Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Alright, I'm going to try to connect two things that you might not think are connected on the surface. And so we'll see how this goes, this might be a disaster, we'll see. But the first thing was a couple of gabs that I saw from Sargon of Akkad.
Now Sargon of Akkad is an atheist YouTuber, podcaster type person, and I like Sargon, you know, I think he's very smart in many ways, in some ways I don't think so, but whatever. I like him, I like Sargon of Akkad.
In any case, I guess he got a getter account or something, and some people were like, what the heck, I mean, they obviously don't believe in free speech and blah blah blah, and so he was trying to defend getting a getter account.
Some people said, how much did they pay you, and it turns out they offered him money and he turned it down, good for you Sargon. But basically what he's saying is, he wants to promote any platform that is standing up against Silicon Valley.
Which is very weird, because in an earlier gab he said that they have to abide by Amazon's terms and conditions because they're on Amazon's server, so if they don't, they'll get kicked off the internet.
So I don't know how you plan to fight Silicon Valley by abiding by their terms, but side issue, side issue. So it's weird to promote getter for that reason. But what he does say though in the course of these gabs is he says, you know, a lot of normies, a significant amount of normies that can be reached with the message of freedom don't want to come to gab because every time they post about anything, they get 10 people in their comments talking about how we need to gas the Jews and how black people are lazy and how Latinos are freeloaders and stuff like that, and it's like, yeah, it's annoying.
I find that annoying. You know what I mean? It doesn't matter what you post on, you'll get a certain amount of people that are going to be very angry and use racial slurs and stuff like that. And so I actually agree.
That's a good point. You know what I mean? A lot of people don't want to use gab because they don't want to see racial slurs. And I get that impulse. But in my opinion, for those people, Twitter already exists.
We don't need another Twitter, right? Getter is just simply another Twitter, except worse, in my opinion, because they're lying about what they are. They're saying, well, we're fighting big tech censorship while abiding by it.
They're saying, well, we believe in free speech, we're the free speech platform while not being a free speech platform. And so, like, I get the point. You know, you don't want to see that stuff. Fine.
You have Twitter. You have Facebook. And you could just do whatever you got to do there. I mean, that's that's the point. And so, you know, if you want to go to Getter, I don't have a problem with you.
Like, no problem. I'm not going to be on Getter. But if you want to be on Getter, I don't have a problem with that. But what I am saying is that I personally reserve the right to continue to criticize it.
I know you think we should work together. But the point is that they're really not working for the same things I'm working for and all of that kind of thing. So that's the first thing. So that's Sargon of Akkad.
And I want to connect this to this tweet that I saw from Eskatologai, and it was regabbed by Andrew Torba. And when I first read this, I was like, oh, I disagree with this completely. I thought about it and I want to be generous.
I think I don't disagree completely, but I think we need to be careful when we're talking about this. Let me just read this gap. So it says, there is no such thing as the quote individual. You are a son or a daughter, a brother or a sister, a husband or a wife, a father or a mother.
You are a member of your neighborhood and community. You are a member of a nation of people, all related as extended family. At no point are you ever atomized as an individual. What we confuse with individual is the personal.
You have personal tastes, thoughts, fears, and desires. You are a unique person, loved by God for maternity. Jesus died for you personally, and none of that separates you from those around you. It makes you connected to them by incorporating your personal gifts into your family and community.
Never confuse the false individual with the true personal. And so when I first saw this, what I thought it was trying to say was that, you know, that the community is the primary, you know, the community is the fundamental organism and you're a member of that organism.
And that's the true reality is the community. And I don't think that's what he's saying because, and I think he's trying to equivocate between individual and personal. I get that. I get that. I don't really think it's that helpful, but I understand what he's saying now.
I think what he's saying is that we're not an individual isolated from everything else, right? We're not a unity. I'm sorry. We're not a diversity isolated from the unity. We're not a one isolated from the many.
And that is definitely true. And in fact, when you think about it, we're created in the image of God. That's what it says in the scripture, right? God created man in his image, the image of God, he created them, right?
So we get that. If we are in his image, we have to understand that this, what's vital to this is the fact that God is a Trinity. There's just no way around this. God is a Trinity. That's what the Bible presents, right?
And so you have to ask yourself a question here. So what's more important? What's more fundamental to God? The fact that he's three persons or the fact that he's one God, what's more fundamental to God?
Like, is it, is his unity more fundamental or is diversity more fundamental? That's not really an answerable question. You know what I mean? Because both are fundamental. Both are necessary. Like, the ontological Trinity is necessary.
And if we're made in that image, we have to understand that our existence, you know, God created everything in the world, he created us, we are his creatures, we're his creation, that when we think about ourselves, right, like, okay, so I'm married, I have a wife, so what's more fundamental to my marriage?
Is it me or my wife or is it the unity that we have in marriage? What's more fundamental? It's not really an answerable question either, because our unity is important. It's very important. But our unity also requires that under God, we have roles and we have different roles, right?
And so we can't say that my wife is more important than me or that I'm more important than my wife. We're actually both important. We're kind of almost equally fundamental. The unity and the diversity of our marriage is almost equally fundamental.
And I don't know if that's the way I'd want to put it, but that's kind of the only way I know how to put it. Like, us as individuals, as persons in the marriage, are important. God loves us, right? But our unity is also important.
But the thing is, under God's law, there are certain roles and there are certain rules that we must abide by if we're going to maintain sort of that equal ultimacy of our unity being important, but also our individuality or personality being important, right?
So the unity—so this is an example. So the unity is extremely important to God. However, if I betray my wife, right, if I go out there and I commit treason against my family by committing adultery, for example, then God has rules and laws that come into play there to protect the individual as well as the unity of the marriage, right?
So it all matters in terms of God's law. In fact, like liberty, right? So we think about freedom and think about liberty. You know, liberty is legislated by God, right? Like you don't have the liberty to do anything you want.
In fact, the non-aggression principle I don't think is actually biblical, because when you think of aggression in a very, like, atomized, sort of libertarian kind of way, you can't make sense of some aspects of God's law that are there because the unity of the community, the many, the one, being equally ultimate almost, being equally important, you tend to ignore that kind of stuff, right?
So I think that this guy is right in the sense that you can't see, like, the ultimate kind of thing that needs to be protected as the atomized, sort of disconnected from community individual. I think that's a tremendous error of some libertarians.
Not all. Some libertarians, especially atheistic libertarians. In any case, so this might be confusing, but the point is that he's right. Like we have to have a law that recognizes God's law, and what God's law recognizes is the fact that individual liberties are important, but also the community as well, the nation as well is important, and God has laws that account for both of those things, and so that's why God's law is so important, right?
That's why a libertarian paradise would not be a paradise, because God's law accounts for things that a libertarian, at least an atheistic libertarian, never could support that are necessary for a nation.
They're necessary for a community of people to work together and to have justice together. So all that to say, let's go back, so just to reiterate, I think I agree with this now. I'm pretty sure I agree with this.
What he's saying is that the individual disconnected from society or atomized from the community, that's not the ultimate end-all be-all of being, right? That's not how it is. It's not that it doesn't exist per se, but it's not—actually, it doesn't exist.
You are connected to the community, and we have to have a law that reflects that. All right, going back to Sargon here. So Sargon actually makes an interesting point, accidentally, because he's an atheist, right?
So free speech, in my opinion, it's really not—I don't really care so much about free speech when it's disconnected from Christianity, when it's disconnected from the law of God, right? So people will say, well, here's what Sargon's saying.
You know, you could make the argument, and he says it, of course, in his very sophisticated English accent that I can't emulate, but just pretend I'm talking in a very sophisticated way. He says, I could understand an argument that would put racial slurs in the same category of speech as pornography, where it's offensive, and look, Gab bans pornography, and so therefore I could understand someone who—I don't know if he's making this case, but he's saying, therefore I could understand someone that would put racial slurs in the same category as pornography and thus ban it without being against free speech.
And so, that's actually—if you're an atheist, that's actually a pretty interesting point, in my opinion. I don't know if it's accurate, but it's something that would be worth considering if you're an atheist.
But the thing is, I don't think atheism is—well, atheism doesn't reflect reality, and I don't think atheism is equipped to answer these kinds of questions, right? But Christianity is, right? Christianity is.
And so Christianity—I don't even wonder—like, people always argue, is pornography speech or is it not? I don't care about that debate. What I care about is God's law, right? And pornography would go against God's laws against adultery and against those kind of things.
So obviously, we would understand that pornography should be illegal, should be banned, because it breaks God's laws that do exist. Who cares if it's speech or not? It breaks God's law. That's what I care about, right?
Now, when it comes to racial slurs, right? Racial slurs are a sin, right? But if you look at God's law, is a racial slur a crime? And I don't know where you would make that case, that a racial slur would be a crime.
So therefore, it should be allowed, if not in the church, and if not for a Christian that's, you know, a communicate member of a church, but for the society at large, those who aren't believers, if they want to say—if they want to call me every racial slur in the book, that—I mean, I don't like that, I don't have to like that, but I have to allow it legally because there is no law in the scripture, at least in my opinion—maybe you could show me—that I would have the authority to make the government protect me from that kind of speech, right?
So pornography and racial slurs are not in the same category according to the law of God, and therefore they shouldn't be treated in the same category in kind of the general sort of, you know, I guess the general, you know, society, right?
But here's where it's going to offend people, right? Because God's law does have limits on speech against Christ, right? Against God's rule, right? And so if—you can see even in the scripture, you know, if a family member or even your own wife says, hey, let's rebel against this law, let's rebel against God, the scripture is very clear that you're supposed to turn that person in and say, absolutely not, no way, no mercy for that, because any law system can't take treason, can't accept treason, and stuff like that.
And so that would be akin to potentially like a blasphemy type of a law, right? Where you're—excuse me—where you're not allowed to commit treason against Christ's law system, against Christ's rule. You can't say, let's go serve other gods, right?
Like, you wouldn't be allowed in a biblical system to say, hey, guess what, why don't we instead of doing God's law, why don't we institute Sharia law? Like you wouldn't be allowed to like plan that kind of an insurrection in God's system at all.
And so to some people, it's like, well, what about free speech? What about free religion? And to me, I'm like, what about it? You know, like, okay, so you think you can make a constitutional case for freedom of religion and all that kind of stuff?
Okay. I'd like to see the biblical case, though. Because see, in God's law, you could worship other gods, right? But you had to do it privately, and you couldn't entice believers away into your religion and all of that kind of thing.
That would be against the law in God's system, right? And quite frankly, you couldn't be a political leader if you were worshiping Allah or something like that, right? So like, that grinds the gears of people that are grown up American and stuff like that.
But okay, I'm an American, yes, but I don't think America is the pinnacle of adherence to God's law. I don't think anyone would think that. And so liberty and freedom and free speech and freedom of religion and all this kind of stuff, all of it is only useful in the context of understanding who God is, that he's a trinity, and what he is like and what he's commanded us.
Like, outside of Christianity, free speech and freedom of whatever, you know, association, freedom of religion, all that stuff, to me, I don't care about it outside of God's system. Now, does that mean we might have to put in the meantime, since we don't have God's system, right, in the United States?
In the meantime, we don't have God's system. And so does that mean we might have to put up with stuff we shouldn't have to put up with? Like, for example, a Muslim, you know, being in charge of the courts or something like that?
Like, yeah, that's right. We might have to put up with blasphemy. We might have to put up with people that are trying to entice Christians away from Christianity. We have to put up with that stuff, right?
Because we're, you know, we're submissive to our government, right? We get that. We're not in charge anymore. The pagans are. But that does not mean that we don't aim for something better. That does not mean that we don't aim for a more just and a more Christian society.
In fact, that is our very aim, to establish God's rule and God's law in every nation on this earth. So, I don't know if I connected these two, but Sargon is kind of like picking on a point here that I think that for Christians, we actually have an answer to this where it's like, well, what about racial slurs?
Isn't that the same thing as pornography? Isn't that the same thing as pornography? That's a terrible British accent, but that's kind of what he's saying. And he actually kind of has a point. So if you're going to let, if you're going to ban porn, like, can you really be mad that someone else is banning racial slurs?
Well, if you're an atheist, not really. If you're a Christian, you have an answer to that. And so Christianity is necessary. It's inevitable, of course. God's law and God's rule is necessary and inevitable.
And the fact that God is a trinity, right? The fact that we've got Father, Son, and Holy Spirit means that we can actually inject actual meaning to individual liberty that doesn't disconnect it, doesn't atomize it from the community as well, because both are important in God's system.
We're made in the image of God. We're individuals, yes, but we're not individuals out there on an island just by ourselves. We're individuals that have all kinds of connections in a community. And that's also important.
It's important in the trinity. It's important in the marriage. It's also important in the community at large. I hope you found this helpful. That might have been confusing as all get out. But if you did find it helpful, let me know.
I hope you found it helpful. God bless.
