Owen Strachan Tries (and Fails) to Put on a Brave Face - Part 4

All right, everybody, welcome back to the channel. A number of you commented on yesterday's video about why it was so short and it seemed like there was more to it and just kind of like, hey, this is all we get, you know, we've been waiting a couple days now.

And I can totally understand that. In fact, that video was originally 30 minutes long. But unfortunately, the audio for some reason was not capturing from the video that we were watching. So I did a whole response to the next section of this Owen Strawn thing.

And I had some bangers in there, man, for real, I had some good stuff. But then when I went back to it, the audio didn't capture. And so it was just a disaster. I'm hoping that, you know, look, everything looks fine.

Yeah, everything looks fine now. Everything looked fine before. So hopefully this will work. So I can't promise it's gonna be as good the response this time. But we're gonna certainly try, you know, all the energy when you when you do a whole video, and then it doesn't record all the energy just gets sucked out.

And I don't know, man. Anyway, so we're going to continue. John route is going to ask a very important question about, you know, engaging with the other side, you know, and again, I continue to be impressed with john, asking the right questions.

Why, Johnny, I'm not engaging it a lot on Twitter. Yeah, I'll say my piece. I'm glad you're saying that because people are.

Wondering, like, hey, we want to, are you going to sit down with these people to have a conversation? Are you going to respond to some of these? Yeah, because obviously, if you're on x, like, you're really not gonna have a ton of fruitful conversations.

It's such right. There's so many nuanced issues to this that you can't explain everything, right? 140 characters. And thanks, Elon, for giving us a little bit more than 140 characters now. But there's gonna be something.

You miss if you pay. There is. And so, so Johnny's question there, I thought was pretty good. Because, you know, he kind of, in a very nice way, in a very kind of, you know, non confrontational way, he challenges Oh, and he says, Yeah, I can understand not wanting to go back on x.

But what about sitting down with them? That's what he basically says there. And again, in a very disarming non confrontational way. Look, this isn't a hardball interview. And it's not intended to be that's totally fine.

But these are, he's done a really good job asking questions that I would ask, you know what I mean? And honestly, I'm not a hardball interviewer, either. I would probably ask them in a nice way as well.

But at the end of the day, like, it's a great question. Like, I don't go back and forth on x, you know what I mean? Or Twitter or whatever. I hate calling it x, but it's what it's called. So I just got to go with it.

I don't go back and forth. You know, it's very rare that I respond to anybody. And when I do, it's usually one response, maybe two, I don't go back and forth. I personally don't like the format for that.

And so that's fine. You don't have to do that. But what about sitting down and talking with them is basically what says, good job. Good job. I have concerns about some of these figures. And so a lot of people have said, why won't you just talk to them?

Well, we have a responsibility in the church to be careful with who we platform. Doesn't mean we don't engage other people. But I would not. I would want to be very careful about who I platform. And if somebody is articulating a vision of the Christian faith that I don't think is sound, I do not have any duty.

There is no duty for me to do a formal debate with them or have them on my podcast or something. So this idea that there needs to just be a sit down, I understand it. I'm glad for there to be views that are debated.

That's good. But there is absolutely no biblical call to me or G3 or something like this to have some kind of formal sit down. Part of the whole conversation is that the side I am on is very concerned about the other side.

In other words, Johnny, it's not Amil Premil, okay? It's not even credo Baptist, pedo Baptist. There's all kinds of things we differ over as Christians who love Christ and love the gospel, and we need to prioritize unity.

But I am saying for my part, and my brothers are saying, I think that's not this. We're concerned that the mission of the church and the gospel is being misconceived here. It's hard to know by whom and how much and how intentionally.

I can't know motives. I don't try to. But what I can do is go off of published work, statements, and evaluate them and try to warn the church in love. What you just saw there was a terrified, cowardly, little child.

Try to appear as if he was not cowardly, little, and scared or child. He wanted to give you a little bit bravado to say, I'm in charge here. I decide who I platform. But really all he succeeds at doing is looking like a wuss.

He's not willing to do it because he's scared. Here's the thing. He's actually right. In my opinion, I don't think he has an obligation to sit down with someone or debate someone at any time. A man has to know his limits, right?

There are certain people and certain topics that I would not debate publicly, and there's different reasons for that. Most of the reasons have to do with my own limitations. I would not sit down and debate Owen on the Trinity, even though I think that I probably would do a decent job.

I'm just not a theologian proper, so I just wouldn't do it. I have limitations. There are certain people that the topic, I would have no problem debating those people about the I feel like I would demolish them, but I would not debate the person because I do not trust myself to keep my cool with certain people.

It's a very small amount of people. I may have even named some of these guys before, but I know my limitations as a man, so there is no obligation here. But here's the problem, Owen. When you spent months, you just got done saying, I spent months thinking about this.

I was very careful. I've been studying it. I've been thinking. I've been considering. I've been consuming the materials, and then you spend precious conference time. This conference time, if you think about how much it costs per hour of conference time, it is an exorbitant amount of money per hour that a conference costs.

There's a lot of things that go into putting on a conference, and then if you consider Owen's own time, we're talking a huge cost, and you decided to spend precious conference time talking about this issue, and then you got done saying that you're so concerned with the brothers on the other side.

They might not be believing the gospel and stuff like that, and then to say, and I won't sit down with them. I won't even talk with them. It comes across as cowardly. That's how it comes across to regular people, and I think if you look at the comments in the video that I'm watching, everybody's seeing it.

It's very cowardly. It comes across like you're less than a man, and quite frankly, I don't think there's any getting around that. That's just how it comes across, despite all the bravado you attempted to show there, but again, he's right.

There is no obligation, but it comes across as cowardly, and I think that, honestly, I hope you keep saying this because it can only help my side and all of that kind of thing, and I think that's why he won't do it, too.

I think,.

Let me save that. Let me save that. I'll be playing devil's advocate. These aren't my words, but the other side might be saying it seems a little bit cowardice. I've said that online. It seems like you've got something to hide.

It's cowardly, and then what about the people like James White that are debating progressive Christians? He doesn't necessarily have a biblical precedent to sit down with them because what they're believing is not a true gospel,.

Right? How would you respond to people? So when I first saw this, I said, right on, Johnny. I mean, again, this is not a hardball interview. Johnny's not being a hardballer here. I'll say that, but he's asking the question that I would ask.

It sounds cowardly. I'm not saying this. He's very clear. I'm not saying this, but it sounds that way to some people. How would you respond to that? I remain impressed with the job that Johnny's done here.

Johnny, we got off on the wrong foot because of the weird clothing that you're wearing. I still don't get it. I've seen other people do it. I saw Chocolate Knox does it, too. I still don't get it. It looked a little better on Chocolate Knox, I will admit.

Somebody showed a few pictures of, I guess it's a basketball player style. A lot of basketball players wear the hoodie with the blazer on top, you know, so I don't know. I think black people can get away with it.

I still don't get it, but I think blacks can get away with it. I don't know. In any case, but yeah, great question. I'm glad you challenged him there. He makes such a good point. He even points to somebody else, right?

James White does this. He doesn't have any obligation, but he sees the value in doing it and it appears cowardly. One thing Johnny said that I disagree with, he says it appears like you might have something to hide.

I don't think that's what it is. I think actually what it appears like is that Owen knows full well that he has nothing to gain and everything to lose because Owen has gone really far with this. He has not said that this is not correct or it's a little bit off or I don't agree with it.

He said that this isn't, this is a false gospel. This is an unbeliever that he's debating and he's, you know, cherry pick some things to make it seem like he has a credible case. Even the things he's cherry picked really don't make the case that it's a false gospel, that he's an unbeliever, unregenerate, but Owen has gone whole hog here and so he has everything to lose because if he were to talk to Steven, Steven is a very reasonable person, very even keeled, mild mannered and very smart and they would have a conversation and in that conversation Owen would ask questions and what would happen is Steven would explain himself and it would be sufficiently nuanced and all of that and what you would see is that he's really, Steven's not the monster he's been painted to be.

You might end up still disagreeing with Steven but you're going to realize that it's not a false gospel. So Owen has everything to lose and nothing to gain unless he's able to show that it really is a false gospel but the problem is he won't be able to do that with Steven in an interview situation.

I challenge you to watch any of Steven's material, you know, responding to critiques and reviews and he responds very carefully, he responds very seriously, he takes their challenges seriously and he explains, you know, why they're not correct and things like that.

They're all good stuff, it's all very, it's done very well, it's done taken very seriously. That's what would happen in an interview with Owen and the thing is like, he claims to love the church and be concerned with the church and bringing errors into the church, I gotta be careful who I platform, would anything be more valuable than for you guys to have a conversation and for you to be able to ask the right questions that will expose Steven for being a wolf that he is?

It would be quite easy to do, you would think if he's obviously a wolf and you know that and you're willing to say he's an unbeliever and he needs the gospel and stuff like that, if you've done all this research Owen and come to that conclusion, you should be able to pin him down.

But the problem is what's likely to happen is he's going to say, oh yeah, so that statement there, well actually, I actually retracted that and here's what I was thinking at the time, here's why what I was thinking at the time and it's going to appear that it was not heretical, it was just a poorly thought out thing because that's essentially what he said and here's what I really believe and then he's going to answer that way and all of your followers are going to be like, yeah, it's really not that bad, I mean, I don't agree with it but it's not heresy.

This is the thing like Owen, it looks like you know full well that you've overstepped what you should have said and you won't debate or talk to people because you know that you won't be able to defend the position that you've taken.

You have everything to lose and you have nothing to gain and that's what it is. I've debated a pro-gay progressive pastor. He's debated pro-gay progressive pastors, he's willing to debate a pro-gay progressive pastor but he's unwilling to debate a Christian nationalist.

So what is he implicitly saying? I've got to be careful about who I platform. What is he implicitly saying? The pro-gay progressive pastor, he's not really that worried about what they're bringing into the church.

He's very worried about someone who thinks maybe blasphemy laws are actually okay. Anyone who denies what he learned in civics class when he was a kid, that is a pagan unbeliever. A heretic cannot even be platformed.

The progressive pro-gay pastor, while I disagree, they're okay to be platformed. Unbelievable. It's absolutely unbelievable.

Saying that Christian nationalists are in the same line as progressive Christians, just so.

We get that. Yeah, but I've debated folks who I sharply disagree with. I think the difference is the difference is you knew that you could prove the case that you were making against those guys. And in this case, you know you have nothing to gain and everything to lose.

Because I happen to believe Owen that he took his time and did his research and things like that. And so he knows how Stephen nuances things. He knows Stephen's kind of unique definition of ethnicity.

It's not really unique, but it's just different than most people think. He knows all of these things, but he wants to pretend like he's a neo-Nazi racist, you know, KKK, Ku Klux Klan, white supremacist.

So he knows what Stephen says about ethnicity, but he's going to insist that no, ethnicity is genetic and he is a racist. That's the problem. And if you talk to Stephen, Stephen would have too much opportunity to say, actually, Owen, I understand your concerns, but when I'm talking about ethnicity, I'm talking about, you know, you can go on and all that.

You might still disagree with him, but you're not going to come across, come away from that conversation with, oh yeah, Owen was right. He's a total heretic. You have everything to lose and nothing to gain.

Stopped acting like a little baby, a little child. It's so obvious when a child is trying to pretend that they're not scared when they are. And look, we don't blame a child because, you know, the world is scary when you're a child.

Owen, you're acting like a little child. It's as simple as that. Debating somebody that from what you can tell from the doctrine they hold, you can't know their heart, but they seem to be a non-Christian, an unbeliever.

There's more of an open door to the gospel in kind of an evangelistic way. So what he's saying here now, this guy is a complete mess and he, Johnny, again, this is not a hard ball interview, but he's asking the right questions.

I got to be honest, again, hats off to you because this is a great job that you've done here. When I first saw your clothes, I was expecting nothing, but I got to be honest with you, I was wrong. He's not hard balling him, but he's asking good questions and he's just turning himself into a pretzel trying to explain this.

He says, well, when there's a person that I think they're an unbeliever, there's an evangelistic opportunity in debate there. Did he not just get done saying Stephen is an unbeliever? Did he not just get done saying that?

So you would think that he would take this opportunity because there's an evangelistic opportunity there. This guy's a complete mess. Whereas when there's somebody in the church professes to be of Christ and they're bringing teaching into the church to some degree that you don't agree with and you don't think is sound, there is absolutely nothing from Paul or Peter or anyone else I can think of in the New Testament that would say, why don't you platform those guys?

That'd be a really good idea. Do you see the mess he is? This guy is, I would bet you his heart's racing right now because he knows he has no good answer to this. And what he's saying now is, earlier he said, look, we're not talking like, you know, disagreement about baptism, things like that.

You know, that's different. They love Christ and, you know, we disagree and stuff like that. We're talking about an unbeliever. I'm very concerned that they don't understand the gospel. And now he's saying if it was an unbeliever like the progressive pro-gay pastor, I'd debate him because there's an evangelistic opportunity there.

But what we're talking about here is a believer, a professing believer who believes something that we don't agree with. And now he's trying to say that that means you shouldn't debate them, even though he got done saying earlier that, you know, these disagreements for professing believers, you know, obviously they love Christ.

But if they don't love Christ, then there's an evangelistic opportunity. He's making no sense at all. He's making no sense at all. He'll debate the pro-gay progressive pastor because there's evangelistic opportunity there.

They obviously don't understand the gospel. Stephen doesn't understand the gospel either, but he won't debate him because he's a professed believer. You know, the progressive pro-gay pastor is a professed believer too.

And I would definitively say that the progressive pro-gay, you know, movement in the church is much more influential at present, sadly, than Christian nationalism. But for some reason, I guess you don't have to be too worried about platforming them.

It's just like, what is he talking about? He's a mess. He's a scared child. You know, ever talk to a scared child? They contradict themselves all the time. They don't know what they're saying, and it's because they're terrified out of their minds.

That's the reality here. That's the reality of Owen here. He's a coward until proven otherwise. Is that how the Apostle Paul treats figures who are unsound? Let me platform Demas. No, it's not. Now, that doesn't mean you shut down conversation.

It doesn't mean you don't engage them. And for me to engage Wolf and Torba and others is me paying them a form of respect. I'm taking their views seriously. I'm reading what they're saying, and I'm engaging it.

But there is no New Testament charge to me to platform teachers that I think are bringing unsound ideas into the church. It's actually the opposite. I should be very careful about how I engage them. Yeah.

And again, I agree with the basic premise. He doesn't have an obligation to do anything. A man can do what he wants to do. But again, it comes across as cowardly. You come across like a scared child when you spend all this time thinking about it, studying it.

You spend precious conference time talking about how dangerous it is. And then you refuse to actually talk to these people who are brothers in good standing in the local church. You guys claim to take the local church seriously at G3.

It doesn't really appear that you do. But, you know, whatever. Brother in good standing at a church, you know, loves the Lord, professes Christ, has some political beliefs that you find abhorrent. And all of a sudden, that makes him an unbeliever.

It's unbelievable. And you're willing to lie about him and say things about him that he explicitly rejects and explains why he had rejects. But you continue to do it. It's just it's cowardly, Owen. You can even see the fear in his eyes as he talks.

He was not here for this kind of a question. Johnny did a great job. He did not ask in a mean way and in threatening way. None of that. He in fact, he's very sympathetic to Owen's cause here. But he's smart enough to know the question to ask.

And again, I have to say, hats off to you, Johnny. Fantastic job, because you asked the questions that we all would have asked. So let's say that.

And I think that you've done a wonderful job in how you've treated the argument. I think it's been incredibly disheartening for the church to see how professing believers are talking to one another in clear violations of scripture.

And so when you're watching that happen and you think, OK, like like unbelievers are laughing at us right now. And one of. Hey, this woman here.

Is wants you to know that the world is watching. The world is watching. The unbelievers are laughing. That must mean what we're doing is wrong. The reasons why people.

Don't want to engage is because of the pejoratives that are always being thrown out. You're a pietist. You're a feminine. You're a snake like all of these things. And those are clear violations like we are one in Christ.

If you're in Christ, we're one in Christ. We're the blood body of Christ. And Jesus would just never talk to you like that. So not correct. Not correct. I got.

To be honest with with these kinds of things when it comes to theological debates, when it comes to situations where there's a conflict, the less advice we take from women, the better. Han Solo was 100 percent correct.

Correct. If we can avoid any more female advice, we ought to be able to get out of here. Women are not designed for this kind of thing. Women are great. Women are great. They're they're compassionate.

They're they're agreeable. And that's one of the big problems with when it comes to debate. They tend to be agreeable. Debates, by definition, not agreeable. But it's just not true. What she's saying is just not true.

Jesus would and does talk to brothers this way. It's just a fact. Do I need to go through the greatest hits? I mean, you've heard Jesus talk to Peter. Have you heard Jesus and how he talks to Peter? He obviously loves Peter.

But Peter is a brother to him and he talks to him like a brother would talk to him. You've seen the meme, you know, the difference between how women talk to to their fat friend versus how men talk to their fat friend.

The men's like, I have five fat friends and four of them are you. And she would be like, this is unbecoming of a Christian. And it's like, look, it's not the way a woman would handle it, but it's totally fine for brothers to talk this way to each other.

But here's the thing, if you notice, and they always do this, it's oh, it's it's on both sides and it's unbecoming of a Christian. People call you effeminate. People call you a pietist. They always leave out racist, white supremacist, Nazi, ethnocentric, all this stuff, all of these pejoratives, which is how this whole thing got started.

You guys can try to rewrite history as much as you want, but we all remember how this actually went down. Here's how it went down. You ready? Suddenly, a deluge of ignorance fell upon the Christian nationalists.

We started hearing things like you guys are racist. We started hearing things like you want a Protestant pope. We started hearing things like you want to execute Baptists. We started hearing things like you want to force people to become Christians and to force conversions.

We started hearing stuff like that. And for weeks we were like, hey, guys, you know, actually, we don't want a Protestant pope. We should talk about this. And we'd say, hey, guys, you know, actually, we don't want to execute Baptists.

We want to work together with Baptists. Hey, guys, we should talk about this. We started saying things like, you know, we're not really racist, but but we do understand that that that look, you know, generally, we know ethnicities, you know, cultures and things like that.

There's there's there's something, you know, there's there's something to the idea that that, you know, whites tend to live in white areas and marry white women. Blacks tend to go live in black areas where black women there's different cultural differences.

We understand that we're not denying any of that, but, you know, we're not racist. Hey, guys, let's talk about it. Let's talk about this, guys. We started saying things like, you know, we're not trying to force conversions.

We just believe that, you know, God's law is good and it's good for everybody, whether you're a believer or not. So you don't have to convert, but justice should be defined by God. Hey, guys, let's talk about it.

But unfortunately, from Jump Street, you didn't want to talk from Jump Street. You refused to talk and just continue the deluge of ignorance. In fact, you never once corrected yourselves. You kept saying, oh, they want a Protestant pope.

Oh, they want to execute Baptist. Oh, they're racist. Oh, and you didn't even engage at all. That's how this went down. And so we started mocking you a little bit. We started memeing. We started calling what you were doing cowardly, effeminate, pietistic, because that was what it seemed like to us, because for weeks we tried to engage with you, but you refused.

You refused. And then the memeing.

Began. Oh, when you throw out the pejoratives that you're throwing out, you're showing you don't actually have an argument. And so it's just been really disheartening to watch how.

Professing she's right, but she's wrong about the positions here, because that's kind of exactly what I just said about their side. They came with a deluge of ignorance, and we wanted to talk every step of the way, and they just continued with their pejorative nonsense.

They have no argument. And again, she's trying to save Owen here. She can probably, because she's a woman, she can sense the slight, that's a George Costanza line, I can sense the slightest discomfort.

You sensing anything now? She senses. She's a woman. She has intuition. She senses Owen's uncomfortable situation. She's trying to save him. She's like, see, if you use the pejoratives, you have no argument.

Actually, if you refuse to argue, you have no argument. If you refuse to meet and talk, just like human beings, we're not even saying public, although it would be great if it was public. It would actually be very helpful to the church.

It'd be very helpful to someone like me. Very helpful to someone like me. Because, you know, James White is a perfect example. I'm so glad Johnny brought him up, because I've never been helped more. There was one debate that helped me so much.

I don't exactly remember who was in it, but it was one about gay Christianity, and it was one of those double debates, where it was like, James and Michael Brown versus two gay, you know, whatever. So helpful, because it was so clear, because of the way the questions were asked, the way they were answered or not answered, as the case may be, it was so clear who was being inconsistent, who was being, who was contradicting themselves.

And it was so helpful, and it clarified my mind so much to see that back and forth. The same thing would happen with Christian nationalism, because you'd be able to see if Stephen Wolf is contradicting himself.

Is he being sneaky? Even if he won't admit it, it'll be very clear the way you're asking the questions, the way he's answering them or not answering them, as the case may be. It would be so helpful. But the problem is, one side of this only has pejoratives.

They only have scary insinuations. And it's not our side. It's the side that's not willing to talk about it. That's the side that doesn't have any arguments. They only have pejoratives.

Believers are attacking each other like that. In marriage counseling, you learn really early, when we teach premarital counseling, attack the problem, not the person.

Then why have you done what you've done to Stephen? You've attacked his character every step of the way. He's a racist. He's this. He's that. He's a kinnest. The whole presentation was a pejorative against Stephen.

And she's like, well, but you can't call them effeminate. Jesus would never talk harshly to his brothers. This is not true. It's just not true. Again, we could just avoid any more female advice. He might be able to get out of here.

I think you've done a really good job of attacking the problem and not the person. And, uh, yeah, if, if what you are, if you believe what you're saying is true, speak the truth and let the Lord defend it.

You don't have to go out there defending your character. And, you know, and I think just sometimes if we, if we abided by the proverb of not involving yourself in somebody else's controversy, cause that's like taking a dog by the ears, uh, we'd have a vastly different, I think, respectful.

What is she? She has no idea what she's talking about. She does it. She's just trying to save Owen. What is she talking about? Grabbing a passing dogs by the ear. This is, this is, it's Stephen who's being attacked.

It's his problem. The fight has come to him. Stephen didn't go out attacking Owen Strawn out of nowhere. In fact, I don't even know if Stephen's addressed Owen. I have no idea. It's only that Stephen's like, Hey, you're saying all this awful stuff about me.

You're giving me the Scarlet R you're, you know, I'm in the Ku Klux Klan, whatever it is you're saying, I'm a kinnest. Can we talk about this? It's not somebody else's problem. The proverb of passing dog by the ear has nothing to do with what we're talking about here.

Stephen wants to talk to Owen. I don't know if he still does, but he used to, he used to, I'm sure he still would. I'm sure he still would. He's willing to come with his arguments in the face of pejorative after pejorative, after pejorative, after sneaky insinuation, after all the evil that Owen has done to Stephen at this point, he's still willing to talk and no one's not should tell you everything you need to know.

I'm sorry, but this woman does not know about this particular controversy as much as she is thinking she does here. She just doesn't like when people are fighting, you know what I mean? She doesn't want, she doesn't want people to fight and most women don't.

That's why we really don't need to take their advice when it comes to controversies like this, arguments, ugliness like this. We really don't need to hear what women have to say about it. It's as simple as that.

Conversation happening online where unbelievers aren't laughing at us. And, you know,.

Who cares what unbelievers are saying? Because they don't, they laugh at us when we debate things like the Trinity because they don't believe God exists. So of course they're laughing because they don't believe that God is real.

At least that's what they claim. Who cares? Who cares?

Basic Christian virtues that have been throughout church history, which have been common are now being called pietistical. And it's just crazy to me that we cannot have a discussion without attacking somebody and violating the very principles of scripture.

We can, but one side is diametrically opposed to it. They're committed to not having the conversation. In fact, that is the topic of this conversation. Owen is opposed to it. He will not have the conversation.

So yes, I agree, lady, it is sad, but unfortunately one side is solely responsible for this. Because for weeks and even now, Stephen, this is the thing about this too. You know, listen, I have a good time with this.

I can totally, I've said this many times on my channel. If someone doesn't want to talk to me, I get it. I get it because I have a good time and I've been responsible for some memes and I've shared memes and I like to laugh and I like to mock and I like to joke and I like to do that kind of stuff.

That's how I have, that's how my relationships in real life are too with my brother and things like that. I've talked about my brother before, you know, if my brother stops insulting me, I start to worry that maybe I did something to offend him.

You know what I mean? That's the kind of, that's the kind of relationships I have. But the funny thing about this is Stephen really doesn't participate in that. The person that this is, it's not passing dog by the ear.

It's the person that that your side is insulting and throwing pejoratives at without really any cause. That man is not participating in the nonsense, typically. Listen to any of his responses. He takes them seriously.

He's measured. He's calm. This is how he is. This is his personality. And so he's about to set up this excuse where if you want to be taken seriously, then stop calling people the feminine and memeing.

Stephen's not doing that. And they still won't talk to him. And they're still lobbying pejoratives at him. The responsibility for this conversation not happening is squarely on one side. It's really not complicated and it's not hard to see.

And Owen is trying to make the case here that it's the principled stance. No, you're a coward, Owen. If you want people to take you.

Seriously, start living Christ-likeness and not giving evil for evil and insult for insult. And that will, I think, take the conversation a lot farther. I'm not worried at all about being taken.

Seriously. That's just not my thing. Because people take me serious. The people that I care about already take me seriously. And I joke around. I'm not worried about the world is watching kind of thing.

I'm just not. Because I've got my integrity with the Lord. I've got my integrity with my church. I'm ready to go. I'm not looking for a lot of influence. Stephen wrote a book about Christian nationalism.

And he acts in all the ways you say he should act. You might not like everything he says, but it's a fact. He's not involved in the memeing typically. He's not involved in that stuff. And you refuse to even...

I've made my point.

That's on both sides. So, but I think I just really appreciate how you.

Attack the problem and not the person. Yeah, I really appreciate that. You did a whole thing about how Stephen's an evil, racist, kinist, son of a gun. But yeah, I appreciate you not attacking the person.

Attacking the problem, not the person. Echo that because I don't think.

People want to have good faith conversations a lot. I'm not saying that's everybody on the other side. I know you've explained wholeheartedly that these people aren't your enemies, but at.

Times... They're not my enemies, but I want to destroy them in all the same ways that MSNBC wants them. I will slander them in all the same ways that the Atlantic will slander them. They're not my enemies, but I want the exact same thing Russell Moore wants for them.

I want them to be destroyed. I'm going to give them the scarlet R. I want their lives ruined. I want everyone to know that they should avoid them. Mark and avoid, but they're not my enemies. They're not my enemies.