Post Game Thoughts on Ruslan Conversation

Hello there, this is A .D. Robles and you're listening to A .D. on the Fight, Laugh, Feast Network.

Alright, well, before we begin, let me just say this. I am sorry for not uploading last week on the

Fight, Laugh, Feast Network. To make up for it, I'm going to upload twice this week. I'm going to do this video, which will be sort of a post -game recap of the livestream last night with Ruslan KD.

And then I will also upload the entirety of the livestream here as well.

So I'm not sure when I'll get that done, but I'll get it done at some point and we'll put it up here for your listening pleasure.

And I did want to do some commentary about my take on the conversation with Ruslan and all of that.

By the way, thank you for all the people that have reached out to me with encouraging words and with criticisms. I definitely appreciate all of the comments that I've seen.

Livestreaming is hard, guys. I don't livestream very often and I definitely don't do live guests very often.

And it's difficult, especially when there's a lot of viewers. Last night we had, pretty much the entire stream, almost 700 viewers live watching us.

Which is a lot, which means that the comm box is very crowded, right? And so there's a bunch of times that you can see me kind of looking this way, sort of, in the middle of the stream while I'm talking to Ruslan.

And it's because I'm reading the comments, which I thought to myself, maybe I shouldn't be doing that.

But I was doing it every so often, so that was very distracting. Which was difficult because, you know,

Ruslan talks a lot and he throws a lot at you. There's usually like 10 questions at once.

It's very much the scattergun approach where, you know, he throws 10 things, you know, accusations or questions at you.

And you can really only focus on one or two of them. And it's like a tactic to sort of say, well, you didn't answer this question.

It's like, well, yeah, because you asked me like 100 questions. But anyway, we'll get to that in a moment. What I wanted to say was that I thought that the first hour or so was pretty brutal.

Like I don't think I did poorly, but I think, you know, it's pretty clear that I didn't really know how to get a word in.

Like, you know, obviously when Ruslan went on these tangents where he would just kind of go in.

You know, one strategy I could have done is say, hey, Ruslan, you need to shut up so I can talk here.

But I didn't want to do that because I'm a nice guy, you know. So I kind of let him talk and I, you know,

I kind of went through some of my questions and stuff like that. But it ended up not being the greatest because it was difficult to even say anything.

But eventually we kind of figured that out, you know, towards the middle of the livestream.

But we'll get to that in a minute as well. What I will say, though, right at the outset is, you know, up until yesterday,

I didn't really believe in white fragility. But after talking to Ruslan, there might be some merit to that.

In the comm section, I saw a bunch of hashtags that were kind of talking about, kind of poking fun at Ruslan a little bit for the clear offense that he took at some of my jokes and some of my content, which was very clear.

I mean, he was obviously very upset that I compared him to B -Rabbit from 8 Mile. I think that probably the voice, you know, that I've done for him is something he didn't like very much at all.

And, you know, he kind of kept talking about me slandering him.

And what was weird about it was that he tried to make this point of slandering, like I misrepresented him.

I said he's a liberal, but he doesn't consider himself a liberal. Therefore, it's slander. That's a weird point because you don't have to own a label to be the label.

An example that I was thinking of this morning, I was talking to my brother. Let's say there's someone you call a fornicator, right?

You're a fornicator. And the guy said, I'm not a fornicator. And you're like, well, yeah, but you were hooking up with your girlfriend and stuff like that.

And he's like, yeah, but we only had sex once. Okay, so fine.

You're not as much of a fornicator as you could be, but you're still a fornicator even if you don't consider yourself a fornicator.

Or if somebody said, well, we didn't actually have sex. We did everything else, but we didn't have sex. And I said, well, you're a fornicator.

It doesn't compute. You don't have to own the label to actually be the thing. And so he considered that slander.

And then when I said, hey, that's not slander. That sort of became to him me kind of brushing off the accusation, which is a very weird take.

I didn't quite understand that, but he kind of kept pushing that point. And I didn't really get the connection he was trying to make.

Yeah, I'm sure you don't like the things I say about your friends that I disagree with, but tough.

You know what I mean? That doesn't mean it's slander, obviously. But anyway, the other thing that he kept bringing up, and I don't think

I ever actually addressed it. Or no, I did actually address this one. We kept bringing up how I've made 12 videos about him.

And I think the impression that he was trying to give in a kind of a backhanded way was that I was obsessed with him, which is something that a number of people have said.

You make enough content about someone, I guess you're obsessed with them. That's a bad thing.

Which is kind of weird because I've checked his YouTube videos as well.

And there's an inordinate amount of videos about Justin Bieber on his channel, which

I'm not saying he's obsessed with Justin Bieber because I don't believe that. But it just doesn't seem like there's very equal scales here.

Like oftentimes things that he claimed that I do that's wrong, he does himself all the time.

So it's just kind of weird, like that 12 videos thing. He was very offended that I did 12 videos about him and tried to make it look bad on me.

But I think that backfires. I think that backfires because simultaneously he's like, well, you made these 12 videos about me.

And then he also wants to say that all I do is these quick dunks on people.

I just want to dunk on people. Just call them. Just throw a label out there. And it's like that doesn't match up though, bro, because if I did 12 videos about you and each of them describing the reasons why

I disagree and why I think your approach is this or that, you can't then simultaneously say you just did a quick dunk.

You don't even explain yourself. Like, again, that doesn't really seem to add up.

Now, the other thing that I noticed about Ruslan is that he seemed to have a lot of problems with how I operate the channel.

And he seemed to think that I need to do things that he thinks I should do in order to have a legitimately

Christian channel. One of the things he brought up at one point was that I don't talk about every injustice that happens in the world.

Like, it was such a weird point, and I didn't even really know how to handle it because I couldn't even believe that he was making the argument.

So it's almost like I don't actually care about justice unless I talk about every injustice, right?

And it's like, well, my channel is about a specific thing. It's about the social justice controversy in the church.

But he claimed that I guess I don't really care about justice if I don't talk about other kinds of injustice.

He kept bringing up the – what's the name of the church? Westboro Baptist Church. And I just didn't understand why he kept bringing that up because, first of all,

I didn't even know Westboro Baptist was still a church. I mean, how many members does this church have, like 10?

Like, who cares? Like, obviously, I'm against the nonsense that they do, you know, picketing police officers' funerals and stuff.

That's pretty inappropriate. But he kept bringing them up. It was funny that Westboro came up in a context where he was trying to make the argument that I never call out – like,

I have unequal scales because I never call out white pastors that are racist against blacks.

And so I said, hey, why don't you name one, and I'd be glad to do it. And I asked him that a few times, and he never was able to do that.

Instead, he brings up Jerry Falwell saying something about God judging homosexuality, which

I didn't understand why he would be against that because, of course, God does judge nations for homosexuality, among other things.

And then he kept bringing up Westboro Baptist, which, I mean, are they racist? I don't even know if they are racist.

If they are, I condemn it. But I thought they were just against gay people. And obviously, look,

I agree with them that homosexuality is a sin. I don't agree with them that they should be throwing hate anybody's way because God says to love your enemy, right?

So I just didn't understand the whole thing with Westboro. It certainly seemed like he was trying to paint this picture that I'm inconsistent.

The other thing that he brought up was apparently there's an accusation that Votie Bauckham has plagiarized or maybe it wasn't.

I think plagiarism is part of it, but then also maybe misquoted somebody or something like that.

And he asks me about this. This is a funny moment in the video. He asked me about that. He says, you don't even do any content about Votie's plagiarism.

And I go, I didn't even know there was a controversy. I haven't heard about it.

And he says, see, so you're inconsistent. It's like, well, if I don't know about it, how could I do content about it?

He says, well, even Neil agrees. And I go, who's Neil? It's just like I didn't even know how to handle that.

And I admit I was not ready for that kind of thing because if I don't know about the controversy and I don't know who you're talking about, how can

I do content about it? And furthermore, how does it make me inconsistent? It's a very weird approach.

But he insisted on holding my feet to the fire on that where it's like you're being inconsistent because you didn't know about this.

I don't know. I don't know how that works. I didn't know about it. Now, he showed me. Joel McDermott apparently wrote an article about it, which

I will check out. And so we'll see. I mean, obviously, if Votie Bachum plagiarized, which

I can't affirm because I've never read his book, number one, and I don't know the accusation yet, yeah, that's wrong.

You shouldn't be plagiarizing. Right. So but he seemed to have a lot of ideas about what my content should be about.

Right. Like, I don't know why anyone would expect that I would have to focus on every injustice in the entire universe.

I mean, obviously, Ruslan doesn't do that. So, you know, by his own standard, he condemns himself.

And then he also expects me to do content about things which he doesn't know about, which, again, by his own standard, he hangs himself.

He's never done content about certain topics because he doesn't know about them. Why would I hold his feet to the fire on that?

It makes absolutely no sense at all. Now, the other thing that I noticed as well is that and there were there were a lot of things like this where he would accuse me of something that he considered a sin.

And then he would turn around and do the same thing to me, even if I didn't consider a sin. Again, his own standards condemn himself.

There was a great moment where in one minute he's saying it's a sin for me to call him a liberal if he doesn't own the title liberal.

And then like a minute or two later, he asked me if I own the title fundamentalist. I said, no, I don't.

And he called me a fundamentalist. And I'm like, well, I don't consider that a sin, because if you think that I'm a fundamentalist based on things, even if I don't own the title, that's

OK. But let me just point out, you did the very thing that you said it's wrong for me to do. Now, he apologized for that.

So at least he tried to maintain some level of consistency. But it's again, it's like it's a very weird thing where it's good for him to do, but not so much for me to do.

Which brings me to another weird point where he kind of said like the big problem.

This is his big beef with me. Like this is where he's probably scored the most points with his audience where it's wrong.

My content is wrong because I because I talk about specific people like I say,

Eric Mason said this. And this is why Eric Mason's wrong about this. And this is why

Eric Mason is liberal on this point or whatever it is. Like that was the issue. It's not so much that I have a problem with the ideas.

He said that was OK. It's OK to have problems with the ideas. But the naming of the names is being specific with the people.

He wanted to say that that was wrong. Right. That was that was that was my big problem. And I didn't really drive this point home.

And I really should have, because this is this is actually the same criticism that my co elder had of me when

I was in the church. He said that it was wrong to name names in every case, even if they were threatening the gospel.

I couldn't call someone out by name. Now, the reality is that that's not a sin at all.

Like, how how can how would you justify like what verse would you point to that says you can criticize an idea but not a person?

I mean, obviously. And in the video, I said Paul wouldn't meet that standard. He has criticized specific people.

Jesus wouldn't meet that standard. He criticized specific people. So it's not a biblical standard to say that you can't criticize someone by name.

So how would he justify that? Right. How would he justify that? That's the big issue that he has with me.

And I just don't see how it's a problem. And one of the things that he did a number of times is he tried to insist that the one making the accusation actually doesn't have the burden of proof to prove it.

Rather, the one that's being accused needs to prove that they didn't do what is being accused of them.

That's not how it works, Ruslan. And I hope you can hear this. But according to the

Bible, which is what I care about, I don't care about your opinions on this. I care about what the scripture says. According to the

Bible, the evidence has to be established on the I'm sorry. The accusation has to be established by the accuser on the evidence of two or more witnesses.

That's how you do it. I don't have to prove my innocence. You have to prove my crime. And in this case,

I don't know how you would attempt to prove that naming names is wrong, but it isn't wrong.

And so until you do prove that, I'm not going to stop. By the way, even here,

Ruslan hangs himself. His own words judge himself because he names names.

Now, in the video, he admitted this, but he said not that much. So like he's done content on Bethel Church and Kenneth Copeland.

He said he's done two videos talking about other people by name. And that's not true.

That's not true. At the time, I had no reason to disbelieve him except for the fact that, you know,

I had a strong inkling that that was not true. But if you scroll down his videos, I mean, I only scrolled for, you know, 30 seconds.

But I've seen, as I said, many videos on Justin Bieber, an inordinate amount of videos on Justin Bieber, videos on Candace Owens, videos on some guy named

CHH. Like I didn't even know who that guy was. I'm just kidding. CHH is Christian hip -hop, which actually brings me to my next thing, which we'll talk about in a second.

But the point is that, again, here's another example of Ruslan's own standards.

He doesn't meet his own standards. And that's a big problem because if you're going to accuse somebody of sinning in a way that – because he's engaging in a way that you regularly engage in, that's a big problem according to the

Scripture because the Bible says that you'll be judged by the standards that you judge others. And so for me,

I don't have a problem with someone calling me a fundamentalist because they think that my points are logically concluded.

You know, they're fundamentalists. But the thing is that's my big thing. Like, okay, I don't have a problem with that, but if you have a problem with it, maybe you should stop doing it.

So, you know, again, he seemed to have a lot of ideas about how to do my content, and he seemed to think that his approach was superior when his approach often engages in the same things that he says are wrong for me to do.

Now, let's go back to CHH because I watched a video of him in a panel discussion. It was like a 30 -person panel discussion, maybe not quite 30, but like a lot of people, and they asked him about Christian hip -hop and if Christian hip -hop was narcissistic.

And it's so funny. It's in the very beginning of this video, and it's such a perfect example of Ruslan's approach where it's like there's no conviction.

There's nothing. So they asked him. They said, hey, Ruslan, is Christian hip -hop narcissistic? And he says, well,

I think it depends on what you think about Christian hip -hop. Like, if you hate Christian hip -hop, then you're going to say it's narcissistic. If you like it, then you're going to think it's the greatest thing ever.

It's like, right, but what do you think, Ruslan? That's the point. Like, we understand that people have different perspectives and different takes.

Like, take a stand, man. For goodness sake, take a stand. It's a very contrasting approach where Ruslan certainly seems to want to be friends with everybody, and he certainly seems to want to be perceived as everything to everybody.

Like, he's a conservative. He's a conservative. He's a liberal. He's a liberal. Like, he's very much concerned with how he's perceived in the market, which is why

I think he doesn't like when I label him, which I will continue to do. Again, labels are – you decide whether a label is appropriate based on its own merit, not whether or not someone accepts or owns the label, right?

It would be different if I said, you know, Ruslan says he's a liberal, and he doesn't. That would be a lie, but I'd never say that.

I say he is a liberal whether he admits it or not. That's the point. So – but I think that you can really see sort of the contrast in approach of doing the content.

He definitely has a lot of problems with my content and how I do things. I definitely have some problems with his content and how he does things as well, and I was hoping that that contrast would come through in the conversation, and I really do think it did.

You could see that he got very visibly agitated when we were talking about the criticisms

I have of him as an individual. Again, he takes offense at me calling him a liberal.

He takes offense at some of my jokes and some of the mockery and stuff like that, and that's very different from my approach.

My approach is if somebody wants to say something about me that's untrue, okay, we can deal with that, and it probably bothers me a little bit, but I'm not going to – that's not the majors, right?

Those are the minors. The offenses against me are the minor offenses.

The offenses against God, those are the major offenses. That's where I get a little bit heated.

So when you start lying about God and saying that he's unjust or he does unjust things or he supports unjust things, that's when

I get really upset, and so that's a very different approach, right?

One of the very first things we talked about, I asked him if someone says something that's not true about God, right?

So they say God says a certain thing, and it's not true.

They're believing the Bible wrongly, right? They're misunderstanding and then misteaching the

Bible. I asked him, is that lying about God? Does that get you out of bed, right?

And he said, no, it's not lying about God. And he's willing to put up with people lying about God quite a bit, and there's a lot of things that he said are nonessentials.

He even said at one point – well, let me just say this. He said at one point that racism is a nonessential.

So in other words, yes, that's a problem. It's against the Imago Dei, but he could still be brothers and extend the right hand of fellowship to people who are racist from the pulpit.

Now, I actually don't believe him when it comes to whites that are racist. If there was a white nationalist who was racist against blacks,

I don't think Ruslan would extend the right hand of fellowship to him, and neither would I, for example. Because I think that's a sin that's against the

Imago Dei, just like Ruslan said. I think in our time, we have enough information to know that that's against the

Imago. Look, guys, I don't extend the right hand of fellowship to kinists. I think that's a sin that you cannot engage in and still come to my church and take communion and that kind of thing.

So the reality is that he was trying to be consistent because he knew where I was going with that.

It wasn't that deep cover. I was trying to say, okay, so stop extending the right hand of fellowship to all these black racists that you have on your show.

He knew what I was doing, so he wanted to be consistent. But the reality is that he's willing to put up with people lying about God.

He thinks that that's nonessential stuff, whatever. And while I might be able to be brothers with someone who has a misunderstanding about what

God says, I'm going to confront it the way brothers ought to confront it.

And you see, that's the thing. That confrontation there is absolutely necessary for a brotherly relationship.

I think that was a point that I successfully drove home towards the end.

Like Leviticus 19 verse 17 requires you to frankly reason with your neighbor lest you incur sin because of him.

I'm trying to obey that command, and I want to encourage you to obey that command. If your brother's in sin, you must confront your brother with that sin, whether that's a sin of action, like they're doing sins, or they're supporting sins.

For example, voting for the Democratic Party, which his entire platform is sinful. And so, yes, you should have those conversations with your brother if you love him.

That's required for a believer, and Ruslan seems to think, well, it's nonessential, so you shouldn't be naming names and confronting people in that way.

He seemed very uncomfortable with the idea that I would encourage people to have frank conversations with their family members at the dinner table.

In fact, that was a very weird point that he made towards the end. He tried to spin this as how

I was being political, but towards the end of the conversation, he asked me – he said, I worry – or maybe he said,

I wonder what it looks like at the Thanksgiving table from your perspective when you've got an aunt who voted

Democrat and this and that. So he asked me about that, and I said, well, here's what it looks like, and I told a story of someone that watches the channel confronting his cousin or brother or something like that who did vote

Democrat and actually winning his brother to see the error of his ways.

His brother said, hey, that was a sin. You were right, and I'm not going to do that again.

I'm not going to support this evil, wicked party again. And Ruslan was like, oh, so that was a win for you, huh, trying to make it seem like I was introducing this idea like my mission is all political.

But really what had happened was he brought up the example of Democrats. I was going along with that specific example with an idea of what

I think is a good thing. I think that frank conversation is required for Christians, and it has to happen more than it happens today.

He tried to spin it to make it seem like I had introduced politics into this when in reality he had introduced politics in it.

But it doesn't even matter because, yes, we have to apply the lordship of Jesus Christ over every area of our life, including our politics, including what we support politically in the government and things like that.

So I don't shy away from politics. Of course, that's one piece of how people engage in life, right?

Your politics is only one piece of your everyday life. Your family is another piece. Your church is another piece.

Your business is another piece. These are all pieces of it. But we certainly do not want to shy away from the fact that the good news of Jesus Christ, we have to convert people according to the gospel of Jesus Christ and then disciple them, which is something

Ruslan said. He said, well, my goal is discipleship. And it's like, right. But you got to read the rest of the verse.

You know, make disciples of all nations, then teaching them to observe everything. Definitely not excluding politics because God has a lot to say about politics.

So, you know, there were just a few kind of moments like that where it's like we there were there were some things that were were were exchanged that I think were potentially helpful.

Because I think that, you know, to be honest, I felt like there was many times where he was trying to, like, you know, twist my words to make it seem something that fit his idea of me.

He wants me to be this uber political guy. So he said, oh, so that's a win for you when someone becomes a

Republican. I'm like, dude, I don't even say anything about Republicans. That was you. But I was responding to his example about Democrats.

So so that's that's that was an interesting kind of one as well. Now, the thing that I thought was the most revealing part of the entire thing was the interaction we had.

It was around the middle about his opinions on female pastors, preachers, teachers and all of that.

Now, I called him liberal because and I said he believes in female elders. And he stopped me right there and said,

I don't believe in female elders. See, so you're wrong. You know, something like that. And so I have to admit that if if he didn't believe in female elders and I just got done saying he did, then

I was wrong. So I think I admitted that pretty much right away. OK, great. But I knew he believed something liberal about women in the church.

And so I asked him a few follow up questions. One of them, I just went straight to the

Bible just to avoid all the nonsense. Right. So I said, do you believe that that women should teach or exercise authority over a man?

That's that's straight quotation from the Bible. And so I figured using the Bible, the straight quotation, it would be hard for him to weasel out of that.

Now, I was not expecting the response. And I really want to highlight this because I do think it demonstrates the difference in approach.

He responds to me. I don't know. I don't believe that women should exercise authority over a man.

Now, I didn't catch it at the time, but a lot of you guys did because I got comments about this where they wished

I had caught it. And I didn't because and maybe you didn't catch it right now, because if you're like me, you're like, what do you mean?

He just denied what you asked him. Right. Like so he's he's not liberal. But what he did was he cut out the first part.

So I asked him, according to the scripture, do you agree with Paul that women should not be allowed to teach or exercise authority over a man?

What he responded was, I don't believe that women should exercise authority over a man.

He cuts out the teach part. Now, I didn't notice this at the time. My brain autocorrected it.

You know, my brain said, OK, so he's you know, he's he doesn't believe that women should teach or exercise authority.

I mean, I autocorrected it in my brain and I didn't catch it. And so now I'm in this weird place where I'm like, huh?

Like, I thought for sure I heard him say something that was against this verse. And now here he is denying it twice.

This is very weird. Now, luckily, I kept I kept asking questions.

And I think one of the ones that I asked that finally got me to go to wake up was I said, so should women preach?

Right. That was that was what I said. I said, should women preach? And he said something about like, you know, it was

OK for them to preach to other women. And but they can't be lead pastors.

And that's what woke me up. He said something about lead pastors. And I might be misremembering the exact order of some of this.

But what woke me up was when he said lead pastors. I got him. And so I pressed on the issue and I finally said, should women preach on Sunday to men and women in the church on Sunday in the worship service?

And he said, yes, so long as they're under the covering of their elders. And so, look, that's liberal, obviously.

And he wanted to debate that. He said, well, that's more conservative than these other liberals. And I was like, yeah,

OK, you're not as liberal as you could be, but it is obviously definitively a liberal position to say that women should be able to preach to men.

Paul denies that. You say it's OK. That's a liberal position. Now, that's beside the point, right?

What I want to kind of emphasize here is really just the difference in approach. Here's what

I want to ask you. Why did Ruslan force me to corner him before he revealed his beliefs on women and preaching and teaching?

Why did he force me to corner him where he couldn't? Look, people have said

Ruslan is like Jell -O. You can't stick him to the wall ever. And I agree it's very difficult to do that.

I was able to do it here, but it took me quite a bit of time to be able to do that.

Why did he force me to corner him in order to reveal his opinions?

I just don't understand that mentality. He's obviously ashamed of that opinion.

He knows that there's a certain section of his audience that will not appreciate that opinion and that will agree with me that it is obviously a liberal position.

That's what I think is going on because he really does care how he's perceived. He does not want to be perceived as a liberal even as he's holding positions which are obviously liberal.

And I think that's why he forces me to pin him down. I can't think of a situation where someone would have to back me into a corner for me to proclaim what

God says because if I really believe that women should be able to preach to men, I would just be open about it.

There's many things that I believe that I know make me very unpopular that I'm open about.

I don't hide them from people. If you ask me a question, I'll answer it without me forcing you to ask me in the exact right way to sort of answer it correctly.

It's just a very, very weird thing. I don't understand. I really just don't understand.

And I think it shows you the approach here. I'm not trying to hide my beliefs on the scripture, right?

I'll be totally open with it. You want to know what I believe, go ahead and ask me. I'm not going to force you to corner me so that I can reveal to you what

God actually says. I'm not ashamed of God. I'm not ashamed of God. And see, when you're ashamed of some of the things you believe, that demonstrates that there's a fear of man going on that is completely misplaced.

And I think that this attitude displays itself so many times in this. Again, I get uppity when people lie about God, but I don't get quite as uppity when people lie about me.

Ruslan said quite a few things about me that are untrue, and I don't think that I got upset or heated or anything like that.

Even if on the inside, I want to start defending myself, where I really got a little bit upset is when he started saying things about God that weren't true, right?

And so I think that's really the approach, the difference here. And I wonder if you guys agree.

I thought that was really sort of the linchpin of this whole thing where he kind of showed his cards finally that he's a liberal.

And that's the thing about the liberal approach, right? The liberal approach to the Scripture, they go to the Scripture already knowing what they want it to say, and then they figure out the places where they can kind of weasel it into saying that.

That's the difference between the liberal approach and the conservative approach. Like I go to the Bible, and I realize that God doesn't blanket condemn slavery, and so therefore

I can't blanket condemn slavery. I know that's very unpopular. That's like heresy these days.

But that's what the Bible says. It doesn't blanket condemn slavery, so therefore I can't blanket condemn slavery.

It does blanket condemn kidnapping, so therefore I can blanket condemn kidnapping. But that's the thing.

And so it's like when you go to the Bible, and you're like, well, we know that women can lead men, and we know that slavery is wrong.

So we got to interpret this Bible in a way that doesn't justify slavery, which is what that woman did in the video that I was referencing here.

That's the liberal approach to Scripture. And so, you know, anyway, bottom line is this video has gone on long enough.

I hope you found it helpful. Let me know in the comments what you felt like were the best parts of that video or where I could have done better.

I think for sure one thing I should work on is sort of driving my points home a little bit because I think

I made a lot of good points, but I did struggle sort of landing the plane. Does that make sense? Like it was very difficult to sort of keep my organization in the face of just the onslaught of words that I was receiving.

It was I was not prepared for the amount of talking that he would do. I was fine with it, but it was

I had to have to navigate that a little bit better. I think the next time. Let me know what you thought the best moments were.

And also let me know where you think that I could do better next time. I hope you found this video helpful. God bless.

Don't forget to tune in next week on Thursday for AD on the Fight Laugh Feast Network.