sin. We all are bedeviled by it. And so we can't get there. And so he ends up feeling like, which your instinct was, David, like it was an anarchy. It can kind of feel like anarchy. And so to keep the anarchy from happening, the Marxists are like, you know, we got to keep the lid clamped down pretty tight on this until we get there. And so it always ends up, I think historically, it's always ended up being a dictatorial rule. And then they try to pass it off as, yeah, but it's OK because it's your dictator. He's going to be a benevolent dictator. He's on your side. He's the popular. So Bernie Sanders is a good example in America, as we all know who Bernie is. So the idea, I think, for those who supported Bernie is Bernie's going to come in, and he's going to have a lot of of restrictions on how things are done and the government's going to have a lot of control and tell us how, because we need to, because we have to break down the systems that we don't like that are. And so he's got to have a lot of control to do that. Isn't it fascinating how the most, I don't know, throughout history probably one of the most efficient sort of ways to grasp power is to take on the mantle of a messiah figure of sorts? you know, a savior, you know, someone with the right ideas, right abilities. Yeah, an antichrist perhaps. A beast in a whore of Babylon thrown in for good measure? I just mean, you know, like there's a longing in all of humanity for for someone to come along, because I can't do it, I can't accomplish it, I'm not in a position to do it, for someone to come along and make things right, make things the way that they should be. I think that's almost some part of our nature, is feeling oppressed. Even children that are very privileged in nice homes with lots of money, they still rebel against the authorities and their parents and want things that they shouldn't want. and that somebody else has. They can have everything else, but if they don't have this one thing, then they want that. I mean, we've had people, I've had friends, say, give a list to, got a list from their children, saying, if I had this and this and this and this, then everything would be good. And they laughed at it and said, no, I'm not getting that. But that's kind of who we are as people. And when you look at a large group, as nations, I think it plays out the same way. And it's not just a large group of nations, because I think that's, in my mind, that's where the divide happens between the left and the right. And I mean political left and right, not necessarily theological left and right. What was the word? Nationalism, that's the word. Daniel mentioned how, you know, he thinks populism, he thinks nationalism. Well, that's kind of how it plays out, at least in American politics, that's how it plays out from the right. It's about America defending our borders, defending our national sovereignty, that sort of thing. But from the left, the Bernie Sanders point of view, it's about globalism. And so it's one nation on the whole earth kind of a thing. And so there's where the political divide happens. And that's why the populists are fighting, because he's like, they're all populists. Why aren't they getting along? But they're not. And the MADDA movement, the Make America Great Again idea, is so offensive to a globalist. It's like, no, no, you're taking us backwards. We want to go forward to a one world order. And you're trying to take us back to national boundaries and stuff, which has led to all these horrible world wars. Is there something more biblical about nationalism or more biblical about globalism? Think that I'm gonna fall back to what I said before I see what you guys think I think in a perfect world globalism is the answer, but we won't have a perfect world until Christ returns. And at that point it will be global. And then it will be global. But in the meantime, I think there are strong biblical arguments in support of national sovereignty, national borders, people groups making their own rules for their own selves. I mean, God chose the nation of Israel. He didn't choose the whole world at once. I mean, Jesus came and died for the sins of the world, but originally God took Israel and made Israel a nation. And it was a nation. It wasn't, oh, you're running things all over the world, you're going to take over Canaan, you're going to be the nation there, and I'll be the head of the nation. So it was in God's design there to show the contrast between people that are following God and people that are not, to set them apart, to show what it is to be a godly people. And what you said, Troy, that eventually that's going to be a global scale. Now, did you ask rhetorically, or did you have a thought that you wanted to answer your own question? Oh, not usually. Yeah, I mean, I think you could make a, I think you could, I think you could probably make an argument either way. I think certainly, right, Christ returns, and there is one king of all the nations. And at that point, there's even no longer you know, a nuclear family, like, you know, we're no longer, you know, married or given in marriage, right, if you will. Like, we're like the angels in that sort of sense. And so, yeah, so I think, yeah, I think I'm with you on, you know, what is the, what would the perfect world be? I would think really, biblically, we're supposed to be separate nations. Look at the Tower of Babel. We were one world, one nation, one tongue, and God separated and he made them into different nations, different peoples, different tongues for that purpose. So biblically, if you want to follow that, we are supposed to have nations and separation and not be one world until God comes back. Yeah, I mean, my thought on Babel is that it sort of is a way of crippling mankind for his own good. As we look through, when God brings the flood in order to put a restart on humanity, I think Babel is humanity just going down that same road all over again. And God saying, OK, I'm going to prevent this from happening again. Put the brakes on. Yeah, until a later date of my choosing. you know, when I will, you know, again, bring back people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation and, you know, and of my doing, everyone comes together and... Right. So exactly, that's why the argument is there that there should be separation and nations until God comes back and brings it all together. So biblically, We are supposed to be separate nations, we're supposed to have that separation, and even throughout all the history in the Bible and the Old Testament, God has a very clear delineation of where the boundaries are, where the different peoples are, where the different nations are. Even when Israel was inside of Egypt, they were separate, they kept separate in Goshen. They did not mix with the other Egyptians, so it's been separate the whole time. And there's a passage in, I believe, Deuteronomy that talks about when God made the nations and he separated and he actually gave charge of physical locations on earth to each of the different spiritual entities, many of which are evil, and he kept out Israel for himself. He said the sons of God he appointed for each of their portions and he had Jacob for his portion so all those other nations have a Demon basically that's running that country, but they are all separate geographic locations, so I think geography is actually very important to God And in some way it plays a part in his overall So I don't know if this is oversimplifying it, but I wonder if, okay, on one hand we've got this group of communist populists, right, the populists pursuing a communist ideal, and then you've got the nationalist populists who are pursuing some sort of a sovereignty ideal, a national sovereignty ideal. And they are, to tell the war, they're pulling in opposite directions, right? They're populist, but they're hoping to go in different directions on the river, right? Well, one is to break down the nation, the other is to build up the nation. And if you're breaking down the nation, you're just basically building one giant nation, right? If you're a globalist. But if you're a nationalist, you could be like, you know, name drop Hitler here. Hitler supposedly is a nationalist, but also a socialist, and so he wanted to take over the world and expand the borders of Germany, but it would all be one Germany. ideologies have when you start talking about populism as, okay, here, this is the will of the people, the will of the people. Well, the people are not homogenous. They don't all believe the same thing about everything. Everybody has their own views and opinions colored by their environment and what experiences they've had and what teaching they've had and so on, and their own personalities. So, not everybody is going to agree on everything. So, if the people want X, there will still be people who want Y and some other people who want Z. And that's the difference with any sort of ideology or government or politics that says, look, we're going to do what the people want. what the people want, well, there's always going to be people left out. And I think that's where our founders in America had an interesting idea of we need to have not a true, full, pure democracy, but a representative democracy such that the minority is also heard. Even if we're not going to do what the minority wants all the time, but the minority is heard and has a chance to have their rights not trampled on. And so we don't all have the same opinion, and I think that's something the Founding Fathers recognized. Most other cultures and forms of government, other than the original founding of the United States, most other forms of government are all about one person deciding what most people want or what he wants for everybody. I thought you were going to say something to David. No? I want to make it, we have a few minutes left on this episode. We spent more time on this particular topic because we need to clarify our terms than I anticipated, but I think it's all good. It lays a pretty good foundation for us. It's not that populism is necessarily good or bad, but I will say that populism is always dangerous. I don't know if you guys would agree with me. So from my point of view, the populist ideal of the communists is incredibly dangerous because you end up with this authoritarian, usually it's an oligarchy, it's not usually a single individual. In today's context, I don't think it would be. It'd be some sort of an oligarchy. So you've got a very small group of people, and they're all going to be sinful, because we're all sinners. And they're going to be power-hungry and money-hungry and sex-crazed and all these other things that people are bedeviled by when they get in positions of power like that. And they're going to make life miserable on so many people. So that's really dangerous, just ideologically, politically dangerous. But even on the nationalist side, which is where I would tend if I had to choose a side, I'd be choosing that side. But you, David, early on, you were trying to clarify the term. So is this democracy? Is this anarchy? Well, pure democracy is nothing but mob rule. Right. And so the populist rises up and says majority rule because we the people say so. Well, that majority are also a bunch of sinners, too. So if you have five sinners or five million sinners, you've got a bunch of sinners making decisions. Populism can be very dangerous as why the rule of law and the written word becomes so important, you know, which we don't have those things in place anymore. We're functioning kind of We've got our tail hanging out of the wind right now on that front these days. It's interesting. I feel like we're saying that in the current world that we live in, that's broken by sin, that it is good to have a variety of things that slow people down and limit limit power, whether it's of an individual or of a nation, of a group, or anything like that. Yeah, I think we all probably agree on that point. So next week, I'm thinking we can shift into what the threat of the one meant to the other. So the progressives in this country had a whole bunch of momentum, and they thought for sure they were going to have the third term of the Obama administration with Hillary in office. and she loses to Make America Great Again and all of what that ended up meaning and how that's still causing problems for us. Populism in this situation really is the majority. I think it is what they're told to think, and that's why the progressives really felt that they had told enough people to think this way and that they would show up. But there was enough of the majority of Americans that still were conservative and still had the thoughts back into a national hey, we are America, that's who we are, that they came out and voted and weren't as quiet. But usually what's happened, I think the term that you really would use for populism is whoever is the loudest and pushing their agenda. And that's what's been happening with the riots and the protests. It's not so much that that's the majority of the people, it's the ones who are the loudest and doing the most speaking or changing. Yeah. So with that said, you've heard us mention how everybody's a sinner. You heard us mention the name of Jesus Christ. Let me just say that if you're not sure that you agree, I can assure you, you're a sinner and you have a sin problem. And I got to ask you, what do you do with your guilt? You know, if you don't think you're a sinner, then you're like the only one in the world who's not one. You know, I mean, come on, be honest. Whatever your own standards are, you don't live up to those, right? You've got a sin problem. You've got a guilt problem. What do you do with your guilt? And Jesus Christ who tells us his kingdom is not of this world, and he will come again to rule and establish a perfect one world order, one world government, if you will. He's coming again, and you're going to be ready for that So if you'd like to know more about what all of that means what the good news of the gospel is how Jesus is the solution to your sin problem Reach out to me Easiest way is just connect through the website for my church household of faith in christ.com And if you'd rather not talk to me rather talk to one of these other guys I can put you in touch with them and you can you can talk to them that way as well. So until next week, oh, I gotta plug the radio station too, right? You're listening to The Faith Debate on 930 WFMD. The Razzies, Imran and Daniel, and Mr. Forsey, David, and me, Troy Skinner, it's been our pleasure to talk with you this past half hour or so on NewsRadio 930 WFMD. Until next week, about 167 and a half hours from right now, God bless. All right. That was good. I wasn't expecting us to need to clarify the terms, but I'm glad we did because... Because it's still not very clear. Because we're still muddy. Yeah, because we're still muddy on it. Well, I think the news articles talk about a lot of these movements as if they're a brand new thing. Brexit is a brand new idea. Bernie Sanders has a will of the people. That's never talked about before. Trump is America, and we never had those ideas before. I think they're nothing new, so it's just repackaging something that's been in existence. I think there's something about that in Ecclesiastes. Yeah, nothing new on this side. All right, does anybody need to do a pit stop or anything? And by the way, we're not recording for the show, but we are still on Facebook Live, so just a quick reminder in case you were going to say something crazy. Careful, careful. Facebook Live probably should be here so they can see everybody's faces. Otherwise, you block off. OK, I can try moving it. Yeah, we can try that. Let me get this set up for the next recording session, and then we'll see if we can move it over there and see if that'll work better. All right, make sure that's all set correctly. Next one. This is a Facebook live microphone. Is that what that is? It is. It's a remote microphone. Remote microphone for the phone. Yeah, because the phone's so far away from everybody, I felt like that's more central to pick up the voices a little bit better anyway. It's what we use on Saturdays for our worship service. Made sure it's fully charged. They run out of batteries when you were there? Yeah, unfortunately. Maybe. Yeah. It's the first time it's happened. It's because I preach too long. No, it's the first time it's happened. I'm always good about checking and for some reason I didn't check. Do you tend to keep going and going and going like some preachers do? I don't do all the talking. It's a little bit more conversational. More of a lead conversation. Okay, so... The show we just did is going to air this coming Sunday on the 21st, and this next one is going to air on the 28th, which I guess is the Sunday of Thanksgiving weekend, correct? Yep. All right, so let me make sure I got this done. All right, let's try moving this, as was suggested, and see if that will be better. And we have some people watching, so I'll try to give a shout out here in a minute after I make sure I don't crash my phone. All right, let's see. Back that up and see if that's, is that going to, I don't have a way of. That's good. That should get most people. No, just like that. I'm sort of on the edge. You know what? We'll change it around. So this time, it'll be mostly you guys. We can get a mirror, and then I could be in the mirror in the background. I'll stay behind the scissors. So it looks like Bonnie, hey. I'm not sure who else. Bonnie, Phyllis, Ted. I'm not sure how many of you are still watching. At least two of you dropped out. I don't know which one's left, because it's telling me one is on right now. I think we had maybe up to three while we were actually doing the show. That's a horrible angle. Let me see if I can get that to tilt down more. All right. There we go. That's better. Yeah, it gets three of us in. All right. I'm the disembodied voice. I like the voice of God. Oz. Wizard of Oz. Pay no attention to the man behind the microphone. All right. To change things up, let's do a quick sharing of what the good news is at the top. Okay. So, what do you want to take the reins on doing that? I can do that. All right. Welcome to the faith debate on 930 WFMD news radio 930 WFMD online at WFMD.com and I don't think they've turned it off. I think we're still actually on the FM. If you go to 99.9 FM HD 2, if you have an HD radio, you can listen to us. I'm not sure if we're in stereo or just really cool-sounding mono. I have no idea. But it's either really cool-sounding stereo or really cool-sounding mono, because, I mean, with the four of us talking, it's really cool-sounding one way or the other. Who are these four I speak of? Well, there's Imran Razvi, there's Daniel Razvi, there's David Forsey, and there's me, Troy Skinner, and we're all pastors. We're all pastoring house churches in Frederick County. And so if you're interested in a house church, reach out to me and we'll see which one's a good fit for you and get you plugged in if that's what you're looking for. And if you're looking for a church, you might be looking for something else. Maybe you're looking for the truth. You're looking to understand what the truth of the Bible is. David, do you happen to know what the truth of the Bible is all about? Well, that's an interesting introduction there. Well, last show we were talking about how how a lot of the ways that – one of the ways that people primarily rise to power politically is by telling people that they have the solution, that they have the answer to their problems and their issues. And I noted how that's – it's really people trying to pretend like they are a messiah figure. a Jesus Christ figure and you know we we all do recognize that we that we have a need that we have We have some sort of problem some sort of shortcoming and that's because none of us is is perfect and And so we know that we need to be we need to be rescued and Jesus is that is that rescuer? and he you know as the son of God who is came to rescue us from our sins and to rescue all of creation from the brokenness of sin. So that is the only hope that we really have. We have no true, lasting, eternal hope in any government, any politics. So it's not Donald Trump? Certainly not. No. No? Even if he wants to make America great again? That might be nice, but... That's what we were beginning to talk about a little bit last week. We were talking about populism and the divides there. We have Donald Trump and the conservative populist nationalist ideal on one side and then Bernie Sanders and the communist ideal on the other side. And it's not just America, it's around the world. Brexit is a good example we brought up last week. So all these people on these different ideological tracks are populists, but they're pulling the train in different directions on the track, and so there's conflict. And so the MAGA movement is hugely threatening. And in response to that, the fact that Trump ended up winning, his authority and his power had to be cut off at the knees as far as they were concerned, the people who wanted to go in a globalist direction. And so they did all sorts of nasty things. And now we've got proof of the things that we all kind of knew for the longest time with this, you know, the Russia collusion, you know, Russia, Russia, Russia, Steele dossier, you know, paid for by the DNC, apparently. And there's, you know, we have proof of these sorts of things now. And I think we kind of felt like we had proof a long time ago. But even those on the other side of the political fence are, a lot of them are beginning to say, okay, I guess they're not going down easy, but they've kind of got their tail between the legs a little bit. But the right also had an interesting reaction to everything that was going on. So to try to tear down the Nationalists, you got the Steele dossier and the Russia collusion story, but to try to tear down any sort of legitimacy for the one world government move, you got the rise of a really interesting phenomenon, the Q phenomenon. Now, I don't know if you guys know a whole lot about the whole Q thing or not, but it's David's not sure. Are the Razvys familiar with this whole thing? Somewhat, yeah. I mean, Q was supposedly some whistleblower inside the government that was posting things about the deep state and so on. And I'm kind of of the opinion that Q was, if Q was an actual person, Q was actually also a member of the Deep State and just throwing out misinformation to try to get people riled up. Yeah, what they call a PSYOP, right? Right. And so, I don't know, I mean, you got a whole bunch of people that were following Q and reading what Q was writing, and to the point where anything Q said was great and conservative, even if it didn't match with actual conservative ideals. For example, when Q said that President Trump might have to declare martial law just for a little bit to get those communists in their place. Well, everybody that was following Q were saying, yeah, that makes sense. No, it doesn't. Martial law is never a good thing, no matter who's in charge. Like you said, as long as your guy is there, then it could be a good thing. He's our dictator. As soon as he's not there, then something else is bad. So I think people, this is what my dad was saying last week. People are easily led astray by some charismatic leader that says, hey, this is what you guys want. This is what the people want. And people listen to it? Yeah, I guess so. Even if they never thought about it or even really want that, and if you gave them all of the information, they might pick something totally different. You see this a lot with polls. You'll see a news article, oh, 85% of Americans want this. And then you read the poll question and you're like, well, of course they want that. The way you phrase the question doesn't explain what you're actually asking. But not only that, once they say 85% of the people want this, and you want to be part of the 85, you don't want to be a rebel. We were taught to be compliant and be part of the whole, part of the group. Unless your name is Troy Skinner. Some of us have that streak in us. That comes from the revolutionary days. That's right. Did any of the three of you ever spend any time on the Q website where he or she or whoever it was supposed to be, or they, would post the Q drops, they called them? I read some of them. I didn't follow it extensively. Yeah, I didn't follow it extensively either, but so many people that I know, particularly over time, it was a snowball gaining steam and size as time went on leading up to the 2020 presidential election. So I had so many people talking about it and talking to me about it and stuff. I thought, okay, I didn't give it a whole lot of credence, but let me check what this thing is out. Now, in fairness to the whole Q thing, part of what was attractive was It was pointing out how the Steele dossier is a farce and the Russia collusion is a made-up hoax and Q got those things right. Well, duh, I didn't even have to pay attention to Q and I got those things right, you know, and I'm not necessarily even smarter than your average bear. And then the molar probe was an embarrassment, and Q was all over that, I guess. And so Q was pointing out a lot of the problems. But for me, the litmus test was, all right, I'm going to see what Q is saying about things that I know about, like that I personally know a lot about for sure, and see how that squares up. And I'm a pastor. And I spent a lot of time thinking about theology and worldview philosophy that ties into a biblical worldview. And so I'm looking for those sorts of things on Q's drops. And there was a lot of religious and pseudo-religious and pseudo-Christian. And Christian, it was an interesting amalgam of kinds of information. And a lot of stuff was like in code, and you had to try to decipher the code. It's crazy stuff. Trust the plan. Yeah, but some of the stuff is not oblique. It's clear what is being said. And in some of those areas where it was being clear, it was clearly wrong. It was saying something as though it was a Christian perspective or it was the biblical view on something. And it's like, no, you are clearly wrong. And if you're that wrong on the Bible and that wrong about what Christianity is all about and what it stands for, I can't trust anything else you say. Now it's not to say you have to know everything about the Bible about Christianity, but if you're going to make claims about the Bible and Christianity and be wrong, and then you're going to make other claims about things that aren't necessarily related to Christianity and the Bible, I can't trust those either because you were wrong, like provably wrong on things I know about. So I never threw in with the whole Q phenomenon. And I think it was just another way to divide, because when we become united – again, we talked about that with Babel last week – divided, it's easier to conquer, it's easier to separate, and you're not as powerful. But once you start uniting, then you become more powerful. And Q was just one more way to divide and to have – give each side hope that they could – they had a possibility to keep fighting. And we haven't really gotten into eschatology yet, but I'm of the opinion that, based on the Bible, that things will eventually end up with a one-world evil government dictatorship that is global in nature, and so everything must trend toward that. in order to conform with scripture. And so I think that was accelerated in recent years in part because of the Q movement and the idea that all these conservatives and patriots should stand by and trust the plan and not do anything about the communist takeover of America or whatever. And a lot of people did just get lulled into sleep thinking that their guy, oh, Trump's in power, he's a patriot, he's a conservative, I don't have to worry about things. And meanwhile, there were plenty of unconservative things that were happening in the government over the last several years, but nobody really stood up or made any noise about it. And I think that allowed a lot of other things to be put in place where now we have even more restrictions from the government on almost every aspect of our lives over the last year and a half. And so it's pushing towards that global communist government. With what you know about Q, and everybody in this room probably has varying degrees of familiarity with it, but based on what you know, what would your pastoral advice be? Because there are a lot of people who are professing Christians who are all about Q. So let's say they attended your church and they brought it up. What might you say to them? Focus on God. Focus on Christ and what the Bible talks about and the end times they're coming Yeah, I would have to agree with that. Also, David Forsey is saying they're all looking for a savior, but that's the wrong place to look. Yeah, my go-to is always to just remind people of the dangers of idolatry, the ease with which we fall into that, and whether it's an idolatry of even good things, too, like there are some great things about of the United States, but – and there are great things about family, and people end up taking these good gifts that God has given of all kinds and trying to hold on to that. And then when God – with, say, a nation that seems to be a good place and things are going well there, when God begins to take that away, and people try and grasp for it and hold on to it, that can be a sign of idolatry in our lives. I remember a news article right before the last election in 2020, the presidential election. It started out with a statement that many people are saying that if Donald Trump wins, the world will end. It'll be a disaster. And then many other people are saying if Joe Biden wins, then it'll be a terrible disaster and the world is going to end and it's going to accelerate the collapse of all society. And, well, I'm a Christian and I read the Bible, and so I also read the end of the Bible. Newsflash, the world does end. That's a good thing. It ends either way, and we need to have a heavenly focus. It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things who supposedly wins or doesn't win in a minor election compared to what really is important in the spiritual realm. And we need to focus on God, focus on Christ and the gospel and the message we're supposed to preach, and understand that there will be a time, maybe very, very soon. And if it's sooner, then that's actually something to rejoice about. But when the world ends and Christ comes back and we're with Him and that's something to be celebrated, something to rejoice. It talks in Revelation when Babylon falls, it says all the saints in heaven are praising God and saying glory to God. The ones that are sad about Babylon falling, those are the evil people. The merchants and the war mongers and the idolaters and all those people that are worldly, they're the ones that are sad when society is crumbling. The people that are happy about Christ coming back, those are the true believers. In the grand scheme, I don't think anybody who calls themselves a Christian would disagree. We're all Christians, all believers, all followers of Christ are awaiting our King's return at the second Advent as we're now entering Advent season right now as we do these shows. But we're still in the interim. In the meantime, we are to advocate for righteousness and truth and justice and to push for godly government and to live our lives in a way that we have godly families and that we demonstrate godly self-control in our own individual lives, like all of those things. do immensely matter. So if Christ were to return, he could return in this instant, in my eschatological view, but let's say he were to return in five minutes. Well, it doesn't mean we stop doing anything and caring about what's good and right and true for the next five minutes. We continue to live lives that are committed to what is good and right and true during those five minutes. That's part of the demonstration of knowing that we're ready for his return. But there's a tendency to get caught up in that to the exclusion of the gospel and what our focus should be in heaven. There's a tendency to be worried about politics or to be worried about worldly things that, again, to the exclusion of actually focusing on God. I think that I would—I don't know if we're disagreeing. I'm just trying to clarify so it's not a misunderstanding with the listener who might be hearing what we're saying. And I don't want us to get sidetracked. We'll end up talking about this. I'm not saying don't vote, don't be involved in politics. Yeah, exactly. I know you're not saying that. So to clarify what we are trying to say here, at least what I'm trying to say, and I don't want to, I'm going to bring up something, but we're not going to talk about it right now. We're going to talk about it, you know, maybe next show or another show or something. But the big controversy with Black Lives Matter and the people on the left, the progressive side, insisting that you say Black Lives Matter. They get really agitated if you say All Lives Matter or Lives Matter. They're trying to force that you would say Black Lives Matter. And my thinking on that is that it's precisely because All Lives Matter that Black Lives Matter. It's the same thing with this eschatological view. It's precisely because our victorious king is coming again, that we are to live engaged, righteous lives in the here and now as we await his return. So they're not tugging in different directions. They're not at odds with one another. It's precisely because he's coming back that we want to have him, when he comes back, tell us, well done, my good and faithful servant. You've done what I've asked you to do. So I think we might be saying kind of the same thing. For the listener who might have been confused, perhaps we're trying to clarify our terms here. We did that last week and we're doing it this week. One of the downsides to these PSYOPs, we used that word last week, and I think that the Q phenomenon could have been a PSYOP. I think we used that word again this week for the Q phenomenon. One of the dangers is it can throw us off the scent of where the real challenges in our world lie. Like on the progressive side, they had so many people paying attention to Russia that nobody's paying any attention to China on the World Economic Forum, which is really the threat to the Western way of life. And then with Q, it got so discredited and so crazy with some of the things that the Q drops were advocating for that when real things happened, You'd say something about, oh, you're just a conspiracy theorist. You must be a Q follower. You must have your tinfoil hat on. And I'm alluding to the voter fraud that happened in 2020. And I'm not going to say the alleged voter fraud, because I watched it happen with my own eyes. I'm watching TV, and you see the vote totals. And then 10 minutes later, they update the vote totals for a particular state, and they flip the numbers. I watched it happen in real time. That doesn't happen. And then you could go and you could track the voting totals on the New York Times website, and they were posting, I think it was every five minutes or whatever it was, they were posting updates, a rolling update on all the election results, and you could watch the numbers change to the detriment of Donald Trump in real time. So after watching it happen in real time and then seeing the video evidence and the personal testimony evidence, there's no doubt there was fraud. Was there enough to turn the tables on the election? I think there's enough evidence to say that's the case. But regardless, all of this stuff that's going on, all the pushback against the Make America Great Again thing, it leads us to change our election laws, so there's mail-in ballots, not just absentee ballots, mail-in ballots, which is just an invitation to cheat. And then, and all this electronic stuff, I mean, we're in a technological quandary right now. We're so dependent on technology and yet the technology allowed for all this vote switching to take place with the Dominion machines or other products like that. And then the response to it. Yeah, you can't talk about that, Troy, otherwise you get canceled. You can't even have a different opinion. It must be in line with what the mainstream media says, and if you think differently, then you're a troublemaker. Yeah, Mike Lindell has kind of been canceled. He's the MyPillow guy. He's had some issues. But we, the people who think like I just expressed how I think, people on that side of this issue, We didn't do ourselves any favors because Rudy Giuliani was a disaster in how he was advocating for election integrity in the couple of months following the election. And Sidney Powell seemed like she had it together and then she just, you know. I don't know, she just pulled the plug on her whole thing and walked away. It was very confusing. So, I'm bringing this up and sharing, I'm putting my cards on the table so there's no illusion about where I stand. You guys don't need to necessarily follow my lead on that. The reason I mention all that is to set the context for you three pastors to speak pastorally to this because, Imran, you're right. If you hold a contrary view, like, You're an idiot, I'm not going to talk to you anymore. You should be put out of business probably for saying what you just said. And there are people in the same congregations who have those different views, maybe not in some of the smaller, more tightly knit congregations, but certainly in larger congregations, there's a big divide. It's caused divisions inside of the church, speaking more globally. So what do we as pastors say about that issue? Well, I guess one of the things I wonder about is, you know, are people – is part of the division within the Church because people are saying, you know, the relational starting point for trust is that I agree – we agree on political things, which I think is sometimes the case and is a bad sign. you know, rather than saying, you know, well, no, we agree on, we agree on Jesus and, you know, and from there we can, you know, we can remain family while disagreeing on the lesser things. So I sense a, I sense a misordering of priorities within the church when there's division over things like this. I think that applies to doctrine in the church as well, is you can fellowship with somebody who disagrees with you on, let's just say, eschatology. I mean, you could believe that either the millennium already happened or it isn't happening, literally, and then somebody else could believe that we're imminently going to be raptured and then there'll be a literal millennium. And those topics, I would argue, are not central to salvation. It would not prohibit fellowship with each other, you can talk about those. Now, there are things, even on the political side, though, that do matter to the extent that it is very important to at least be aware of what people believe. Just like in the doctrine of the Church, if you disagree on, let's say, the Trinity, or whether Jesus actually died for your sins, that would be something that you probably don't want to fellowship with of the so-called believers who believe that. And on the political side, you might think that there's more the government could or should be doing or less they should be doing or could be doing. But I would argue that if you believe that it's okay to kill babies, then I got a problem with that. And, you know, abortion is murder. And there really isn't any way to get around that. The same thing with LGBT issues and things like that. A lot of times the church will compromise on those things. And there are politics you can compromise on. Some of these issues would not be those. Yeah, I think there's a... Can you hang on to your thought? Absolutely. Because we've pressed up against the clock. It's one of the downsides to radio. We've got to hit the post. The person I just rudely interrupted was David Forsey. The person that was speaking right before that was Daniel Razvi. The other voice you heard besides mine today is Imran Razvi. I'm Troy Skinner. This is the Faith Debate. You can follow us online at HouseholdOfFaithInChrist.com and also WFMD.com. Until next week, hundred sixty seven and a half hours from just about right now you have yourself a blessed week ahead god bless and his car within the right now i think that uh... radio I heard him about to disagree with me, saying abortion isn't murder. No, no, no. Just teasing. Just teasing. I think I was just going to... There's a young lady that's been out there speaking, and she was the product of rape, and her mother did not abort her, and she's extremely intelligent, well-spoken, and really going after it, and it gave the pause. What about rape and incest? Well, I'm a product of rape. Now let's try this over this way. I'm not evil because the act was evil. Yeah, for sure. Let's switch it around and we'll try it over on this side. Every show will have a different angle. There you go. Up on the shelf, maybe. Let's see if this would work from over here. Yeah, I think what I was going to say is it's like... differences and worldview differences. You could care about helping the poor and think that there should be more welfare programs. And I disagree with that. And I don't think that prohibits us from fellowship. Now, if you think that a man can be a woman, that's probably going to prohibit us from having a good theological fellowship together. Yeah, that's worldview, Steffi. You know, political is just what should or should never be. But these days, a lot of them are intertwined, is the problem. These days, a lot of them are intertwined. Yeah. And you have to agree with all of the issues or none of them. And that's the, you know... Well, they're intertwined when it comes to, like, what is uh... yeah what what is what's i don't know what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's what's And that's the problem that I think feminists have sometimes with the transgender movement. True feminism wants a woman to be equal to the man, but then if a woman is a man now, that's actually a different quality, and that jeopardizes the teaching of feminism, and so they're kind of fighting with each other there. Those are the worst headlines that keep shorting out on me. They're not the ones you used before? No. The ones I've used in the past. I think I have had used these in the past on rare occasion, but there's typically a pair of black headphones sitting right there. And they've never given me any problems. Oh, there's a pair down there. Let me try those. Let's try these. Maybe these will be better. That's a long wire. Holy schmoly, I can do this. You're going to walk all over the room. And if you guys get rude, I'm just going to do the show from the parking lot. Yes, but we can mute you from this end. That's true. Oh yeah, now we're talking. All right. There we go. That's not fair. Because the other one was only one ear, and then that ear was cutting in and out. And so I kept thinking, did we lose the mic? And that's why you thought we might not be in stereo. Right. All right. We're in good shape now. You guys ready? Just from reading the back, I think this guy might be cute, actually. It kind of looks like a Q. Q was on Star Trek. Whenever I think Q, I always think Star Trek because that's the next generation. I think the James Bond inventor, right? That's Q, right? Yep. Makes all the cool gadgets? Yep. Welcome to the Faith Debate. Thanks so much for spending part of your Sunday morning with us. I'm Troy Skinner and the three guys joining me are Imran Razvi, Daniel Razvi, and David Forsey. We are three house churches represented here by four pastors. You can connect with what we're all about. The easiest way is to go to HouseholdOfFaithInChrist.com. That's the name of my church, and we happen to have a website. These other guys, they're like in the Stone Age or something. They don't have websites, but you can see pictures of a couple of the guys that are up there. One of them's kind of shy, so I don't have his picture up there. But anyway, HouseholdOfFaithInChrist.com. And we are also, of course, the radio station's website is a way to connect with the show, wfmd.com. You can find the Faith to Pay page there. You can link to our podcasts and get a little teaser of shows that are coming up in the future and that sort of thing. So we've been spending the last couple of weeks talking about things that have been going on in the world of politics and worldview challenges over the last, let's say, half a dozen years or so. If you missed those, you can go back. We talked about the rise of populism and what that means for the Western world. We talked about the MAGA movement. We talked about Q. That'll get your attention. Talked about that mostly last week. We began to talk a little bit about the voter fraud question and all of that. And then a distinction was made. David Forsey is making the distinction about, you know, we don't want to get hung up on on politics and let that be a division within the body of Christ. The Christians shouldn't be divided. We can disagree, but there shouldn't be any sort of a wedge among followers of Christ over mere political questions. And so, to me, an example of that would be one Christian is a never-Trumper, and another Christian is, you know, Trump has been hand-selected by God. And they're putting all of their... I know both of those people. They're throwing all of their chips in on a political candidate and what that political candidate means. That is a challenge. But I think there is a difference, like the election fraud question, which played itself out on January 6th, for example, with a rally. that was intended to defend voter integrity, election integrity, that sort of thing. And then some people ended up going into the Capitol building and it got a little bit weird. But those people are advocating for truth. And so Christians who are going to disagree over, now they might end up coming out on a different side of what they think the truth is, and we can try to hash that out and figure it out. But if there are people who are going to deny the truth or say that there shouldn't be an advocacy for truth, people who went to DC on January 6th, for example, to stand in solidarity for the truth of election results, to be mocked and ridiculed and dismissed by other brothers and sisters in Christ, that's not a political disagreement at that point. That's like a worldview question. I think that that is something that pastors should maybe stick their nose in and help to clarify for people. And I cut off David last week, so I don't know if me resetting it gets you off on a different trajectory, or if you remember what you wanted to talk about at the end of last week's show, but you can say whatever you want right now. You can even say, if you want. So I think when I think of worldview, I'll define what I mean by worldview when I say it, I mean the lens through which you view everything. And so I think that a Christian's biblical worldview is what they should have. They should look through everything through the lens of Scripture. What does Scripture have to say about it? What does it tell us about God? What does it tell us about people? And what does it say is true and right and good? And what does it say is bad and wicked and evil? So that's what I mean by worldview. That's what I think everyone's worldview should be, is using scripture, using God's word as our lens. So God's view should be our view, and we know what God's view is through the grid of scripture, that kind of thing. Right. And I do think that that then informs, you know, downstream from that you get, well, you know, every man is a sinner, every human being is a sinner, therefore there are needed restraints upon upon mankind, whether it is within the family structure that God has designed or whether it is – and there are many different ways to politically, via a government, help to limit the damage that individual sinners can do or that, you know, limit the damage of the ability of people to band together to do evil within a society. So, you know, so I would say my politics are very informed by my worldview. I think a political – I think a worldview that begins with saying everyone is basically good and they just need a little bit of help in order to reach their maximum potential, which uninhibited would be great and wonderful and kind and charitable to everyone around them. So I don't know, that's my perspective on the left. And that generally, I think, is the simplest way to think about the divide politically in the left and the right. The left has a tendency to be thinking in terms of people are basically good. And people on the right are like, yeah, but people are basically sinners. You know, so we need some checks and balances on what people are going to do to one another and what they're going to do when they're in power in government. And so this whole Shangri-La idea on the left seems completely impossible from a biblical worldview, absent Christ when he comes again. And I think what happens then within the church is when there is, you know, as the political tensions sort of sort of ratchet up. And when there's some sort of crisis, they tend to do that. People get squeezed, and what they really think or feel sort of comes out. And then so I think there's initial sort of seeing one another, people within the church seeing each other and saying, oh, I didn't think that you were that far away from me. in your political, or at least in what I perceive as your worldview. And rather than trying to go back to things that are common, or at least going back as far as you can until you find something in common and getting at the root, there's just a separation and an isolation from each other where people stop. you know, they just, they just remove themselves from talking to each other. Yeah, I believe a lot of that has to do with terms that are not defined well, and what people assume. For example, when Dan Bongino was running for office here in Maryland, he went to PG County where, you know, it's a big Democrat stronghold, a lot of fairly wealthy middle class black people that mostly will vote democrat and he'd knock on doors and uh... is it or a democrat or republican he said well i'll let you guess i'm in front of this and for this and for this after he goes and explain everything so you must be democrat he said no i'm a republican democrats believe this the so a lot of people believe they were democrats and believed in christ-like principles a lot of them were were believers there they did not know what Democrat or Republican was because the media has so bad labeled Republicans, how evil they are, how they're just for the big corporations and rich people and all that stuff, that people tend to believe that. And that creates that divisiveness and people don't know really what the truth is until they actually identify it. And that's what you were saying, David, you've got to actually talk and go back to the roots of what is it that you mean and what is it that you believe in. That's what's important, not the label you're given. Don't say I'm a Republican or I'm a Democrat or I'm a conservative or I'm a liberal. What does that mean to you? What does liberal mean to you? What does conservative mean to you? Because if you just listen to the media, conservative is evil, liberal is good, Democrat's good, Republican's evil. Why? What makes it evil? Which is really the opposite of what the Bible says. The Bible says that The principles that were built on is that we as people are generally evil. We're not generally good. And only Christ can eliminate that sin. And those of you that are listening that are worried about the sin in your life, you know that you can be assured, I'm telling you right now, the truth is there is a Savior that will eliminate every sin, no matter how bad you think you've done or how bad you've been. It can be eliminated completely. And you can be sin-free, guilt-free, and be held by your Savior. That's really where the truth is. You were looking, reaching for the microphone a second ago. Did you still have something you wanted to say, or did he end up saying what you were going to say? No, I was actually just trying to adjust the microphone so we could capture his great voice. Just helping dad out a little bit. Talk about the terms, the evil and the good. I brought up briefly the January 6th happening. Those who want to look at it in the most positive light, they call it a rally. Those who want to paint it with a dark brush, they call it an insurrection. Armed insurrection, which is interesting because the people with the arms killed an unarmed woman. No investigation really, we don't know anything about it. I saw the video, I think the woman was murdered. and yet Of course that makes me a crazy lunatic. What do you mean? She was an insurrectionist. She wasn't murdered. She was like a five foot tall unarmed woman veteran veteran of serve the military I think the Air Force if I'm not mistaken Ashley Babbitt is who we're talking about and Ashley Babbitt is in a defenseless position crawling through a window in a crouch position and the guy comes up a point-blank range shoots her right in the throat and yet She is the bad one because she supports Trump. She's a Republican. There's just a presumption. And it's not just there. By the way, the people being held in solitary confinement for months on end is a result of all of that. With no charges. But look at the assumptions. What was the name? Oh, darn it. Nate. something and Sandman something Salmon Nicholas Nicholas Salmon, and I think the the the Native American guy was Nate something if I'm not mistaken they had that square remember this on the Salmon got a settlement from CNN and from the Washington Post but the early Narrative on that was because Nicholas Sammy's a high school student He's wearing a red make America great again hat and everybody assumes he's the bad guy because he's still a racist because he's staring at a Native American and the Native American must be the good guy because well, he's a Native American And we come to find out, when we get all the facts, that the Native American guy is not a straight shooter. He's not necessarily a good guy. He's a bit of a scam artist, it seems, at some level. He was being belligerent and physically, you know, assaulting the, you know, provoking. Yeah, he was definitely, he entered the scene banging his drum and got in people's face. The media wants to cover a certain narrative. They want to tell a certain story. So they will highlight aspects of the news that are Sympathetic to their side of the story and when the worldview that they have the idea of this Communist utopia has become all about these fabricated labels I mean, that's why it seems to me because they knew they weren't going to get a removal from office They knew Trump was going to be acquitted and yet those who hated Donald Trump wanted to label him with he's been impeached and twice right they wanted his pain in a corner as justice for quick world record-setting worst president ever because no other president impeached twice a day they rammed that stuff through uh... in order to attach that label to him knowing that he was to be acquitted on the other side basically just saying that he was accused twice well i think he's a lot of things made more times than that so don't really tell me about a lot of things well i think one of what we're talking here is that The media had so far made it really evil to be part of the Republicans, part of conservatism. And when Trump came to the scene, he was belligerent on the other side. He was acting like a lot of the Democrats and not backing down. And so it made it OK to be a Republican again. And it made it OK to stand up for your rights. It made it OK to stand up for America again, where for a long time, Since Obama went around the world saying how bad and evil America was and how we have to apologize to the whole world about how evil we've been, well, when Trump came to the scene, a lot of the patriots came back out of the woodworks and said, oh, it's okay to be a patriot again. And I think that's really what caused Trump to have such a big following because it was okay again. It was in vogue again. And yes, they were being attacked, but now we had a defender, a very popular man that's very charismatic, defending the popular nationalism and patriotism that it was okay to do that again. And that's what the media hates, because they don't want that strength. And I don't know why, but as my mind wandered for a half a second while you were talking, I thought, you know, maybe I should clarify something in the spirit, in the context of what we're talking about here, because I don't want to give the wrong impression. I think it's clear I'm not a supporter of the Democratic National Committee. But I'm also not a supporter of the GOP. The Republican Party does not stand for what I believe in. What's happened, in my view, is the Democrat Party has given themselves over to Marxism, and the Republican Party, in large measure, has overwhelmingly given themselves over to cronyism. So neither one of them, economically speaking, is advocating for capitalism, which is what I would advocate for, because I think that's what the Bible would prescribe. I'd be curious to see if you guys agree with me on that question. And all of the issues in the platform that the Republicans run on, they don't actually govern on. Right. It's one thing to say something, and it's another thing to act on it. And there really aren't very many people in government, certainly not on the national level. There's some local politicians that still do have strong principles, but there's very few. And you got to give the people on the left, you got to give them credit. They're honest. They tell you what they're going to do, and then they do it. Now, what they want to do is frightening to me, but they tell us, and then they do it. But the people on the right, they tell us what they're going to do, and we're like, okay, that sounds pretty good to me, but then they don't do it. Because behold, all these financial interests, they've given themselves over to cronyism. Do you guys agree, by the way? Do you think that capitalism best represents the economic system that the Bible would prescribe? a man shall not work he shall not eat yeah I don't I don't know how you say thou shalt not steal unless personal property is a thing. But I think you have to define capitalism because a lot of times people use, in fact, capitalism, if I remember correctly, history, is actually a term coined by Karl Marx. Yeah, it's probably the wrong, yeah, you know, I like your change in that because in fairness All economic systems are capitalist systems because capital has to do with the things you use for productivity, right? And everybody has an economy. Everybody has some sort of productivity, greater or lesser results. So Marxism needs capital, right? Fascism needs capital. So maybe we should be talking about personal responsibility. And the free market. I think a free market maybe is a better term. Yeah, but do we, I mean, from our perspective, sorry I'll let you go just a second, you know, like we would say Given the opportunity, people will do bad things. And it is right for there to be limits on the bad things that people do. OK. A regulated free market. How about that? OK. A regulated free market. But I've heard, given the opportunity, only rich people will do bad things. Poor people will never do bad things. That's certainly what some media says. No, this is good. So I'm going to actually be changing my language. I'm going to try to train myself up not to use the word capitalism anymore, but to talk about a regulated free market. I think that that better represents what I'm trying to advocate for. I think that's what the Bible calls for. I actually think the Bible would call for much more of a focus on family economics. The idea that money or income that's produced by one member of the family is for the whole family. And I think family and tribe has a group economy. And I think in some ways, the Amish actually have a very good system in this way, is that the family has this pot of money. And when the kids get married, then the family all pitches in and builds them a house. And then those kids contribute back to the family. And that's actually the way, in the Middle East, a lot of things are done. It's all about the family. We even have to define that term now, though. And clarify what we mean because I don't know if you've heard this phrase, but it's become popular on the on the left That the state is the family and the family is the state Have you heard that phrase? No, but I believe they say that. So you could say, it's all about the family and all the money belongs to the family. And they'll say, yes, exactly. And the state is the family. Right. So when I say family, I mean, you know, a father, mother, their children. Biologically connected. Right. And as their children grow up, as the sons get married, they... Or adopted in. Right. And then the male children would still be part of that family with their spouses, their wives, and then their children. And it is a clan or a tribe more so than... So if you think tribe, that kind of puts in your head a picture probably of what I'm talking about. And eventually the tribe gets big enough that there are more individual economies that are not all one. Everybody doesn't have everything in common. And I don't mean that the father, the patriarch, has all the money and all the resources and makes all the decisions for everything. I just mean that the family pitches in and helps each other for whatever they need, and they view the productivity of the whole family as supporting the clan, not, oh, I'm doing my own thing, I'm building my own company over here, and I'm leaving my family out of it, and you know, it's all one. I think that's more of a biblical model than even the so-called free market or capitalism that we talk about here, which is all about the individual. And I think that is actually anti-biblical in some ways, that it's all about me instead of, you know, respect for authority. I don't know that it automatically has to be all about the individual. I think families can be, in a regulated free market, can be working towards expanding their wealth and providing better for one another inside of their family unit and that sort of thing. Was Israel's a regulated free market? Well, God said when you ask for a king, he's going to exact tolls and tribute on you and tax you heavily. Yeah, I mean, prior to that. So Imran, you talked about personal responsibility. And Daniel, you're talking about taking responsibility for the family, and then taking responsibility for the community that you're in as well, like the tribe, if you will. There's lots of biblical talk about yes of the neighbor the and even the the stranger that's passing through it was a care for that yes yeah but uh... personal responsibility economics you can't rely on somebody else to be your economic uh... portion ran i think uh... communism goes that way in most this country goes that way and somebody else has money and you don't think they're responsible for giving you some and i've seen that over and over again in the media and other places And what we're talking about is personal responsibility for economics, and in a family way, and if a family's there, but even in a family, you'll have one child or two children that really don't want to work. They want to sleep all day. So should they benefit from the work and hard work from other people? Because what happens is, as humans, we're sinners, and we're going to take the easy way out. One of the sayings my dad used to love saying when I was young, taking the easy way makes men and rivers run crooked. You've got to think about that, even in a small structure of the family. But you can manage a family better than you can manage a city or a town or a country, because you can ostracize that child and say, hey, if you're not going to work, you're not being part of this family. You've got to go find someplace else to do something, but if you're not participating. I think as somebody that's in the financial planning world as my profession, And my father and I run a company, Higher Ground Financial Group. I think we talked about it several weeks ago. But when you think about retirement, which is a topic we discuss a lot of times with our clients, how you view retirement is based a lot on your world view of economics and how it should be. Because in this culture, in America generally, The more liberal person will view retirement as when someone can no longer work or maybe even no longer wants to work, everyone else must have their things confiscated in order to give to that person to help them live for the rest of their life. The more conservative person would say you should save up money, a lot of money, and then buy things that you need when you are not able to work and earn more money to buy those things. You use your saved money to buy those things. That's retirement. And I think a more biblical mindset is actually that retirement doesn't exist in the Bible. I think when you think of, let's say, long-term care, right? The liberal will say the state should pay for a Medicaid bed for people in nursing home. The conservative will say you should save up enough money to pay for your care. And I think a biblically minded person may come to the conclusion that the parents gave to the children and all of their money and all of their time and all of their resources and raised the children. And now when the parents are older, it's the children's responsibility to pay for and care for their parents. And that's more of a biblical model. And again, that comes back to the family. You stop working when you're not able to work, but retirement is not necessarily a biblical concept. Yeah, well, we're going to retire for this show anyway. We'll be back next week, about 167 and a half hours from right now. That was easy for me to say, wasn't it? Follow us online at WFMD.com. Find me at HouseholdOfFaithInChrist.com. And you can connect with the ministry that the Razzleys have. ConqueredByLove.org is their website. Until next week, God bless. But we're really pushing the envelope, getting all over the line. Too much to talk about. Yeah, we only have, you know, like 25 minutes. Nice gospel stick in the middle there, Imran. Yes, yeah. We got that in early so we didn't have to rush it. Yeah, if we could have natural opportunities like that, that's best. Way less forced and awkward, so that was good. Yeah, I felt that was a good opportunity just to bring that in. Yeah. Alright, so we are... Now up to December 12th, this next show that we do will be airing on December 12th. This is the last one? No, there's one more after this. Because I'd like to get home sometime soon, if we can. Okay. My wife, all my girls, my wife and all the daughters were out in Iowa all week and I haven't seen them in a week, so they just came back today. While we were on the way here. We were driving here and then driving home, so. That's a topic we don't really talk about too much with our clients. When they come to us and ask us to help them retire, I don't usually tell them, you shouldn't retire, it's not really biblical. Very few people have that worldview. Even the believers, the clients that we have. It's not a bad thing to have money saved up and be able to use it, but I think a true biblical mindset is the family has a shared, you know, economic plan. It showed me anywhere in the Bible when somebody retired. They didn't. They worked until they couldn't function and their family took care of them. Well, retirement is when you can't work anymore and then your family takes care of you, right? You don't get... Absolutely. All right, you guys ready to jump right back in? Sure. Absolutely. All right. You're participating a lot more than last time, which is to say you say something... I'm getting more comfortable, I guess. Welcome to the Faith Debate on News Radio 930 WFMD. I'm Troy Skinner. Our panel is gathered once more. We've got Daniel Razvi, Imran Razvi. His friends call him Raz, so I guess he's been on the air long enough. You can call him Raz. And David Forsey is on the show as well, as usual. The four of us are pastors of house churches in Frederick County. If you'd like to learn more about that, connect with one of our churches. reach out and be glad to talk with you about it. We spent the last three weeks talking about things happening in the news over the last few years, and so much of what's been driving what's happening in the world these days has been driven by politics and political worldview things. We spent a lot of time there. I think we might have a little more to say on those fronts, and perhaps we'll have an opportunity, we'll see, to shift into broader concerns than just politics, but we will see. where we leave off last week we're talking about retirement about retirement we're talking about whether capitalism or not uh... a regulated free market is the is the biblical model and i feel like we might have begun to reach uh... consensus that it probably was that they really wanted to find our terms but uh... my in my because if so that we can move on if not we probably should flesh out where we were last week uh... do we want to talk about what's that So the contrast to a regulated free market is a not free market, a very regulated, so regulated that it's no longer a free market, a controlled market. Yes, a controlled market. Right, exactly. Yeah, a controlled market, which would be, you know, depending on your flavor, socialist or fascist or communist or something like that. So maybe instead of regulated, it should be civilized free market. So a completely free market with no regulation whatsoever would probably lend itself to some sort of And I think that's type of thing. Anything goes over stronger can get it done. But, you know, the principles that that we're trying to include under this umbrella would include personal property, personal responsibility, you know, protection from theft. In those days, there was no king in Israel and every man did that, which was right in his own eyes. Right. Right. Very free market. Yeah. I think Jeff Bezos is a very big fan of the very free market by eliminating all competition. And the other thing is, if it's not regulated properly, you have the problem that I think we have right now is cronyism. which is basically another word maybe for fascism, where the government interests and the business interests are so deeply entwined and codependent and they're all paying and buying each other off in special favors and all that sort of stuff. And we saw that play out with what's happened in this last couple of years with all the shutdowns. It's Main Street. The mom and pops got kicked in the teeth. But those multi-multi-billionaires that own these big corporations, they have record-setting profits. How'd that happen? You know, everybody's struggling to pay the rent and the stock market's at record highs. How'd that happen? It doesn't add up. Something doesn't make sense. You know, that's cronyism. Like there's something, the wrong kinds of regulations are in place. So we need somebody regulating the regulators. at that point. So I guess we're probably pretty good on that front, right? I'm still more of an advocate for a family being a lot more intertwined financially than what most conservatives would probably have in America. But that's a different topic than the well-regulated free market. But the economy at large, yes, I think more more free, less government involvement. Even at the family level, the family should operate as a regulated free market. Somewhat regulated, very minimal regulation. Meaning, like you indicated last week, it's not like the patriarch of the family has all the money and controls everything and tells everybody what to do. It's a different kind of regulation, right? More of a rule of engagement as opposed to, you can and cannot do this, but rules of engagement. Yeah, in the family, it's relationally regulated. And I think that the regulations should be relatively minimal, by the way. Regulating to keep people from doing things that are dishonest, basically some sort of theft or grift or that sort of thing, partiality being shown. Those sorts of things should be... Stealing intellectual property. Exactly. Yeah. So we are incredibly, in my opinion, over-regulated. We're regulated on steroids. We have so many regulations that you can't even keep tabs. That's part of our problem. You can't keep tabs on this beast that's been created. Yeah. Was it Ben Carson that said the regulations add, what, 40% to the cost of a house? Wow. I hadn't heard that, but... He's in charge of HUD, so he knows. Wow. Yeah. Wow. That's crazy. We'd have a lot more homeownership if you could knock the price down by 40%. This is a little bit of a tangent, but it came up as I was thinking about what we're talking about. I want to maybe go in the direction of compromise and define the word compromise and how it's used because we're talking about politics and we're talking about cronyism, and I think compromise is really where it starts, where I believe as a Christian – and I define the word Christian as a believer in Christ as my Savior that will save me from the sin that I cause because I am a sinner. what is compromise from that standpoint? We are not allowed to compromise when anything that is biblically stated, do this or do not do this. Like if God says do not kill, there's no compromising in that. If God says do not covet, there's no compromising in that. And the political system is really built on compromise, and I've seen so many Movies and articles and books and but if you're in politics, you have to compromise and it's held up as an ideal Absolutely, and that is absolutely wrong and I've seen the left not compromise But force the right to compromise as the left goes further and further left The right is moving along with them because they're being forced to compromise. They don't they're evil But what happens is this is the game that they play because they they give the appearance of compromise. So what happens is I Daniel's already brought up about you know give you a king and he's gonna tax you to death right he's brought up that passage of the Bible a couple of weeks in a row and So he got somebody who says I want no taxes And somebody else says, I want to tax you 10%. It's like, no, I want no taxes, 10%. No taxes, 10%. Oh, it's compromised, 5%. OK. Now, all of a sudden, you've got taxes where there were none. And so they've moved the needle. And then five years later, 15%. No, 5%. 15%. No, 5%. Compromised, 10%. And within five, 10 years, they're where they wanted to be. They just gradualized it into place because we compromised our way there. The left is brilliant at that. A more recent example of that that many people may have remembered from the news is this Build Back Better plan that Biden's been pushing and Democrats have been pushing and they said this is going to be a $3 or $4 trillion spending plan for social priorities and so on. And there were a whole long list of things in the bill and some of them many people were upset about and so on, but it was a lot of stuff. And it was a radical increase in spending and increase in programs and so on. And so they launched this idea and they get a lot of pushback and then they compromise and say, oh, well, we're only going to spend now $1 trillion out of this. And it's still going to have a lot of the really bad stuff that everybody was worried about, but it feels like an achievement and a victory for the right. Oh, we talked them down $2 trillion less in spending. Well, they're still doing all the stuff that they were going to do and probably what they expected to get done in the first place. They just ask for a lot more. So when you negotiate them down, they're still getting most of what their agenda is. Imagine you're in a marital counseling session and the wife wants to not be beat at all. And the husband wants to beat her twice a day. And so the marriage counselor says, how about we compromise? How about your husband just beat you once a day? And that's what happens when you compromise biblical principles, right? At some point, you've got to say, no, wrong is wrong, right is right. Same with adultery. The husband wants to go, or the wife wants to go and sleep with other people. Let's just compromise. Let's just do that every other Tuesday, not every week. Right. Yeah, we have a regulated open relationship. So that's why I really feel that compromise is what's really been causing a lot of doubt. You cannot compromise on biblical principles. And the breakdown of the family unit in America is what's caused the great shift and compromise of our principles, compromise of our beliefs. And one of the things my wife is adamant about saying when all of these Conservatives are raving about this bill in Texas about abortion or this thing in Georgia about abortion. We won a great victory. We limited abortion to this. No. We've got to go back to abortion is killing a baby. It doesn't have to be six weeks. It doesn't have to be 12 weeks. It doesn't have to be first or second or third trimester. It's killing a baby. It's by conception. And when you give that argument over and compromise that, oh, but what if it's rape or incest? No, you're still compromising. You cannot. And because they're willing to compromise, I mean, in certain states it would be impossible, like Maryland, it would be impossible to do what I'm about to suggest. But in other states, let's use Oklahoma as a really good example, they almost always have a Republican governor who runs as a pro-life candidate. They have an overwhelmingly Republican legislature. I mean, a filibuster-proof, veto-proof, I think, majority of Republicans in Oklahoma. Why couldn't they abolish, not limit, but abolish abortion in their state? Maybe like slavery? Abolish slavery? Abolish abortion? I think slavery is actually better than abortion because at least you get to live. Abortion, you're dead. Right. But they don't have the political will to do it, and they end up compromising. And there's all these flavors of compromise along the way, which is why even the political bases get so fractured. That's why we had close to 20 Republicans run in 2016 in the primary, and somewhere around 20 Democrats run in the primary, 20. Even the political bases are incredibly fractured. It's starting to look like Central Europe a little bit there with all the political interests, and we don't quite have the multitude of political parties that they have, but we're heading in that direction. But speaking of compromise, let's do a transition. and talk about where this leads us culturally. Because if you're willing to compromise politically and fiscally and those sorts of things, you compromise other principles, and we see that play out in our culture with some big, high-profile names that have been involved in sex scandals. We talked about adultery. So let's talk a little bit about, we're shifting away from the politics and maybe this is our chance to shift away more into some cultural issues that have been dominating the Western world, the American world, our world here in Frederick, Maryland, even in recent years. And Donald Trump, a hero for many on the right, you know, an adulterer, right? He had some personal compromise there. We can't let him off the hook. But on the left, you got, you know, Harvey Weinstein or Weinstein. I don't know how he, I can't remember how he's supposed to say his last name. So no disrespect is meant to Harvey there, but I don't remember. And then even inside the church, or depending on how you want to define the church, high profile problems with Roman Catholic priests over the years with pedophilia and homosexual behavior with underage minors. And more recently, the Southern Baptist Convention has had some accusations. One of the guys that ran for president was accused, it seems now like it might have been a false accusation, but some accusations about some sexual improprieties there. I mean, it's all over the place. And then the most wild story we've heard in recent years, I think, is a Jeffrey Epstein story where they had a bunch of sex slaves on an island somewhere and high profile people were visiting there. This is open-ended. What do we say either generally or specifically to that culture as pastors who are trying to lead people to Christ but in the process influence the culture for good at the same time? I would say that, especially when you have some of these high-profile examples of so-called pastors or religious people, people in the church, the media loves to jump on those and say, look, here's this Christian who's a hypocrite, and he did all these things. He's a problem. Well, actually, that's kind of the opposite of being a hypocrite, because if Assuming the person is actually saved, they would have preached something to the effect of, I'm a sinner. So all they proved by sinning was that they were correct in their preaching, that they weren't themselves sinners. The question is what happens after the sin is discovered or noticed or what happens? whatever i mean you get exempt example the bible of david david committed adultery not only did he commit adultery he committed adultery with one of his best friend's wife uriah the hittite was actually one of his mighty men uh... and then murdered him and then he had him murdered so just because there's a sin doesn't make the person uh... necessarily an unbeliever or ungodly it's how you deal with the sin once you're convicted and hopefully you are convicted about it But certainly people can make excuses for bad behavior and say, oh, it's not that bad, when it really is. There's a difference between making excuses for behavior and recognizing that behavior will continue to exist because we still are in a fallen world. Whether it's adultery, whether it's taking 10 bucks from a cash register, there's still sins. I think the things we were talking about before connect here, too. We were talking about a regulated free market and trying to define what we meant by that. Hopefully we did an okay job by the time we got through all of that. What we're talking about with a regulated free market is regulating the behaviors within the economy, within the economic happenings, economic practices, regulating the behaviors that individuals and groups of individuals engage in. So we're talking about regulating behavior economically, and now we're talking about regulating behavior, in this particular case, sexually. You know, people need to have personal responsibility and families need to hold other family members to account. And, you know, we need to, because if we don't properly regulate and we say, well, you know, Sex before marriage isn't really that big of a deal. Well, the Bible says it's adultery. And if you're going to compromise on that issue, well, then it gets an awful lot easier to compromise on sex inside of marriage with someone who's not your spouse. and having that kind of adultery. But even that's not as frowned on as it used to be because we've got the rise of open marriages. And then you start losing your mind on stuff. And so we've got our first openly homosexual cabinet secretary with a Pete Buttigieg right now. That would have been culturally unacceptable when I was a kid. And yet the needle on that is moved. We've got transgenderism. We've got a transgender who's involved with leading our health decisions in this country. Isn't that an oxymoron? He's mentally ill and yet he's leading the health. But that's where we end up. You've got people who are celebrated for it. Formerly Bruce Jenner, now Caitlyn Jenner. He's you know living the life of or trying to live a life or portray himself as a woman and is Celebrated for it, and I'm gonna get a bunch of hate for the way. I just phrased that By referring to Caitlyn as a he I mean, I'll call I'll call them Caitlyn. You can call him whatever he wants. I don't care What do you call you can change your name? I have no problem with that, but you can't just you can't force me to enter into your psychosis. So we get lost. And then women's sports, collegiate sports and high school sports are going to be destroyed by this if something's not done about it because you've got young men competing against women. It's a slippery slope because if you recall, back in 2008, Obama ran on a platform that was anti-gay marriage. Obama ran on a platform that was anti-gay marriage. As recently as less than 10, no, less than 15 years ago, 12 years ago, 13 years ago. The Democrat Party official platform was pro-traditional marriage at the time. And not only have we gotten rid of traditional marriage, we've now had, we've gotten rid of male and female, and it's only been 12, 13 years. So, things change rapidly, and there's a very slippery slope. When you compromise on one thing, then you start compromising on other things. There's many Christians who aren't really bothered. You know, if you corner them on it, they'll say, oh yeah, that's wrong. But they're not really bothered when they see a gay couple, in public or otherwise. as they might have been 15 or 20 years ago. And I think we're desensitized to evil that's existing in the society. And many people are still angered or revolted when they see somebody that's pretending to be a pedophilia or somebody that's claiming to be a woman when they're a man or vice versa. But how many more years is it going to be before Christians are desensitized to that? And they say, oh yeah, that's bad, but it's kind of normal now. Yes, but if you are grossed out by it or rejected, then you're a hater. So they've changed the vocabulary to make it anything that you are against and you're biblically in the right, you become a hater or it's hate speech and so forth. So I want to bring this back a little bit. We went back into the politics and into the general and to the leaders. How is your life? Have you ever lied? Well, then the Bible says you're a liar. Have you ever slept with somebody before you got married? Well, then the Bible says you're an adulterer. Have you ever hated somebody in your heart? Well, Jesus said that you're a murderer. So, you're a lying, murderous adulterer. I mean, those are real, live sins. If that is in your life, there is hope for you. So what we're talking about is not that once you've done this, you're beyond hope and you're terrible and you're labeled something and everything's going to go bad. Yes, everything is bad, but there is hope for you. You must repent, and that's what Daniel was saying earlier, is how do you react to it? When this happens, when you're found out or when you realize, how did David react to his sin? You can also react that same way and repent. What does repent mean? Repent means that you will make an effort to change and to please God. Now, that in itself is not going to save you. No matter what you do, you cannot save yourself from your sin and your evil. Only Jesus can. So what you have to do is repent and seek Jesus and ask for His forgiveness and you are a new person and you will have life eternal. And there is hope. So those, all of us who are mired in sin, Recognize it and how do you recognize it? You must pick up the rule book. Where are the rules in the Bible? Get to know who God is and what he says Find out and seek him and he will come to you. So my thought to you right now is, yes, all these sins, these compromises, all of us have them in our lives. But when we see them and recognize them, we need to repent. And that's where the differences between somebody that is out there pointing fingers and somebody that says, oh, thank you for pointing that out to me. You're right. I should not have done that. I'm going to repent. I'm going to spend time in prayer. So I would urge you, if you don't know how to do that, reach out to Troy Skinner through this radio station, and he'll tell you all the details on that. But this is a very real problem, and only you can fix that. Nobody else can fix it for you. And only you can fix it through Christ, who's going to fix it for you, because you can't do it yourself. And that's where the truth is. Obviously all four of us are committed. The truth is found in God's word. Somebody who hears us say that who doesn't believe in God or isn't a follower of Jesus has never read the Bible. They're going to want to reject that. And that's what has ended up happening in our in our world as well. the rules of engagement get changed. You have the American Medical Association that says that science says that gender is not binary. And it gets back to what David said last week or the week before that show, talking about the worldviews and the Bible shaping the worldview, because that is the rule book, right? That is the guidebook. But that seems to be one of the challenges you have the the science whether it's true science or not the science versus the Bible and we have to clarify and I think we can if we're willing to engage and have those conversations, we can actually persuade people that, you know, the science isn't really always very scientific in its method. And because it's going against the natural order of things, it's going what we've known for a long time, it's going against proven discoveries of things. And if we can get them to understand that, okay, what they've been told is the science isn't true, maybe they'd be open to hearing what the truth is in the Bible. We don't have to fall prey to using different pronouns and all those sorts of things. By the way, it popped into my head, I don't know if it was this week or last week, we were talking about the Covington boys and Nick Sandman being stared down by the Native American. I said I thought his name was Nate and it popped in my head. His friends might call him Nate, but his name was Nathan Phillips. So just for the record, my brain fog lifted for just a moment and I remembered his name. We've got about a minute left, so I guess we're going to wrap up. Hopefully we can pull this panel together for next week to continue these sorts of discussions. I think we're going to shift pretty much further away from political stuff and get more and more into the cultural and worldview. and applying some of these philosophies that we're being bombarded with, applying a Christian perspective to some of these as we move forward. So if that sounds good to you guys. Thank you for joining us again. Imran Razvi is on the show, and Daniel Razvi is on the show, and David Forsey is on the show, and oh, I'm on the show. I'm Troy Skinner. And you are also on the show because you're listening. That's right. This is your show. This is a regulated free market show. Anyway, till next week. Find us online. Find me online. The easiest way to do that is HouseholdOfFaithInChrist.com. You can find the show online also at WFMD.com. Till next week, 167 and a half hours from now. God bless. I know you wanted to scoot. Do you have time to do one more or not? I'd rather not if we can't, but we can. If we have to do it, we'll stick around. I mean, we're going to be meeting. We're going to do Christmas anyway. Earlier than we normally do. So have we determined when we want to do that? No. I guess just the next available Tuesday for all of us? Yeah, we can do the first Tuesday in December or the second Tuesday in December. Either one will work, I think. which gets us through the 12th. So it would, the second Tuesday would be down to the wire there again. Yeah, the first Tuesday in December is the 7th, which would be the Tuesday right before the show we just did. Yeah, so the 7th works. And then the next, okay, I'll do that. That works, then we can do all of December and maybe one or two in January. And we'll try not to be late so we can have more time. And I'll try not to send any of my family out of town, so we don't have to worry about that. Last time I didn't show up because I was picking my wife up from the airport, remember? Oh, is that right? OK. Yeah. OK. And this time I said, you drive yourself home. All right. Well, then, with all that said, we're going to draw a close to the Facebook Live part of this. So if you've been following along at all, if you're watching this later, you can comment. And I'll interact with the comments later on. God bless.