The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Brookshow. On this Monday morning, welcome to another one of our relatively new episodes on the news with the idea of doing these episodes regularly. Maybe every day during the week, we will see how that all evolves. But yeah, thanks for joining. And I hope the week is starting off well for you. Have a great week. So yeah, this week we'll probably do today, tomorrow, Wednesday, and Friday. We'll see. We'll give you a break on Thanksgiving. Next week, I'm traveling again. So I'll definitely try to do a show on Monday and maybe Tuesday. And then I'm not sure. I'll be in Austin, Texas next week. And then in Connecticut, so Austin and Connecticut. And then after that, the week after that, first week, four week in December, I'm hoping to get on an actual schedule or figure out when these short programs are going to be, when these news shows are going to be and when we're going to do kind of the evening shows. So that'll be the first week of the new experiment. And we'll keep that going through the month of December. And we'll see. We'll see into next year. Of course, next year is all about, is all about new travel. So again, everything will get disrupted. Alicia says she's going to be in Austin as well. Well, I'm giving a, I'm doing a debate in Austin. Inran versus, Inran versus CS Lewis. So you should come. It's on Wednesday night next week. Wednesday night next week. It'll be a fun event. Please come, I'm debating a very religious advocate of CS Lewis's views of the world. So it should be a lot of fun. All right, let's see. As always, we have the super chat going. You know, a target for the morning shows, a $250 a show rather than the $650 show for the evenings. So we can see, oh, Alicia's going to Austin for the debate. I didn't realize that. I thought you were just going to Austin and just by accident happened to be at the same time. So I look forward to seeing you in Austin for the debate. Thank you for coming. So $250 is the goal. Also, it's an opportunity for you to ask questions. Let's try to make the questions in the morning shows, news related, news related, news related. But you can ask anything, but let's try to make them news related. $250 is a lot to get done within a half an hour to 40 minutes, but hopefully we can meet those targets on average over time. So we have when we did them in the past. So we'll see. There we go. Len is starting us off with kind of a $50 Canadian dollar. So that gets us started on the right foot. That's great. Thank you, Len. All right, I'm going to jump in with some stories. There's a ton to cover actually, but of course I don't have to cover it all today because there's tomorrow and there's Wednesday and the news is not going to break quite. It's not going to be quite as busy as, I have to cover all of last week or some of last week. So a few things quickly before we get to the stuff I've listed in the title. I think it's important that we quickly just wrap up the elections because we talked a lot about the elections, the midterm elections. Republicans have taken the House. Republicans will control the House of Representatives. It's a very, very small margin. So I think they've got 222 or 223 seats. 218 is the majority. So this is one of the smallest pickups in a midterm election by the opposition party ever. So you have to say this is a complete failure of Republicans to leverage the fact that Joe Biden is super unpopular, that the woke agenda of the Democrats is super unpopular, that CRT is super unpopular, that the fact that crime rates are going up is super unpopular and yet Republicans barely made any kind of impact. Unfortunately, my least favorite congresswoman from California actually got elected. Katie Porter got elected in Amish County. So those of you who could have voted in Amish County and didn't because you couldn't bother because it's California or whatever, you might have been the deciding vote because she won by a very small margin. The Republican really challenged her. Hopefully in two years we can get rid of her. And then in Colorado, Bobbert, who is the crazy, Trumpist, conspiracy theory Republican, who looked like she might lose, landed up winning, unfortunately, by like 500 votes. So again, very small margin. Hopefully it's a wake up call for her and that whole wing of the Republican Party. But of course we will see, we will see if that is actually the case. So we already know, I think we already discussed the fact that Republicans did not take the Senate, the Senate at best for the Republicans will stay 50-50. At worst will be 51-49. Democrats picked up a Republican seat in Pennsylvania and Republicans didn't pick up a single Democratic seat. Not a single one, not even the one in Nevada. They might pick up the one in Georgia but we'll see. And even if they pick that up, they'll just be 50-50. So about as bad of a showing as imaginable. Polls turned out to be pretty good, pretty correct. Certainly didn't bias against Republicans this time, maybe a little too pro-Republicans the polls were. So polls are back as compared to their failure in 2016, 2020 and 2018, but Republicans did really, really, really, really badly, particularly given how poorly Democrats are thought of in the country right now.  And you know, I blame just the candidates, the quality of the candidates, the kind of candidates they put up, the focus on the past, the focus on Trump, the whole Trump phenomena, the whole Trumpism and the whole focus on the election denial of 2020, just the whole focus of the party, it was no positive messaging.  Give us a vision of the future, give us something to look forward to rather than bitching and complaining and yelling and screaming and crying. And I mean, you come off of that as the party of the entitled winers and that's what Republicans came off as and good for the American people for not buying into that. Hopefully some lessons will be learned and going into 2024 election Republicans will have a positive message. I'm not gonna talk today about Trump announcing. I might do a show on Trump either tonight or another night. We'll see, maybe tonight. That requires more time to really get into it and also more time to kind of analyze for you my views on Trump, although I think you guys know it. One other thing before we get to kind of a musk on Twitter, I do wanna recognize that in the news we're seeing a lot of kind of horrible violence. I don't usually say much a lot about it because there's not much to say about it. I mean, these murders in Iowa are weird and upsetting and really horrific. But they don't have a suspect. They don't know what's going on. I'm not interested in the rumors. I'm not interested in the conspiracy theories. I'm not interested in all of that once we know what actually happened. If there's anything interesting to say about it, I'll say it, but crime is usually just crime. It's usually some bad guy doing something horrible and that's a crime. And to some extent that relates too to the murder this weekend in Colorado at the LGBTQ club, the gay club where five people are murdered and I think 25 are injured, a lone gunman. When they're firing off with the AK-47, I think from what I've read in a PsyDOM, the people there managed to take the guns away from him and control him otherwise he would have killed many more people, but still five people killed. I mean, it's tragic, it's sad, it's horrific.  Colorado Springs is the center of evangelical Christianity in the West at least. It is a bastion of the anti-abortion, anti-gay kind of evangelical community. It's not super surprising. What surprised me is there was an LGBT club at Colorado Springs and I planned. So it's sad and horrific. This, the monster who did this, his grandfather is a Republican, a Trumpist Republican in San Diego County, I think, but who knows if that has anything to do with it? So we don't have much information about what this is beyond an individual very, very disturbed. Democrats are trying to turn it into a political thing. They might be right.  It's people like Matt Walsh, but of course in plain defense, they're playing right into the hands of the Democratic critics. So the whole debate over these kind of shootings I find disturbing and fairly disgusting. And this is just horrific. And to the extent that it was motivated by anti-gay sentiments, it's horrible. And to the extent that Republicans continue to disseminate just ugly portrayals of gays. And that is horrific. Drawing cause and effect relationships there is tricky and dangerous and particularly jumping to conclusions before we know much about the person that is wrong. So just wanted to acknowledge that all of these things are happening. There's just, there's a lot of violence this weekend. There was another university shooting with football players. We're shot in the head. Just, just, you know, hard to really tell where this is coming from. And very, very, very, very disturbing that it's all kind of clustering. It all kind of clustered around the same week or the same weekend. All right, quickly, let's jump to Musk and Twitter. As you know, Musk is trying to establish new guidelines, moderating guidelines for Twitter, deciding who can be on the platform, who should not, what kind of speech is allowed, what kind of speech is not. Some kind of moderation has to happen, you know? And even having a moderation policy that says any legal speech is allowed is still a moderation policy. So some kind of policy needs to exist. My complaints about Twitter have focused on the fact that their policies have not been particularly objective and not being predictable, have not been knowable in advance.  They get to decide on the rules for what speech is acceptable and what is not on their platform. This is private property. What I would like as a user, as a content creator, as somebody who participates in this, I would like those guidelines to be objective, to be not knowable in advance.  Just let me know, what are the standards? And I'll either accept them or I'll leave the platform. And the problem is with all these platforms, including Twitter, there has been no objective standard. David Arsenal, thank you for the support. Really, really appreciate it. There'd be no objective standards. The standards have been seemingly arbitrary. The standards have been biased, clearly biased towards, so some people in a sense inciting violence or presenting bad views of the world or particularly violent views or particularly just hate speech. But some, if they do it from a certain political perspective, Twitter has been lenient about and it's been fine, no problem, you can keep doing it. For example, maybe Islamists talking on there or certain parts of the left, that's been fine. But people on the right who have engaged in hate speech, they've been stopped, they've been limited much faster than it seems to be true on the left. For example, you can get hate speech out of Iran, which is fine to put on Twitter, but hate speech by individuals who in America is not acceptable, all kinds of standards, we just don't know, you have no clue, but there's clear bias, but it's not objective no matter what. Well, part of the hope was that Elon Musk would bring some objectivity to this, would enforce some new standards, more objective standards, standards that made some sense and were predictable, that Elon Musk would also take away some of the bias, eliminate some of the bias against, let's say, the so-called right versus the left. And early on, Musk talked about having some kind of committee that would establish these kind of standards that would determine what is acceptable and who was not and this committee would make these decisions and the committee would be balanced and there'd be people from different parts of it.  Unfortunately, Musk is abandoned objectivity just like it seems like every other platform has made his platform no different than any other platform. He has presented and reported no new standards. I don't know where this moderation committee is. I haven't seen anything new coming out of Twitter to give us some guidance of what is okay and what is not. But what have we seen? We've seen Elon Musk conduct a poll on whether Trump should be allowed on Twitter or not, back on Twitter or not. A poll, we decide these things based on majorities. We decide these things based on how many people voted on an arbitrary random Twitter poll. Really? That's how we make decisions? The poll was, I think, 52 to 48 for allowing Trump back on the platform and therefore he won the poll. So Trump was allowed back on Twitter. And you could say, okay, the new standard is polls. We're gonna poll everything. But people asked Elon Musk, well, what about Alex Jones? He can have a poll with allowing Alex Jones back on Twitter or not. And if you allow Trump, why aren't you allowing Alex Jones? And basically, Elon Musk is something like, well, Alex Jones hoots children and have a soft switch of children. So Alex Jones is banned and Trump is not. In other words, you know, I don't like Alex Jones. He upsets me. I feel bad and therefore, and therefore, you know, I'm not.  So just say that the moderating standards, that moderation standards at Twitter now are Elon Musk's whims. Elon Musk's whims.  We have less guidance and less standards right now than we had before Elon Musk took over. Instead of bringing us objectivity, what we now have is try to predict what Elon likes and what Elon doesn't like. Try to predict which threads on Twitter Elon follows and which threads on Twitter Elon doesn't. I suspect that I can pretty much say anything I want on Twitter because I doubt Elon Musk reads my tweets.   Give us objective standards. Give us standards that we can live by. Give us standards that we can understand I agree with those standards or not. It will enhance Twitter dramatically just to know what's acceptable and what's not. And if you ban too much content then people will leave Twitter and we'll be back to let's compete which is my view of social media anyway. Let competition go, let's do it, let's do it. Let's see which platform attracts the most users. And therefore provides the most value. All right, so that's Twitter. I really hope Musk gets his act together. I don't want to say too much about Twitter because I think a lot is going on. A lot is going on in the background. A lot is going on in terms of hiring and firing. A lot is going on in new features and trying to embed those. I don't want to judge Elon Musk's efforts in totality yet. I think there's still weeks and maybe months to go before we can do that. But on this issue about what is allowed and what is not, he clearly has failed and so far. And I hope he gets his act together. I hope so. All right, that was Elon Musk. Let's quickly Iran. I know we've been following the story from the beginning. I want to keep following the story. I think this is a crucially important story. It's a story I at least care a lot about and I hope you do too. It is a story of a fight for liberty, a fight for freedom. It is the story of an underdog of basically girls and women trying to fight against a brutal totalitarian regime, a theocracy, not a theocracy in potential, not a theocracy in theory, but a theocracy in practice. Maybe the only theocracy, well, the other theocracy is in the world, but probably the most dominant, most oppressive theocracy in the world. And it's amazing that the demonstrations by the girls and the women and those men who support them are continuing. They're continuing all over Iran in small towns in large cities, but they are continuing. They have not grown yet and have not to the size of a real revolution. There's no sign, sadly, that there is any real change brewing within the regime itself. There's no resignations of prominent people, though at least one prominent person has disappeared. So maybe that's an indication that he was too supportive of the demonstrators and has been disappeared. There's no rebellion within the army. There's no rebellion among the police or the national guard. There's no rebellion within the clergy. Although there is one Sunni Imam, big shot Sunni Imam who is supporting the demonstrators. But he's Sunni and Iran is Shiite, so that doesn't really help much. And we'll see what happens to him. So the demonstrations continue, but no signs that they are going to lead to an actual revolution, to actual change. The demonstrators, if anything, are getting bolder. They're calling more and more and more for regime change, not just for outlifting this law or that law, but actual regime change. So I give them huge amount of credit for that. And again, they're all over Iran. There are some indications that this weekend, the Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, has given a green light to the security forces to become a lot more violent and to use a lot more violence against the demonstrators. Supposedly, demonstrators machine gun down in parts of northern Iran, particularly in the Kurdistan, in the Kurd area. And in the borders with Azerbaijan, these are ethnic groups that are not part of the majority of the Iranian population. There is also some evidence that the regime is now engaged in for-fledged attacks on the Kurds. Interestingly, just as an aside note, there was an attack yesterday, coordinated attack by both Iran and Turkey. Who both view the Kurds as enemies. Turkey attacked the Kurds because supposedly a terrorist attack in Istanbul last week. And the Iranians attacked the Kurds because of, I think, these demonstrations. Both attacked the Kurds in a coordinated effort. They attacked the Kurds in Iraq, in a third country, in terms of both artillery and missile attacks. So, you know, Kurdistan in Iraq is one of the freest and more prosperous areas in the Middle East because of it is free. But now it has two very powerful enemies, both Iran and Turkey. So something to watch for. So no big news in Iran. Demonstrations continue. Crackdowns will probably now intensify. Still no cracks in the regime. Nothing to indicate anything is really gonna change. All right, again, shifting gears. Yesterday, the World Cup, the premier sporting events in the world, probably more watched by more people than any other sporting events in the world. I think more than the Olympics, certainly more than the US big sporting events like the Super Bowl. The World Cup started yesterday in, of all places, Qatar. Now, there are lots of reasons one should be skeptical about a World Cup in Qatar. It is in the middle of the desert, so it is super hot. Even in November, it is super hot. It is not exactly a country with a long tradition, a playing soccer or football in the rest of the world. And it is an oppressive Islamist regime. Qatar was probably one of the major supporters of ISIS in the, you know, in the last decade. Qatar is on and off again, an ally or not of the Iranians, in spite of the fact that Qatar has a massive US military presence. Qatar is, has been funding terrorism for ages, and there's no reason to believe they have stopped. Yes, they have air conditioning in the stadiums, but still, I mean, you have to go to a place that has to air conditioning in stadiums to play soccer. Qatar is also one of the more oppressive places in the world. Dozens, if not hundreds of people, have died in the construction of the stadiums and in the construction of a variety of buildings in Qatar. Much of the construction in Qatar, or almost all of it, is done by people who come in from places like Pakistan, India, and elsewhere, and they are treated as semi-slaves. They are treated horribly, and again, many of them die in the construction because of the way they are treated. There's no reason in the 21st century for anybody to die while constructing a football stadium or constructing even skyscrapers, and yet they do, and that is because of the kind of conditions that they're being placed under.  It is a monstrosity that the world community, any world community, sanctions the Qatari regime. It is a monstrosity that FIFA chose them, and there's every reason to believe, and I think there's a lot of evidence to suggest, that this was pure corruption that the FIFA, the World Organization, the manager of soccer globally, was basically bribed. The Qataris came over there with suitcases full of cash or whatever, the way you bribe people these days, and that is why FIFA is known for its corruption. It's known for bribery cases. A lot of people have had to resign over the years and quit their jobs. I find it disgusting, and it's making me not really get excited about the one soccer event every four years that I actually get excited about and actually want to watch. Actually want to watch the World Cup. This is one of those sporting events that I enjoy. I don't watch a lot of soccer generally, but the World Cup I like. I'm heavily rooting for Brazil. To win, if not Brazil, I hope England wins. So those are my two favorites, England and Brazil. But I don't know if I can bring myself to watch any of the games, given what I know about the conditions under which these games are happening. So truly disgusting, truly offensive, and really reprehensible. And I hope the people at FIFA who put this together, what is it, Rod and Hal, or are prosecuted for the corruption that I think is almost guaranteed to be found, because there's no way based on any logic of soccer, based on any logic of actually sporting logic, one would have the World Cup in Qatar. All right, and finally, let me say a little bit about the Climate Change Conference that just ended in Egypt, Cup 27. I'm not gonna say a lot here about it. You know, I'll read up about it some more and see if there's reason to do a whole show about this. But I'll just say a little bit about it in terms of just updating you so you know what's going on in the world. This was the Global Climate Change Conference that was supposed to come to some kind of big deal about emissions cuts and about, you know, cutting the acceptable temperature increase and about making sure that emissions are cut to the extent that they need to be in order to achieve this goal. All of this is, of course, based on these models that, you know, one has to be skeptical about the meaning and about the legitimacy, about the legitimacy. So, but here's the thing, they couldn't come to an agreement about emissions. They couldn't come to an agreement about any kind of targets. And the main reason for that is that countries like China and India and other countries like that are not interested in Western-type altruism, not interested in Western-type, you know, self-punishment in order to achieve some amorphous, undefined, unrealistic, and unscientific goal. But what did they agree to? They agreed to what, you know, to the West actually suffering and sacrificing itself. So the one thing, the great achievement of COP 27, something that they've been trying to do for decades now, basically Western countries have agreed, and this is a huge issue, right? Basically, Western countries have agreed to a massive wealth transfer. We don't yet know what exact numbers are going to be, but they are pledged to engage in a massive wealth transfer from rich countries to poor countries to, quote, handle all the effects of climate change. Effects of climate change that the West is, it takes responsibility for, because it emitted all this carbon while it was growing rich, and now these poor countries are the ones that are gonna suffer, and therefore the West feels guilty about that, so the West has created a fund.  I wonder if they're gonna net out the positive impacts of climate change. I doubt that. So this is the point. The point is that developing countries, in Asian countries, are generally philosophically healthier than the West. They feel less guilt, they're less likely to sacrifice, they're less likely to hood themselves. The Chinese have no interest in becoming poorer. The Indians have no interest in not developing at max speed, and therefore they won't commit to cutting emissions. Remember, China is the largest emissary of CO2 in the world. They won't commit to that. Good for them, I say. But the West, filled with Christian morality, filled with effective altruism, filled with altruism and sacrifice and a Christian ethos, even when they're secular, they're willing to sacrifice, so the manifestation of that sacrifice right now is we'll give you dollars. We too are not gonna cut emissions right now because we got this energy crisis in Europe, but we'll give you dollars. We'll buy ourselves into heaven. This is Christianity implemented. This is Christianity undisplayed. And this is the West today. This is the West today, groveling before the rest of the world, asking for forgiveness and using dollars to buy themselves into heaven. Nothing has changed. In 2000 years, the morality of altruism is as evil today as it ever was.  So as we learn more about your commitment, you as a taxpayer's commitment to this nonsense, to this sacrifice, I will let you know how much it's gonna cost you. And you can thank your political leaders for making it all possible. All right, that is my quick update of the news. It took a little longer than I'd like, so next time I'll have to cut it a little shorter. I have maybe fewer news items. We'll see tomorrow how I do this because I've used up a bunch of news items. We'll see what happens between today and tomorrow. I expect tomorrow, the new show will be at about the same time. I will let you know certainly in the morning, but I expect it to be tomorrow at around 11 o'clock East Coast time. But as I say, I will let you know as the time gets closer. All right, quickly, quickly let's go through some of the super chat. So we're about $85 short on our goal for the day for the $250, so hopefully we'll get a few more supporters. Thank you, Mike, for the $50 that helped a lot. Thanks, Colt, and thank you, Gail, for the support. Any one of you can help support the show by just, you don't even have to ask a question by just doing a sticker with any amount of money that you would like. We have 113 people watching. If each one of them put in a dollar right now, we'd make the 85 to get to our goal. So it doesn't take a lot to get to the 250 goal. It just involves you being willing to be traders. Are you getting value for me? I hope that's why you're listening and you can give me a value by going on the super chat and making a small contribution. All right, Len, for $50 Canadian dollars, he's got two questions. Let's take them both. He said, Jordan Peterson interviewed Danielle Smith in episode 306, the new premier of Alberta. She calls herself a libertarian conservative and came to power by Canadian Trumpists. She seems less harmful than alternative leftist populist. Vote for her, question mark. I don't know, so let me watch the interview. I've noticed that Jordan Peterson has done a series of interviews now. I intend to watch his interview with Newt Gingrich in his interview with, not Lex Friedman, with Yoram Chazzoni. And I'll add his interview with Daniela Smith to the list. But to the extent that she is pro free markets, to the extent that as a Canadian, I doubt she's super religious. She's not like the kind of super religious people in the United States. I think Canada is saner than that. To the extent that she doesn't advocate for stupid things like tariffs and other kind of limitations, big limitations in immigration, Canada is one of the few countries in the world which has a very expansive immigration and that allows for a lot of new immigrants. I hope that is sustained. I hope the Conservative Party in Canada sustains that. As long as she doesn't have any really, really horrific policies, oh, I see you have an addition here, let's see. Add on is Daniela Smith really appealed to anti-vaxa activists that's really sad. And is a social liberal and economic conservative? I guess that's good, depending on how you define economic conservative. While being an intellectual pragmatist, she did work in right-leaning economic foundations and media, lots of baggage politically. Yeah, I mean, you know, there was real potential that she could be good, that she will do enough good to overcome the bad. Again, you have to measure how bad is she and on what. The fact that she appealed to anti-vaxes is kind of sad and does not bode well. But on the other hand, okay, I mean, the leftist appeal to really horrific ideas as well. And, you know, really look at her, what does economic conservatism mean to her? If it really does mean limited government and it does really, she is for protecting rights and for deregulating and allowing business to thrive and for trade and for immigration, then yeah, I would vote for her given the alternatives and give them what's out there. All right, latent prion, 20 Australian dollars, we've got a lot of Australians and Canadians dominating today. So, all right, so we're 70 dollars. Thank you, not on the Qatar channel. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Jupiter, all contributing and chipping away slowly at the number now up down to $60. So, you know, keep it coming and you know, maybe three people do $20 and then we're done and that way we can end on a high note, we can end at $250 and everything is good. Let's see, I've solved, this is like a pion, I've solved both the problem of induction and volition and I'd like to get Dr. Binswanger, Salmiyari, Gode, Peacock or someone trusted to read my book, Still in Progress, how do I, how can I contact and talk to an ARI expert? Just send an email to ARI, I think Harry Binswanger's email might be public, you might be able to find it, maybe you can contact him directly, certainly you can probably contact him directly through HBL, his kind of newsletter, chat kind of thing that he does. You know, I think you can probably get, you know, Salmiyari's information from his position, his UT, so I'm sure there are ways to do that. And ARI, there is, I'm sure there's an email address on the website where you can send it to. By the way, I think Glenn and Peacock already solved the problem of induction in his induction course that he did a few years ago. All right, thank you, Rob, appreciate it. We're chipping away here, Andy with $20, I hope chip away quite a bit. We're now only $38 short. How does a NatCon, Khazani, reconcile with morality, with morality the poverty of traditional tribal life with the prosperity that liberal rights theories have brought, industrial evolution or the tyranny of Iran? Well, he would argue that all of that is not a consequence of, so all of that is not a consequence of liberalism. All of that is in spite liberalism and indeed all of that progress, all of that success, happened in relatively traditionalist countries like England, where there was a monarchy and that what England happened in England during the industrial revolution is slow evolution and not anything radical. The Church of England is still formally part of the English state. I think he would say that economic progress is not the be all end all of everything that moral values are more important than economic progress and some countries might choose not to have economic progress and rather prefer their traditionalist, religious values instead of economic progress and maybe that is the case for Iran. Although I find it hard to believe that he would defend Iran, but he might. I mean, it would be interesting to ask him about the hijab and whether he thinks Iran is right and whether these goals protesting are revolutionaries that should be suppressed and a bad for the world and a bad for Iran and Iran should have the right to suppress them and we shouldn't be arguing for them. It would be interesting to ask him what his position is on that given that he basically says every country should be able to choose its own way and there's no universalism. So there's no universal statement I can make that the Iranian regime is evil and these goals are right. That would be universalism. All right, Michael asked, did Musk buy Twitter for impulsive narcissistic reasons? Why doesn't he focus all his capital on sending man to Mars? I don't know. I mean, certainly it seems like based on his tweeting on Twitter that there is a certain element of impulsive narcissism in his buying of Twitter. But let's wait and see. I don't want to judge Musk yet. I want to give it some time. Right now it does look like impulsive narcissists. Now, why doesn't he? Because he is brilliant and he is all over the place and he does like to do more than one thing and there was only so much effort and time and energy you can put into the Mars issue. That's going to develop slowly and he was passionate, I guess, about electric cars. Electric cars subsidized by the state, of course. And now he wants to fix the world by fixing Twitter. Exactly what that all means, how that all plays out. Again, don't want to jump to judging him before we see more of the consequences. Svika, thank you. Svika put us over the goal. Happy Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving to all of you and thank you, Svika. Look forward to talking soon. That was Michael. Let's see, now we have another Michael. Have you listened to Mike Mensa's interview on Objectivism? It was surprisingly excellent. No, but as I think I've said in the past, I actually talked to Mike Mensa a little bit before he died. I have, there's no reason to think it wouldn't be good.  I see we've got a lot of Europeans on. This is great. So I guess it's rare for you guys to actually have the opportunity to listen live. So thank you, Frederick Olsen. Thank you, Oliver Sandberg, both in Norway, I guess, SDK. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, Paul. And let's see, two last questions, one from JB. If pro-Europeans rebelled further due to current crisis, which direction could it take, more socialist, conservative, and or surprisingly liberal?  And Europe, different countries have different dynamics, but I think the dominant view outside of the conventional view is right now the energy, the excitement, the youth is on the right, not on the left. The only places where the youth is on the left seems like is in the United States and the UK. But if you look at Europe, at the heart of Europe, if you look at across the board, I think European countries, what you will find is that the energy and young people are primarily on the right. You see that in Sweden, you see that in France. I think you see that in Italy. They're on the right, so, you know, Europe seems to be heading towards a kind of a nationalism. But Europe also has a history of socialism, so that's always possible. But I still think that the more likely outcome for the United States and probably Europe is kind of a right-wing nationalist, semi-full-on fascist future. But we will see, we will see. I don't see the energy young people among poor or other Europeans coming around the idea of a liberal society, a free society. I just don't see, I don't see that yet. Maybe it'll happen. I'm suddenly working for that. Certainly that is the goal, but I don't see it yet. All right, last question. Ryan asked, can you explain why tariffs are so bad? Anti-trade conservatives claim big deal.  Well, it's bad on so many different dimensions. Let's take steel taxes. So, steel tariffs, sorry, steel tariffs. So steel tariffs mean that the price of steel is more expensive in the United States because now every piece of steel imported, there's a tax on it, which you, the American consumer of steel and every product made of steel that is produced in the United States, you now are paying. So it's all your goods are more expensive. But on top of that, it means that all the manufacturers like automobile companies who use steel in their manufacturing, now have to pay a higher cost for steel and therefore become less competitive with their Asian and German competitors. And therefore, when you buy an American car, you're paying a higher price because now you're paying, it's the form in which you pay for that steel and that hurts the auto company. Somebody did a study that showed that for every job saved in the steel business, multiple jobs are lost in the companies that use steel to produce other stuff in the United States. That's caused by tariffs. But more than that, what a steel tariff for example does is it reduces competition for American steel manufacturers, which encourages them to become lazy, less productive, less efficient, less competitive. And therefore makes their steel even more expensive long-term and makes it so that if ever the steel tariffs go away, now they certainly won't be able to compete with global companies out there. And generally it makes American industry less effective, less efficient, less productive. I'm reading a book right now and I will talk about this much more in a future show about the chip wars going back to all the way to the invention of the chip, the electronic chip. A fascinating, one of the best books I've read in a long time, I'll be talking more, I'm in the middle of it, I wanna finish it. I wanna get to the whole China pod before I do a show on it. But it is amazing and one of the things that it illustrates is exactly this, how uncompetitive you become when you're protected. Whether you're in Japan or whether you're in America or in China, wherever you are, if you're protected, you become uncompetitive. Competition is so crucial to innovation. Competition is so crucial to keeping up and to really pushing yourself. So that's another aspect of tariffs. And then of course what happens is that once you institute a tariff on steel, every industry out there that feels quote threatened by foreign competition now has them all high ground and the political capital to go to Washington and demand tariffs on their competitors, to demand protection for themselves. And now you get not just one tariffs on steel, but you get dozens of tariffs on everything else. And of course in the Trump presidency, what happened was because, and then there's the other aspect, and this will be my last point, I hope because we're going late. The other aspect of it is that if you raised tariffs on steel, let's say from China, China then raises tariffs on, I don't know, soybeans in China and therefore you are now exporting less soybeans or you're exporting, if it's caterpillar, you're exporting less tractors to China or whatever, they put a tariff on that. So now that industry is getting hood because they export less. And Chinese consumers getting hood, maybe you don't care about Chinese consumers, but American companies that export to China getting hood. But then what you land up doing is bailing them out. So the government then says, oh, and this Trump did several times. In order for the farmers not to go bankrupt because they're not selling as many soybeans to China, we're gonna now give increased subsidies to farmers to compensate. And you can see how this spirals out of control and it just increases ever increasing role of government in the economy and it grows and it grows and it grows and it grows and it just is unstoppable. And you start with one little tariff and soon the government is in every aspect of our world. That's what we have today. That's what we have today. And no president has been immune from this, but Trump was particularly bad on this, partially because of what he did and partially because of what he said, he was particularly bad on this issue. All right, that's what I have to say about tariffs. Thanks, Ryan. All right, we made our goal. Thank you for everybody, particularly Tzvika and Mike and Len who gave $100 Canadian and everybody else really, really appreciated. And let's see, yes, we probably will have a show tonight at 7 p.m. Eastern time. And let me also say, Rob asked if it's Chip Wars by Chris Miller. Yes, that is the book. It's excellent. I highly recommend it for everybody, particularly those people in tech. It's just a very well written and fascinating, really, really interesting book. All right, thank you. See you all. Hope you enjoyed this. Hope you enjoyed this format. I'll see you all tonight and I'll also see you tomorrow.


And I asked her point blank. I'm like, teeth brushing or flossing? If I can only pick one, which one? She's like flossing a hundred percent. And I was like, oh, that's interesting. Like I wouldn't, you know, wouldn't have guessed that. And she's like, it's the only way you get into your gums. And that's where the bacteria is going to just hang out. And if you don't get it, it's, it's like planting a tree. It's just going to hang out and grow. And it's going to rot your tooth spot on the bad bacteria live where there's no oxygen. And where is there no oxygen? It's in between your teeth. And so some of our products that we're launching help oxygenate them out and create an environment that is actually bad for bad bacteria. So it enables good bacteria to thrive.  And yeah, I wish everyone flossed.


Good morning everyone and welcome to the course on 1st Timothy, 2nd Timothy, Thaistus and Philemon. We began this looking at the introduction to 1st Timothy last week. We also read through first the chapter 1 and we came up to verse 3. We'll continue from there today so before we begin can one of you please lead us in prayer please anyone? It's prayer. Dear Evan Father we thank you so much for this wonderful morning. We thank you for allowing me. Hello can you hear Christopher? I can't hear Charles sorry. Charles we can't hear you. Are those able to hear him? No ma'am. Okay maybe his internet connectivity is interrupted so. Can somebody else lead us in prayer please anyone? Yes go ahead Asha. Thank you. Thank you so much for letting me in. Lord, as we are about to start our class, 1st Timothy, Thaistus and Philemon that you strengthen our minds and help us to grow in wisdom and knowledge and equip us to be our Lord that we may understand deep with us and deeper things that you have to teach God. Thank you all professors and as she teaches Lord that you continue to pour your spirit and help us to grow so God in the ways she's about to teach. Thank you so much Lord for everything. We pray in that. Amen. Thank you. Charles sorry we couldn't hear you Charles so I think maybe your internet connectivity was weak. So I asked Asha to lead us in prayer. Is that okay? Are you there Charles? He's disconnected I guess ma'am. Oh see him anyways. Okay thank you Stavini. So last Monday we began looking at 1st Timothy. We looked at the background and we got gathered some information about Paul, his missionary journeys. And we saw that you know after his release from his 1st Roman imprisonment, which is somewhere between 63 to 6780, you know Paul travels along with Thaistus to Crete, you know and he leaves Thaistus there to continue to work at Crete and then Paul travels along with Timothy to Ephesus. And this time he leaves Timothy, young Timothy at Ephesus to oversee the work there and then Paul travels on to other regions and he goes to Macedonia where he writes this letter to 1st Timothy and Thaistus during this time. And some people say he also wrote Hebrews during this time but it's most likely that he wrote it from Macedonia. He just writes 1st Timothy, he writes Thaistus who he has left at Crete is encouraging them, giving them the moral support, the encouragement that they need to continue the work because it's not easy for them being young and overseeing these churches, which already was established and had elders there and the false doctrines that were being preached and taught and also to bring in some order in the church. So he writes back to them talking about all of these things and basically just encouraging both Timothy and Thaistus. And we see that during Paul's 2nd Roman imprisonment he writes his last episode which is 2nd Timothy and we see that Timothy is a son who to Paul, who Paul mentored, who he established in the work of the Lord and Timothy has just matured, has grown in his love for God, his love for his work, his love for his word and that is why we see that Paul leaves him at this very strategic place in Ephesus which not only just had the house churches there at Ephesus but also was kind of a spiritual headquarters for the other churches in that region, the seven churches of Srinna, Pergamot, Tithedia, Philadelphia, Laodicea and Thaistus. So that was just going back to a brief background of what we had studied last Monday. And then we began studying 1 Timothy chapter 1, we read through 1 Timothy chapter 1, we came right up till verse 3. So Paul says in verse 3, you know, he's just encouraging Timothy to remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they may teach no other doctrine. And so this whole chapter 1, he's basically giving him reasons why he wants Timothy to remain in Ephesus. The reasons he's saying is because in verses 3 to 7 he says because they need the truth because of the false doctrines that were preached. Verses 8 to 11, he says, I know you minister in a hard place, 12 to 16, how God uses unworthy people. So Timothy must be feeling very unworthy and Paul is talking about how unworthy and the worst sinner that he was and Christ Jesus saved him. And he was the chief of sinners but Christ Jesus saved him and there's no one unworthy like Paul. And so he says, you know, when God can use me, he can even use you. And verses 17 he says because, you know, he's reminding Timothy of who he's serving, he's serving a great God.   They never surrender to the enemy. They fight till the last breath. And then in verse 19 to 20 he says because not everyone else does so. So he's saying that in verse 3 he says, you know, that you may charge some. So he says, remain in Ephesus that you may charge some that they may teach no other doctrine. So the ancient Greek word for charge basically has a military connotation. It's a military word is word charge in the ancient Greek. It means to give strict orders and the strict orders is coming from a commanding officer. So commanding officers giving strict orders. And so Paul is telling young Timothy that, you know, he's just supposed to give that order. So when he gives that orders, you know, there is no option that is presented, you know. So Timothy wasn't to present the option of correct doctrine to be some in, you know, Ephesus. He was to command them like a military officer saying that this is the correct doctrine, not just give them the option to choose saying this is the correct doctrine and they have to follow it. So there were some people, you know, who were teaching these false doctrines and and was for he says, you know, what are these false doctrines. So what do we know about it. We gather some information from Westport where it says now give he to fables and endless genealogies, which causes disputes rather than godly edification, which is in faith. So these false doctrines, or the other doctrines, which is basically talking about is Jewish fables and, you know, endless Jewish genealogies. I had mentioned about this when we studied the book of Romans. So it was not just something very this problem was not just a challenge was not specific only to the churches at Ephesus but was something that was some prevalent throughout, you know, Europe and Asia Minor and, you know, all the places that Paul minister to basically was because Jews were turning. They're accepting Christ they were becoming Christians and joining the church, and they were bringing in all of these Jewish legalistic rituals of circumcision, keeping the food we looked at it in studied it in Romans chapter in the book of Romans. And we also see that, you know, they, they brought about these Jewish fables which are not it's not part of the Bible, but there was a lot of ancient Jewish, you know, writings that they had discovered, which talks about fables and endless genealogies and the other doctrine, which was very prevalent at that time was a Gnosticism and Gnosticism was something that was impacting the Christian mindset the Christian world the Christian church during Paul's time. It was a prominent heretical movement during the second century in the Christian church. So basically I like to give you a little background about Gnosticism because it's something that, you know, was a prevalent teaching that was that had spread and was in the churches disturbing the minds of the people in the churches so it's good to know about it just for your, you know, for your information. The term Gnosticism is derived from the Greek word, which means the Greek word Gnosis, which means to know or knowledge. So it was a second century religious movement. And the people who brought about this, this teaching said that salvation could be gained through a special form of secret knowledge so you can just receive salvation through secret knowledge. And the secret knowledge will be revealed to those who are, you know, spiritual enough in their mindsets to understand the spiritual knowledge and only those who received this impartation of the spiritual knowledge, they would receive salvation. So basically Gnosticists believe that the world was divided into physical and the spiritual realms.  And they believe that only the spirit is good and everything in this world is evil. For the Gnosticists, they believe that God is incomprehensible, he's unknowable.  But the Gnosticists believe that God is incomprehensible and unknowable. Gnosticists also, you know, believe that there is an inferior God and a superior God. So they have this distinction between an inferior God and a superior God. They don't believe that God created the world because they're saying that the world is, of course, the physical realm is evil. So God cannot create evil. So they divide again, you know, they separate. And they say there's an inferior God who created this world. And there is a superior God who brought about redemption and salvation. And for salvation for Gnosticists, you know, they divide Christians into two categories. They say one group is Karnan, which is, and they believe they are inferior and the others are, and the other group is spiritual or superior. And they say only the superior Christians, you know, are divinely enlightened persons and they can comprehend these secret teachings and they can obtain true salvation. So what is these secret teachings? We really don't know. You know, it's something that they believe that will be revealed to them by the superior God. But we believe that, you know, the Bible teaches us that salvation is available for everyone. It's not just for the few, but salvation is from grace to faith in Jesus Christ. We read about this in Ephesians chapter 2, verses 8 and 9. And it's not through works, but it is by grace through faith.  And the other view of Gnosticists believed that, you know, that the divine spirit came upon Jesus's human body at baptism and departed before his crucifixion. But we believe, or the Bible teaches us, the Bible tells us that, you know, Jesus was fully God and fully man, that he was both human. He had both human and divine nature that were present in him. And hence he was able to provide a suitable sacrifice for, you know, the sins of the entire world. So just as a basic background of Gnosticism, you don't have to, you know, it's not something that you need to keep in mind, but just, you know, in case you're studying scripture deeply and you need to know what Gnosticism is, what they believed in, and what context the writers of the New Testament are writing, especially Paul, when he's writing to these churches. It's because of this heretical movement that was very prevalent in the Christian church during Paul's time in the second century. Now, the endless genealogies which he's talking, he's mentioning here in West Ford, is connected with, you know, one can be Jewish type of legalism.  So they were bringing in all these Jewish legalism, which is kind of overburdening the people in the church. And so it does again come into a place where salvation is not by grace to faith, but by works which these Jewish believers were bringing into the church. And also this Jewish type of legalism, which they were teaching was that you can receive righteousness by virtue of one's ancestry. So they were saying that, you know, the Jews, they had the upper hand because they were from the generation or the race of Abraham. And so we see how beautifully Paul is writing the church at Rome and he talks about how Abraham receives righteousness. Not, you know, he received righteousness not just because of the covenant that got made with him and the sign of that covenant, the circumcision, but before that he was declared righteous, but it's because of his faith. And how beautifully Paul talks about, you know, how we can be made righteous in Christ Jesus is through our faith and how we can be interlinked into that. It's because of what Jesus did on the cross for us. And then we also see that, you know, when Paul was writing about these doctrines he had in mind, you know, this mystic readings of Old Testament genealogies.  So, and people, the Jewish people were consumed and were very interested in all of these things. But Paul is saying, you know, these other doctrines, these endless genealogies, these fables, what is the end result? He's telling Timothy that his end result is it's not going to bring godly edification, but it's just going to bring dispute and strife. Okay. So we see that when, you know, how do we know what is the many doctrines that are coming up today. The main thing is to just stand behind and watch. Because if it is some teaching from the Word of God, the right doctrine, then it's going to bring about godly edification in the faith. It's going to build up people in the faith. But if it's not something that is from God, it's not from the Word of God, then it's something that's going to bring about strife and division. So one way to know whether what we are listening to hearing from a speaker or, you know, some new theology that's come up is just wait to see, you know, what is the end result. Because Jesus says you'll be known by your food. So works will be known by the foods will make known your work. So what is the fruit of these wrong doctrines that people are teaching the end result is going to be just strife and division. But if it is the right doctrine, it's going to build up people in the faith. People are going to be strengthened in their faith. It's going to bring about godly edification. We also see that it was not something that Paul is just mentioning to Timothy. Now it has been a problem in the Church of Ephesus long before even, you know, before Timothy took on charge of overseeing or spiritually overseeing the churches at Ephesus, you know, during the end of the third missionary journey.  And he also, you know, speaks to them. We looked at it in the background when we did the background on the study, the introduction to first Timothy. We also see that Paul had warned these elders of his leaders at the church in Ephesus about these false teachings. And we get a glimpse of this in Acts chapter 20 versus 28 to 32. So can one of you please read Acts chapter 20 versus 28 to 32 please. Acts chapter 20 was 28 to 32. Therefore, take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers to shepherd the Church of God, which he purchased with his own blood. For I know this that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves, men will rise up speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples after themselves. Therefore, watch and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears. So now brethren, I commend you to God and to the Word of his grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified. Thank you, Divya. So Paul is already warning them. He's writing, he's telling the leaders here at Ephesus nine years before he's even writing to first, writing to Timothy in his letter, first Timothy. We also see that when Paul writes his epistle of Ephesians, you know, to the church at Ephesus when he was imprisoned in Rome, he wants the believers to be built up. And he says in Ephesians chapter four verse 14 that you should no longer be children tossed to and for and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the trickery of men in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting. So we see that, you know, this is an ongoing problem and Paul has been talking to them, writing to them, warning the leaders, but, you know, it still continues in the church and Paul is writing to Timothy and telling him what he needs to do.  And it should also be important to us as his people, we need to guard the truths that has been revealed to us in God's word and to guard the truth. One of the ways we can do it is, you know, we need to study God's word. We need to learn God's word. So even as you are, you know, learning so many courses, learning so many things from the Word of God, learning all of these, the books that are there in the Old Testament, New Testament. You know, it's important for you to take time to study it, to know the doctrines, we studied about the doctrines and systematic theology as well. The doctrine of Jesus Christ in Christology, important to be grounded in the truths of all the doctrines so that, you know, you can teach and impart the right doctrines to the people, you know, who God is going to make you overseers, or to be shepherds of the flock that God is entrusting you to, or, you know, teaching it to your children, or teaching it in the Bible study group, or the cell group, or life group, whatever you are part of.  So whatever you understand, whatever you want to think, whatever you believe in, that is the truth, you know. So, but that is deviating from or misleading, or, you know, is Satan's way of deception of leading us from the truth in God's word. So, you know, we see that, yes, truth is important to God, and also should be important to His people. And that is what we see the high priestly prayer with Jesus prayed, you know, other, let them know the truth and let the truth set them free. Okay. Any questions so far from verses one to verse four? If not, we'll move on to verses five to seven. Anyone has any questions from verses one to four? Okay, there are no questions. Can one of you please read verses five to seven, please. As Timothy chapter one verses five to seven. Verses five to seven. Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from some having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding either what they say, or the things which they affirm. Thank you, Christopher. So, what I'm saying is the purpose of the commandment or the purpose of the law is found in its inward work upon the heart of a person. It's not just mere outward observance, because the law had become just a mere outward observance.  I will write my laws upon your heart and my mind and my spirit will help you to keep my laws and my command. So, you know, it had just become something that was very outward for them. It was not something that was an inward, you know, out of an inward love for God that they were keeping the laws, the commandments of it, making those sacrifices, observing those special days. But, you know, the whole purpose of the law that was given to them, it just became an outward work, you know, and not an inward work that God meant it to be. So without this understanding, you know, it was easy for the people, the Jewish people to get into, to become very legalistic in keeping the laws. And we read about that, even Jesus talks about this when he encounters these Jews in the gospels. And it become to an extent where it just became an outward performance and appearance. And that's why Jesus says that, you know, they're like these whitewashed tombs that look very beautiful on the outside.  And it went about judging people, you know, praying loudly in the synagogues and in the street and all of those things. It was just an out mere outward appearance, but it was not something that it did out of a love for God or, you know, out of worship or reverence to God. But here, you know, Paul is saying, what does God want from us? So the purpose of the commandment, basically he's saying, or the purpose of the law is, first of all, love. You know, love from a pure heart, a good conscience and sincere faith. So Paul is talking about why God basically gave the commandment and the laws. And he knows that even as this, he's writing this letter, it's not just going to be read by Timothy, but also be going to be read aloud to the churches at Ephesus and the surrounding area. So he's saying the purpose of the commandment is love. And, you know, and he says that, you know, keep focused on these three things, loving out of a pure heart, good conscience and sincere faith. Do not stray away from this, do not deviate from this core truth into other unnecessary things. So pure heart is basically, you know, being pure in your motives, having no selfish interest, no personal agendas. You know, love from a pure heart suggests the idea that the problem in Ephesus, you know, which was along these Jewish type of legalistic lines where these Jews basically misunderstood the commandments and the laws and they were bringing it in. And they would just basically love and accept people who would follow these strict rituals and laws that the Jews, you know, want to be brought into the church. But he's saying, you know, this is not love. This is not what the commandment of love that God has given to us. It's not about legalism. It's not about keeping certain rituals, but it's just loving people, you know, out of pure motives, no selfish interest or personal agendas and a good conscience or a clear conscience. You know, it's good conscience, a clear conscience where, you know, one is living right before both God and man.  So, you know, how does this apply to us, you know, when we spend time in God's Word, you know, if it does not produce love from a pure heart, if it's not producing a good conscience and since your faith, then there is something wrong. There can be a problem where we are becoming very legalistic and there are many churches where legalism, you know, is so overpowering, is so over-burdening people, you know, and legalism kind of twists God's Word, what he has said. So instead of showing love, people become very harsh and judgmental. If you don't dress up in a certain way, you don't worship in a certain way, you don't do things in a certain way, you know, people can become very harsh and judgmental. We see this very prevalent in our churches, you know, instead of having a good conscience, people feel condemned, you know, thinking that they don't measure up because they are not able to keep up with the devil. The legalistic rituals or the legalism that the church is bringing about, and also they begin to feel very condemned in the sight of God that, you know, they doubt their own salvation, they doubt whether God loves them. And it's easy for people to see that they really don't fit in church or they're not able to do things. And because they're not able to keep the church, so-called church commandments or laws, and they basically breaking it and people are becoming very judgmental of them, it's better to leave the church. And so they have nothing to do with the church. They don't have the fellowship and then they stray away from God.  So we're so bound by these things. And we look at people in other faith, you know, who do not know Christ, who do not know Jesus, who are so bound by rituals, who are so bound by days and customs and things that they have to do and living in so much of fear that if they don't do it, you know, they will incur curses or the judgment of God. So basically all boils down to works and not grace, which Satan, you know, easily leads people astray. And then he's, you know, instead of sincere faith, you know, practically we trust in our own ability to please God. So people come to a place where they're saying, hey, I'm keeping all of these rules and rituals that the church wants me to, and hence I'm pleasing to God. But those who are not able to keep it, you know, they feel condemned, they feel that they are not worthy in God's sight, they become unworthy people, and they're not able to do things. And hence it becomes no longer salvation by grace through faith, but by works which we see in many churches today. So, you know, it's important that, you know, even as we study God's word, even as you're studying these doctrines, you know, it produces in us a love from a pure heart, a good conscience and a sincere faith. So as believers, let's stay with this pure heart, a good or clear conscience, good or clear conscience and sincere faith. Verse 6, Paul writes from which some have strayed and have turned aside to, yes, Christopher, you can go ahead. You know, I'm huge a mic and I just wanted to find out with regards to, or understand this a little more clearly. When it mentions about the purpose of the commandment, is it referring to also the 10 commandments and, you know, how people should live their lives based on those 10 commandments? And the second question is with regards to, if you could give us a few examples in the current times where people have, where there's a lot of legality being, you know, proclaimed and therefore people have, you know, are not really, they are actually getting, they are actually having, they are strayed and they are, you know, they are, as you mentioned, you know, run aside or I will talk with you. So give us a few examples for that, please. Yes. Thank you, Christopher. So your first question is, you know, with regard to the commandments, the purpose of the commandment is not just 10 commandments, but there are also 613 more commandments or laws that God had given to them. Basically in every area that we read in, you know, in the book of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, where the laws are all mentioned, also about, you know, about the covenant, the laws about keeping the covenant of God. So it's talking about the whole purpose of the law, looking at it as one, because, you know, Paul says, if you, you know, keep one law and break the others, it's as good as, you know, you've broken everything. So we see the law as just one whole entity, but when we keep one, you know, we also require to keep the others or it requires us to keep the others as well, not just keep some, which is easy for us, comfortable for us and break the others. Does that help, Christopher? No, sorry, sorry, sorry. So you're saying that the purpose of the commandments will be the 10 commandments and also the 630. Yes, they're looking at the law as a whole. Okay, but I thought that if we just live by the law, then we are not, you know, as mentioned over here, right?  So I just wanted to understand the distinction between what, you know, the commandment and the law, what is the distinction between the two? Yeah, the law has the commandments as well. Commandment is also the law, yes. So here Paul is not saying that, you know, he's, as he's written in Romans we studied, it's not the law, but and here, you know, they're bringing in all of these laws and they're saying you have to follow all of these laws. That's how you receive, you keep your salvation going. So he's saying it's not about, it's not about these legalistic rituals that you, you know, observe, it's by grace through faith that you receive. But, you know, the Jews, even though they have received salvation, they come to the church, they have, they're bringing in these Jewish legalism. And that is what is causing a lot of strife and dispute and disorder in the church, which he mentions in verses three and four. Does that help, Christopher? Basically, some of the ones that are man-made are the ones that actually come from God. Is that, is that kind of the distinction? So the ones that are man-made? Man-made and the ones that really come from God as in, as in, you know, in the Bible or, you know. You mean the circumcision and the rituals of keeping food and all of those things? So I'm just going to, okay, I'm just going to understand if we follow the law, is that the right way to do it? Even if it is man-made, I mean made by, you know, created by man, or do we need to follow, do we follow what is there in the Bible? Okay, so this circumcision ritual is yes, is there in the Bible, the food, the way you dress, the way you do things is all what the law God had given the people. But then Paul is bringing them to an understanding of that the law was just something that, you know, showed them. He talks about it in the verses below in chapter one. You know, the law was not for the righteous but for the sinners because it basically, what did the law do? The law's basic work was it made a sinner know that they have sinned against God. And keeping the law is not going to bring about making you righteous. That means it's not going to give you a right standing with God. But, you know, it's by grace and what Jesus has done and through faith in Christ Jesus that gives you a right standing. But the whole purpose of the law was it revealed sin. It showed a person that they have broken the commandments of God. They've not kept the law. How do people know that they have, you know, not kept the law of God? It's a law that showed them. It was a law that revealed to them that they are sinners, that they need grace, they need forgiveness and they need salvation. So you're talking about whether it's keeping godly laws or it's about keeping man-made laws. Even now, even though we live by grace, yes, we still, you know, the commandments, the laws are still applicable because the law is not something that is bounding or binding on us. It's not something that is going to kind of burden us. But that was not God's main intent or purpose for keeping the law.  So some of the laws even had to do with, you know, what kind of food to eat, what kind of clothes to wear.  It is so good, so healthy and so applicable for people in our today's world to go back to those kind of eating habits or the kind of food that we need to eat. So the law that God gave us is not something that we need to keep it as something that, you know, is out of a ritual or something that is binding us, something that is trading us, something that's overpowering us, but it's something that is going to just enable us to understand the heart of God, what He has for us. And the other purpose of the law is also why God gave the Israelites, is so when they live by this law, you know, every nation around them had laws, the Israelites did not. So the purpose God gave them all of these laws, you know, if you look at so many laws that God gave them, is so that through these laws, people will know the Lord, their God, their thing worship. So that was another, the reason why God gave them the law was for them to enjoy who God is, what He's doing in their midst to live that fullness of life, the meaningful life that is in God. And also for other people to come and know this God has given them this law, so through this law they would know and encounter God Himself. And the man made laws that they made of all these Jewish fables and genealogies, yes, was binding on people and Paul was saying, you know, this is causing strife and division and this is not what is important. And that's why he's bringing them back to the core of why the commandments of the laws that God has given them is for love, a good conscience to know what is right and wrong and for faith in God. Did that help, Christopher? Yes, thank you. Okay, some examples that you had asked for some of the legalistic rituals that people, you know, have in churches today. Some of them, you know, is one of them is if you, you know, if you receive salvation, then you can't be baptized. You have to be part of the church for three months or six months, and you'll have to be, you know, joined up the fasting prayer, come to every services. And after that, you know, based on, you know, they're involved in the church and how regular they are the attendants, then the pastor will think, okay, this person is eligible for baptism.   You can start speaking in tongues. If you're a new believer, you cannot, which is not true because, you know, some people have, we see that in acts, you know, at the Cornelius place when Paul goes to Cornelius's house, and Paul is just preaching the gospel. He's not even yet come to the place where he's giving them the altar call. And these people are cut in their heart, which means they realize that they have sinned against God. And, you know, and they start speaking in tongues and Paul and the other Jews will come along with Paul. They are surprised because they thought it's only for them, you know, but it's also for the Gentiles and no one prayed over them. They were not even baptized in the water. No one even gave them the salvation altar call, so to say, but they received Christ and they were not even water baptized, but they received the gifts of the Holy Spirit. So God was showing, the Holy Spirit was showing Paul how he's working, you know, so this can become like a legalistic thing. You have to do all of these things, then only you can, you know, receive baptism. You can receive the gifts of the Spirit. You can receive Holy Communion. You have to be of a certain age. You have to do certain things. Then you can receive Holy Communion, but, you know, Holy Communion is something that you can give people who've accepted Jesus Christ so that they can just receive the full benefits of what Jesus has done on the cross. Why make them wait for them to just participate and receive and be blessed with what Jesus has already done on the cross? And also in the area of, you know, certain kinds of dressing, you know, in certain churches you're not allowed to wear jewelry.  You know, but if you have that gift of teaching and preaching, you can't. You have to wait.   And people again can get very offended sometimes because they are judged if they are not dressing in a certain way. They're not doing things in a certain way. If, you know, they have, they're worshiping in a certain church, but they're giving that, you know, they're also part of missions with another mission organization contributing there, supporting there. Then, you know, they're judged. They are questioned. But we have no rights on what people, where people go and minister, where they go for Bible studies, where they, you know, give their tithes and offerings. But yet they need to be faithful to the local church. And if they're doing that, then, you know, we just can't control people if they want to be part of other ministries where they're learning and just being built up and edifying. More of you can add to Christopher, you know, if you have seen some legalistic rituals and rules that are binding on people in your churches, we can come back after the break and some of you can share that. Is that okay, Christopher? Okay, we'll go for a break now and we'll come back after the break and continue. Thank you.


As you know, two days ago, there was happened a terrorist attack in the capital of Islamic Republic of Iran, in Tehran, against an Azerbaijani embassy. An Azerbaijani embassy and it was a tragedy. As a result of this incident, there was killed one person and wounded two other persons. And a man by his name was Yassin Hossein Zareh. He entered to the Azerbaijani embassy building and opened fire and he committed a crime. Right now, there are some viewers about this terrorist attack. Iranian regime, especially Iranian government and the spokesman of foreign ministry of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kanani has said that there is a personal motive behind this incident. But we know that especially Islamic revolutionary guards has a great experience, especially in the Middle East and they commit various of terror acts. And that's why I say that they have a great experience. This is a terror act and the perpetrator, it doesn't matter who is this person. He is a simple perpetrator and the footage civilians of cameras released on social media revealed that it was a terror attack. There is any kind of personal motive behind this incident. This terror attack was planned at Azerbaijan embassy and the gunman first of all destroyed the security guard in front of Azerbaijan embassy. He then entered the building and he tried to kill all people. But he says that his wife was disappeared. It was already 8 months and he saw that his wife was in this building. But it is absolutely incorrect and it is comic. I think that this incident, this terror attack was planned by Islamic revolutionary guard and they wanted, they tried, they did their best to kill all embassy personnel, all diplomats and their families, but they failed to do this act. I think that Iran after the war with Armenia in 2020 and after Azerbaijan gained a great victory over Armenian and liberated the large part of its occupied lands, Iran has problems with Azerbaijan. Iran right now Armenia is a friend with Islamic regime and this regime uses Armenia, uses this country against Azerbaijan. And because of Zengizu corridor and other geopolitical projects Iran, Iran hates to our country. That's why Iran will continue its terror attacks and other politics against Azerbaijan republic. And right now Azerbaijan has alliances in the world and Turkey is a strategic ally, the partner of Azerbaijan also Israel and Iran is disagree with Azerbaijan-Israel relations. Iran can't accept the Israeli and Azerbaijan friendship but it is unacceptable as Azerbaijan is a sovereign country. Iran has got relations with Armenia, the Aqf enemy of Azerbaijan and I think that Azerbaijan has got also right to have the close relations with Jewish state. I think that the relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey and Azerbaijan and Israel will be developed in the future, but I think that Azerbaijan special security services have to be attended against any actions coming from Iran. And I think that I have read that Azerbaijan, the Minister of Foreign Affairs will ever quit, it is diplomatic personnel from Iran, it is necessary and in Iran it can happen everything against Azerbaijan citizens and Azerbaijan diplomats and etc. And I think that in the near future we will have some problems with Iran from this point of view. I think that we have to be attentive on Iran and we have to defend our sovereignty and security as possible as we can.


What's going on everyone welcome to another video now my latest few videos have been getting a lot of attention a lot of good Attention and a lot of negative attention usually from those who are giving Resistance to the message because of cognitive dissonance you give them a message that goes against what they currently believe their current belief system It can cause some discomfort and that's what's happening on this video Usual stuff. Let's go through it together to read some of the hate comments. Shall we okay?   I'll here we go Nick damn. They look delicious. You think cows look delicious in their whole form I think it has been ridiculous mate. No one thinks a whole animal looks delicious That's why you don't eat a whole cow the way it is you chop it up into little pieces You season it you fry it on a barbecue and you take it away as far away From its natural state as possible so you can stomach it now Tim interesting guy Tim If everyone stops eating meat and went vegan these animals would go extinct anyway What'd be the point in farmers keeping them you're not going to have them as pets in your house and farmers certainly aren't going to pay Unnecessary vet and feed bills for them So you're happy for all these cows sheeps and pigs Etc to just die out seems like a bit of a no-win situation for anybody to me also the farmer is well aware of what he's doing And how he makes a living he doesn't need to be bullied about it Okay Let's go from the top here if everyone stopped eating meat and went vegan these animals would go extinct You know what if an animal's primary purpose for their existence is to be stuck into a gas chamber or into a slaughterhouse Or to be treated like a product Slave having their horns cut off their beaks clipped down their feathers ripped off their Flesh while they're still conscious boiled alive Slit throat drained of their blood chopped up into pieces. What type of existence is that anyway? I'd prefer these animals weren't brought into this existence if you were in if you were brought into these Existence and in existence of torture death suffering and slavery would you prefer to not have existed? I think so you're not going to have them as pets in your house Who says who says we're not going to keep animal sanctuaries are happy to look after animals We wouldn't have 60 billion of them on the planet anyway We wouldn't be using them for food seems like a bit of a no-win situation It's a no-win situation right now the planet is dying the animals are dying People are dying. It's a no-win situation right now just for taste Trivial the farmer is well aware of what he is doing and how he makes a living and he doesn't need to be bullied about it We're not bullying him. Okay, we're standing up for the rights of these animals. They can't speak for themselves He is the bully.  They're most innocent the most vulnerable Okay, we're just saying hey, what are you doing? Why are you doing that? It's unnecessary How does that make us a bully? I don't know. Who's the real bully here? People have been eating meat for centuries FFS Get a life People have been doing a lot of things for centuries raping murdering pillaging dropping bombs onto schools Just because we've been doing something for centuries does not make it moral does not make it ethical So I don't know what type of argument you're trying to pull here, but I've heard it before Grant McKay meat is king meat is king what king of cruelty king of cancer king of heart disease king of what? suffering Why is it okay for these douchebags?    Okay, we're harassing this man for trying to earn a living if you're earning a living and You know the way that you're doing that has a direct victim like the animals in his trailer about to get their heads chopped off Then I don't think I don't think it's harassing him. I don't think we're harassing him Hey, if he wasn't doing something wrong, why would he feel so guilty?   Who are we harming? We're asking you not to harm innocent beings.     He's driving these cows to the slaughterhouse on your behalf probably on your behalf So you can have your sirloin steak to each their own or is that only a one-way street?  That's my puppy dog.  See how that argument doesn't really fit when we put it in a different context leave the poor farmer alone Leave the poor animals alone. Leave the poor animals alone. We're there peacefully protesting We're being polite not swearing.   I don't know how people cannot empathize Do you know what empathizing is putting yourself in the victim's position? Okay, try doing that try doing that.  You see what happens in a slaughterhouse.   So he's saying that we don't eat meat But we're happy to live in a house of wooden constructions that destroys the rainforest Imagine using that argument against any other form of injustice like let's just say I was a murderer I murdered humans and someone come and called me out of out on it and said like what are you doing?  We are causing destruction on the earth just by existing. Okay, even as exist existing as a vegan you are Okay, that's something we have to come to terms with but that doesn't mean we should cause the maximum amount of suffering and harm and stab animals to death and use every single innocent being on this planet as a Resource and rip their skins off their back and make shoes out of them and rip their flesh off their bones and make soup out of it Okay, we can cause the least amount of harm and we do that by being vegan These vegans are just cereal pests on our society human beings are pests on the earth vegans are trying their best to lessen their harm What are you doing be interesting to see how that twat would react being cornered by a lion while holding a gun Now the difference between being cornered by a lion Okay, is that my life is in jeopardy.  We're slaughtering Innocent beings. Okay, that's the difference.  Yeah, okay You gotta do what you do to have to do to survive. Okay, this is not that we're rounding up billions of them We're breeding billions of them to existence and we're chucking them in slaughterhouses for the sole purpose of eating Their flesh or using their bodies in some way Experimenting on them in a laboratory using them to dance around in a circus for our entertainment How the hell is that a survival situation? It's pure pleasure pure sadistic hedonism is greed. Okay, it's not survival Okay, so I saved the best for last this guy here. Jack willow saunders This one here I've already shared this post on my social media because it you know is one of my favorite f all that Some of us eat meat get over it.   Yeah, right, but they're still kept in captivity I don't know if you know jacquillo, but but cotton is from a plant not a sheep All right guys. I hope you enjoyed that video. Thanks for everyone for your support I thought I'd give you a little bit of a break from the Debates on the streets with the farmers and you know doing the outreach and just give you a little sit-down video So I hope you all enjoyed that Leaving the comments section what else you'd like to see from me. Would you like to see any videos? Thank you to all my patreon's who've been supporting me I love you all and I'll see you all in the next video. Peace