SHOCKING Conversation with Phil Vischer on Government

Alright, well let's jump right into it today. I just noticed a few minutes ago that John Harris posted his historical response to Phil Vischer's video on race in America.

I'm looking forward to watching it. I haven't seen it yet, but I have some more Phil Vischer content as well.

And let me just start off by saying I have been calling for some kind of conversation with social justice advocates in the church for a very long time, and obviously the ideal situation would be a video or a phone call or recording where there's a lot of give and take and you can kind of, it's much easier to communicate to someone audibly than it is on Twitter.

And that's something that I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for. I've only done a couple of conversations like that, and almost as a rule social justice warriors do not interact in that way.

They also don't often listen to you or even interact on Twitter, but kudos to Phil Vischer because he actually watched a small clip from my response video to him and he chose to interact for a pretty long time yesterday on Twitter.

And I have to say another blue check mark has interacted with my content. Kudos to you,

Phil Vischer, because a lot of your compadres will watch my content, but they pretend like they don't and they'll never interact.

So I don't know, man. I mean, the channel has grown less in the last month or so, and I've gotten probably four blue check marks.

This is the fourth one to respond to me and interact on Twitter. Your boy is moving up in the world.

Anyway, I wanted to go over this Twitter conversation. Again, this is not ideal. This is not the best way to learn.

The best way for, I think what would be so helpful for the body of Christ would be to do a video interaction or a podcast interaction.

It doesn't have to be Phil Vischer. He's a busy guy. It could be anybody. It doesn't have to be with me. It could be with anybody.

That would be so helpful to the body of Christ. The more you cower in fear over this, social justice warriors, the more harm you do to the body of Christ.

But even though this is not ideal, a Twitter conversation is instructive and helpful.

I want to go over this conversation. I'm going to read through it and provide to you some color commentary as well, because I think that you'll find this helpful and enjoyable.

As you can see, I love this kind of thing. He responds to my video where I said that he was throwing people to the wolves by not providing any solutions to the problems that he identified in his video.

If you haven't watched my initial, you know, commentary on that, go ahead and watch it. And Phil Vischer responds, he says, so you didn't like the video.

I like that. I like that. Phil Vischer seems like a kind of guy who can take criticism, which is also rare in the social justice movement.

But I appreciate that, Phil. And I just simply responded with, no, I didn't, which

I left it at that because, you know, I like to respond in kind. So he gave me a short response.

I give him a short response. No, I didn't like the video. And then he responds. He says, so this is his assumptions on why

I didn't like the video. He says, because we shouldn't point out injustice or the victims of injustice will covet justice.

Which one is sinful? And I don't know why he responded this way.

This doesn't really make any sense, but, you know, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's heard someone in his lifetime say that coveting justice is a bad thing.

I highly doubt that he has, but OK, that's fine. He's posturing a little bit. That's OK. I responded to him very simply.

I said, because an income inequality or wealth disparity is not an injustice.

And when you covet your neighbor's stuff, that is sinful. And then I kind of pushed back a little bit.

I said, well, I've never uttered the phrase covet justice in my entire life. So what are you talking about? And this is where it starts to get a little bit weird.

This thread, I think you'll see it's a mess of confusion on Phil's part, in my opinion, of course.

Listen to what he says here. This is bizarre. He says, household wealth disparity isn't about stuff.

It's about access to opportunity and intergenerational stability. So policies that decrease opportunity and stability for one group over another are unjust.

Christians are called to promote justice, correct? I thought that was weird, because he's trying to make a distinction between wealth disparities not being about stuff, because I made the argument in my video that if you covet your neighbor's wealth because you have less wealth than him, then that's coveting.

That's a sin that you can't covet your neighbor's stuff. And I would argue that wealth is part of your stuff.

I don't think anyone would deny that. So I asked him, I said, if it's not about stuff, then how do you even identify the disparity?

And then I responded about the policies. I said, policies either stand or fall based on how they comport with scripture.

The Bible is the arbiter of what is just or unjust, not the outcomes of the policy.

This is important, because it might not sit well with us if there's a certain ethnicity or a certain gender or a certain age group that tends to get arrested for certain crimes more than others.

But that actually tells us nothing about the justice of the law itself. The policy, if it comports with God's law, it doesn't matter the results of it as long as it's done in such a way that comports with God's law.

We should be concerned with what God's law says, not so much the outcomes. And the outcomes could give us hints and like, okay, maybe we should look at how we police this.

Okay, granted, but that doesn't make it unjust, right? We should be looking at the Bible to decide what is just.

Now this is the first time I mentioned the Bible here. And I want you to keep tabs on how many times

I mentioned scripture here, because that's going to become important later. And so he's trying to say it's not about stuff, but it clearly is because you couldn't even identify the disparity if you weren't counting stuff.

So the whole point of his video was white people have more stuff than black people. And that's unjust.

I disagree anyway. Then I respond, I say, so yes, a

Christian should promote justice, but only justice according to God's standard. So not, you know, we can't go with justice based on disparities on wealth or income or criminality or healthcare.

That's, that's a different kind of justice. That's a partial justice where you look at who commits the crimes and then you want to make it even

Stevens when you're deciding how to prosecute crimes like that doesn't make any sense. Instead, you should be looking at the scripture as your guide and let the chips fall where they may.

If it turns out that a certain age group commits a certain crime more than another or a certain gender or a certain ethnicity, that's really not your concern.

When you're dispensing justice, justice is impartial. We shouldn't be considering a person's age, gender, or ethnicity.

When we're deciding what laws to make, the only thing we should be concerned with is what does

God say is right? And that's it. And then, and we do it according to scripture. Okay. So that's the whole point here.

So then he responds, he says, it isn't about stuff. It's primarily about home equity.

It isn't about stuff. It's primarily about home equity. What does that mean?

I am confused by that because home equity is stuff.

It's wealth. It's an asset. It's something that you can use in a variety of different ways.

Home equity is a great wealth building tool. And that is part of your stuff.

Why is he trying to make this disconnect between stuff and home equity? I think I know why he's doing that.

So that way he can say coveting home equity is not a problem because that's really just coveting justice.

That's a very weird take, Phil. And then on the other hand, he's saying, but coveting stuff is wrong, but home equity is not stuff.

It clearly is stuff. It clearly is stuff. If it wasn't stuff, you wouldn't have a problem that there was a disparity with home equity because no one has a problem with disparities of nothing, right?

That doesn't make any sense. But he continues because I think this is actually worth pursuing. He says racist policies resulted in huge disparities in home ownership.

That's probably true, which results in worsening outcomes for different ethnic groups.

Those policies were unjust and the effects continue today. Christians should care.

So he's reasserting the point of his video. We should care. I pointed out to him immediately,

I said, this distinction you're trying to make here is very confusing. Home equity is clearly stuff.

Then I said, obviously there were unjust policies in the past. And I, in parentheses,

I said, according to God's standard, because we can't have partial policies. If you have a partial policy that is unjust according to God's standard.

So that's what I'm, again, I'm referring to God and his scripture. If you're keeping tabs at home, that's the second time

I've referred to scripture. That'll become important in a second. Nobody debates that there were unjust policies in the past and obviously the past affects the present.

Nobody debates that. These are things we shouldn't debate. This is obviously true. The unjust policies in the past have affected the way things are right now.

No question about it. I go on, I said, the point though is that it becomes covetousness when the policy has been reversed, eliminating the injustice, and you're still angry and upset because you don't have as much home equity as somebody else, especially when one starts advocating for unjust biblical policies to try to acquire more of it.

This is the whole point of covetousness because, you know, it's one thing to say covetousness in the heart, like I'm jealous of my neighbor's stuff, right?

Like the policies have been reversed. Now we don't have redlining laws the way they used to have.

Now we don't have, you know, slavery or, you know, what's it called?

Segregation and stuff like that. Like those policies have been reversed, but obviously because they existed, there's still disparities now.

There's no question about it. But instead of being covetous of your neighbor's home equity or stuff or whatever, instead, we should stop that and just start getting to work building home equity and building businesses and building, because now those barriers have been removed.

And though it might be harder for you to start a business, it's harder for me to start a business because I didn't have tons of money from my father coming my way and stuff like that.

And it might be easier for someone who has a father who can give them, I don't know, $100 ,000 to start a business.

Yeah, sure. There's a disparity there, so it might be easier for you. But that doesn't give me an excuse to not do it.

You see what I'm saying? So obviously the past affects the present. But now that the unjust policies are removed, we're not talking about justice anymore.

Now we're talking about you coveting your neighbor's stuff. And it's even worse when you start advocating unjust policies to get your neighbor's stuff.

See, that's the worst thing at all, because covetousness is something in the heart. But then you start acting on covetousness, you start promoting stealing, you start promoting unjust policies like welfare reparations and stuff like that.

Then it becomes a more serious issue. Then it becomes actually a matter of justice. And so that's why

I brought that up there, because covetousness is one thing. It's a sin, it's a problem. But then when you start advocating for unjust policies, then it becomes, it goes up a notch.

You're kicking it up a notch into even more sin. That's something that I don't want anyone to do.

Phil Vischer says, I'm not advocating for unjust policies. I'm teaching white Christians how we got to where we are today and why we should care enough to look for solutions to long -lasting impact of unjust policies in the past.

And that's true. He wasn't advocating for any solutions because he did that thing where he just said care and all of that.

And that was actually the whole point of my video that started this thread. It's like, yeah, you're throwing us to the wolves, to these other people who have these unjust policies, like the

Democrats and the progressives and the liberals. That's the whole point of the thread in the first place. I know you're not advocating solutions, but you're throwing us to the wolves.

Bring your sword to this fight. You know what I mean? Anyway, so I responded. I said, you're not,

I didn't say you were advocating for policies. I said that when people do and lots of people do, it becomes a clear case of covetousness because here are the examples of the kind of policies people promote.

Welfare, free health care, reparations, affirmative action, et cetera. White Christians have cared and do care about the lives of the needy and the oppressed.

Christians are the most generous people in the world and have been for some time, but that care must be in line with God's laws and commands and God's version of justice.

So yes, it's cool that Christians care. It's cool that Christians care and that's great.

But you can't take that care and start breaking God's law to accomplish that care. It doesn't work that way.

You can't sin your way out of sin. So your caring can't lead to unjust policies like welfare, health care, affirmative action, reparations, stuff like that.

Now I'm going to admit, I'm going to admit I listed those four things and I was baiting him.

I wanted him to talk about one of these four things. I knew he wasn't going to bring up the policies himself because that's the position he's taken.

It's a very weak position. I'm not, I'm just asking questions here. Very typical of liberal Christians. I'm not asking,

I'm just asking questions here while you're really low key promoting things. So I gave him four options to pick and I would have been glad to talk about any of those four as unjust policies.

So I baited him and what he decided to do was go after health care, free health care.

Now this conversation is going to take a little bit of a turn, but it's still instructive to the whole point.

And I think you'll see why in a minute. He says, ah, and God says no to free health care.

Does he also say no to free public schools and roads? Which verses are you reading? So if you're a libertarian, you, you're very familiar with this line of thinking.

It's called Marod's. It's called Marod's. So I, I'm ready for this, obviously.

And my response is yes. God says no to free health care because there is no such thing as free anything.

Free health care is paid for by your neighbors and their progeny.

You ask what verse I'm reading? I'm reading the 10 commandments. Specifically, you shall not steal. When God commands you to love your neighbor, he means all of them.

And so you have to love the one who needs health care. You love them through charity, but you don't love someone who needs health care by voting for the government to take money from your neighbors in order to pay for it.

That would be loving one neighbor at the expense of another. That's immoral. And that's unjust.

And this is something that's also very important to understand, guys, like God's law never has you love one person at the expense of another.

That's not how God's law works. When God says love your neighbor as yourself, you love your neighbors as yourself.

And so you can't victimize one neighbor in order to love another. Like the good

Samaritan gave his own money to take care of the Samaritan, or to take care of the guy who had fallen among robbers.

He didn't steal money from his neighbor in order to do it. He didn't petition the government to do it. He took it out of his own money, stuff that he owned.

And he said, this is charity. You don't have to pay me back. I'm going to pay this. There's no free health care.

I get it. I'm going to pay this. I'll take the hit for this. I want to help you out. That's how you love your neighbors.

So he was loving his neighbor that had fallen among robbers. And he was also loving his neighbors that hadn't fallen among robbers.

He didn't steal in order to help this guy. That's not something that's allowed in God's law. And so you can't love your neighbor who needs health care by petitioning the government to pay for that health care using your neighbor's money and your children's money.

Because that's really what we're talking about here. America is in debt up to its eyeballs. And so we're actually not paying for any of this free stuff.

Our kids are paying for it. And that's unjust. That's a crime. That's a sin. We shouldn't be advocating for stuff like that.

So when it comes to roads or education or science or whatever, it doesn't matter.

Like we can't break commandments to accomplish what we think are good ends. That's something that's very important to understand.

So this is what Phil's response is to that presentation. He says, so you're against doing anything collectively as a nation, public education, roads, basic science,

COVID -19 responsive, no collective action, only individual action. And once again, if you're a libertarian, you're very familiar with the

Maraud strategy. It's like nobody has enough imagination to imagine how we could accomplish anything without excessive taxation.

And notice he's saying, I'm saying there's no such thing as collective action. And that's definitely not what

I'm saying. That's preposterous. You see, this guy has been thoroughly indoctrinated into statism because he can't imagine how could you educate people?

How could you build roads? How could you do science? How could you respond to pandemics without the government?

And it's like, dude, you need to get, you need to be able to, you need to be able to step outside of your own worldview for a second and then just think about basic things.

Like for example, like did they have roads before taxes in the

United States? Before excessive income taxes and labor and land taxes, stuff like that.

Did they have roads? Is it possible to build a road without taxes? Is it possible to educate people without taxes?

Like guys, like this is basic stuff. Here's what

I said to him. I mean, this is just crazy that you can't think outside of your own worldview for just one second.

I said, no, I'm not against doing quote anything collectively as a nation. Why would you think that? I'm for doing things collectively.

So long as it purports comports with God's commands, education, science, pandemic responses, even roads all existed prior to unbiblical forms of taxation.

And you could easily see how you could educate people without the government, build roads without the government, do science without the government.

In fact, you would probably do all of those things much better if the government wasn't involved in them.

This doesn't take like excess. You don't have to be Elon Musk to figure out, well, how do I build a road without the government?

I mean, that's pretty basic. And so I just, I find that line of thinking so crazy because it almost is like, well, before we had income tax, we didn't even have any roads.

We were barbarians. It's like, yeah, but even barbarians had roads. You know what I mean? So I don't know.

So this takes another rabbit trail. And I think, you know, sorry that this is winding, but this is where Phil wanted to take this.

And I think Phil wanted to take this because he felt like this is where I was weakest. And to be honest, this is definitely not where I'm weakest.

I think there's advantages to being underestimated. And I think that often when a blue check mark interacts with me, they don't think, they're not ready.

They're not ready for the kinds of things I'm going to say. So that's fine. So he changes the subject.

He says, what's an unbiblical version of taxation? It would be taxation without representation, right? That's why we threw tea into the harbor.

But since we have representatives voting on our behalf in government, I'm not sure what taxation would be unbiblical. And this is super weird, right?

Because I'm thinking to myself, taxation without representation. Why is he saying that?

I didn't say anything about that. And it's like, I think I know why he said it.

I think he's assuming that I'm like a, like a, like, like a, you know, basically like a

America kind of guy. Like no matter what the tea party did, it was totally right and stuff like that.

And I'm just going based on what, what he remembers from school on the Revolutionary War. And so I'm just kind of confused.

So I wanted to ask him before, because I've answered a lot of questions here. So hopefully he'll answer one of mine.

I said, I'll answer. But first, let me ask you why you would think unbiblical taxation would be quote, taxation without representation.

Where in the Bible would point, would you point to for that? Because I don't think that's what unbiblical taxation is. And he said, he just kind of changed the subject.

He said, that would come the closest to quote, just taking people's money. I was just running with your line of thinking.

So he tries to make it seem like he doesn't actually believe that. He just thought that's what I believed. I said, okay, fine. I actually don't think that's what happened there, but whatever.

I said, okay, sorry, I misunderstood. So instead I'll ask you this. So he didn't really answer my question.

So I'm going to ask him another one. Just, you know, a little give and take here, right? Instead, I'll ask you this.

Is there such a thing as unjust unbiblical taxation? Is anything too much or not right?

And if so, how do you know? How do you know? And he said this, he said, if a group agrees together to contribute money to a cause,

I would say no. That could be through a neighborhood organization, a charity, a church, or other, some other form of representative vote.

Notice what he does here. Notice what he does here. He's saying that there actually is no limit to taxation, so long as we all agree on it.

And notice what he says. He puts together a couple of voluntary organizations, like a neighborhood organization, a charity, which is completely voluntary, a church, which is another voluntary organization to an extent, because obviously

Christians have to give to the church. And he puts together with that some other form of representative vote.

Wow. Wow. That's not the same at all.

If you notice, like a representative vote in the United States, like if they vote to take all of my income, that wouldn't be voluntary.

That's not like a charity. That's not like a charity. And so he's basically saying that there could be no limit, no, as long as it's something we all agree on.

And part of all agreeing is a representative vote, where clearly that means we don't all agree.

That is twisted. But notice what he hasn't done here. He hasn't pointed to Scripture at all.

I've pointed to Scripture two, three, four times at this point, and he's pointed to Scripture zero times. Now, he kind of clarifies.

He says, obviously, there could be onerous taxation without representation, but the biblical authors don't make tax policy much of a priority in their writing.

Notice this. This is very, very important. He's basically saying, as long as you're represented, there are no limits on taxes.

And by the way, the Bible doesn't address this. So not only is he not referencing the

Bible, what he's saying is our Scripture, our word from the Lord doesn't even address this stuff.

That's extremely important. And we'll see why in a minute. And I said, but the

Bible does. God talks about taxation quite a lot. Civil taxes of 10 % or higher are viewed as a curse and a burden.

Progressive tax rates are unjust out of hand, since they are partial by definition. Taxing labor, land, and inheritance is out of the question.

And here's where Phil Fisher thinks he has me. He says, ah, you're applying Israel's civil code to America today.

We can learn from Israel's civil code, but it was for Israel. That's why we don't stone people for today for doing yard work on a

Saturday or cancel all debts on the year of Jubilee, because we aren't biblical Israel. So he thinks he has me here.

Obviously, we're not Israel, I say. I'm applying the general moral principles of Israel's civil law today.

Obviously, Israel's government couldn't steal from people then. And likewise, governments shouldn't steal today.

We aren't Israel, but surely you would agree with that, right? Now, I didn't specify here.

So what I should have said is some of Israel's laws apply one -to -one today. Some of them don't.

So he catches me on that, and this is fair. He caught me. He quotes me, the tax rate shouldn't exceed 10%.

That isn't a general principle. That's a specific aspect of the Levitical code. Taxing isn't stealing, it's taxing.

Two different categories. So he's saying, again, it doesn't matter how much they take.

If you're represented, whatever that means, they could take 100 % of your money, and it wouldn't be stealing.

It would be taxing. They're different categories. And so I admit, yes, he's right. Some moral principles apply directly, and some don't.

And I think we would all agree with that. Murder should be a crime. It was a crime in Israel. It should be a crime today. That's a one -to -one. Nobody would ever say, oh, you can't apply the

Levitical code to today when I talk about murder, right? Obviously, nobody would do that. But anyway, so I'm going to jump ahead a couple things.

He mentions a few different things here. And let me find where I do.

This is where it kind of takes a dove trail. One second. Okay, here we go. He says, what would make taxing stealing?

The amount is, then he says, then he offers this, that the amount is more than you would prefer. Taxation is obviously legal in America.

And it's like, man, he thinks I'm a lightweight. That's the thing. He thinks

I'm a lightweight here. So that's what he's saying. He thinks that I'm saying it would be stealing if it's more than I want to pay.

That's crazy. I'm not saying that. So I said, what makes it stealing is when they take something that God doesn't give them the authority to take, like taxing labor, property, or inheritance.

Like, that's the thing. I'm referencing the Bible here. Again, if the Bible gives them authority to take, then they can take, no problem.

If it doesn't give them the authority to take, then they can't take. Then it's unjust. Then it's stealing. I think we can agree with that.

Like, if the Bible says the government has the authority to do something, then they have the authority to do it. If it doesn't say they have the authority to do something, then they don't have the authority to do it.

It's a very simple principle. And then I kind of zinged him here because he said taxing is legal in America.

I mean, that's kind of stupid because Phil, enslaving

Blacks was once legal in America too. The government doesn't set the standard of morality. God does.

This is now the fifth or sixth time I've referenced God is the standard of justice. The scripture is the standard of justice.

And that is that. His response to that? There is no biblical mandate against an inheritance tax.

Again, Phil thinks the government has unlimited authority so long as we have a representative government.

That is the key to him. If we have a representative government, then the government can do anything they want.

Even though the Bible doesn't say they can tax inheritance, they can because we have a representative government, according to Phil Fisher.

That's really weird. Notice he's not referring to the scripture when he says that about representation.

That's just his own idea. Then he says to me this, he says, look, it's fine to be anti -tax.

Nobody likes tax. I just think you need to be honest that your position is coming from your political philosophical convictions and not from any broadly accepted biblical hermeneutic.

Now, this is where it becomes important. This is where it becomes important. Somebody on YouTube said this to me today.

He said that my capitalism is informing my theology. In a video where I referenced the

Bible probably 20 times about private property, about stealing laws, about all that kind of stuff, about economic laws and stuff like that.

He said that my capitalism is driving my theology. And now here, Phil Fisher has said that my political philosophy and convictions are that's where my position on taxes come from.

Even though I've referenced the Bible probably six times at this point, and he's referenced the

Bible exactly zero times regarding his position on taxation. And so this is textbook projection, textbook projection.

The thing is like, and here's what I said to him, I said, Phil, it's actually not fine to be anti -tax because God does allow the government to tax.

So it's not fine. He's wrong on that point. But the Bible doesn't allow the government to tax anything that it dreams up.

That would be insane. Obviously, the Bible doesn't allow that. It would be stealing for the government to tax 100 % of your income.

In fact, it's stealing for the government to tax any percent of your income. It's stealing for the government to tax your inheritance.

It's stealing for the government to tax your land and all of that. The Bible gives the government the authority for certain taxes and others it does not have the authority for.

So I said to him, it's weird for you to say that my position doesn't come from the Bible because all

I'm doing when I decide what taxes are good and right and just and what taxes are evil, all

I'm doing is looking to the scripture. I'm not bringing my first opinions on that. And then I asked him a question.

I said, Phil, how do you determine what taxes are onerous, which was his own word, and which taxes are okay?

Are you ready for this? You ready for this? This is a disaster for Phil because he's just accused me of my positions coming from my own opinions and philosophies, not the

Bible, even though all I've done this entire time is reference the Bible. And so I asked him, how do you determine which taxes are onerous and which taxes are okay?

And listen to his response. Ready? You decide for yourself and then you vote accordingly.

That's representative government. You decide for yourself and you vote accordingly.

He's the one who's using his own opinions and political philosophies to drive the bus.

Not me. I'm devoted to what the scripture says. I'm trying my best to apply what the scripture says.

I'm not saying I'm 100 % right, but I'm trying. Phil Vischer ain't even trying.

He's saying I determined for myself. And so what I did was I ended the conversation.

That was enough for me. And the reason why I felt like this was so important is because this is the whole problem that I had with this video in the first place, because he's saying that a wealth inequality or an income disparity or whatever it is, is an injustice.

And I'm saying, no, it isn't because the Bible doesn't say that it is. The Bible is the only standard to tell us what's just and unjust.

The Bible is the only way we know right from wrong. Definitively. The Bible is God's word.

He has spoken. This is God's universe. This is God's world. And if we're going to be Christians, we need to recognize the fact that God sets the standard for what is just and unjust.

And so in the entire video, Phil Vischer is telling me something is unjust that isn't unjust, and he's doing the same thing here with taxes.

I know taxes is kind of a boring topic, but this is the same exact thing. He's deciding for himself and then expects me to be under that burden.

No, no, Phil Vischer, I don't worship you. I worship the Lord. You can tell me what's unjust and just all day until the cows come home.

And unless it comports with scripture, I don't care what you say. I'm not going with what you say.

And so what you've done here with taxes and free health care and all this stuff is exactly what you did in your video.

You are replacing God's justice with some other form of justice while calling it

God's justice. That is a very dangerous place to be. That's taking the Lord's name in vain.

Stop doing that. It doesn't matter how often you blink into the camera. You can't just say justice is something that it's not.

You just can't do it. Just because you call it justice doesn't mean that it's justice.

So no amount of blinking and sighing and wringing your hands is going to change that fact.

So stop projecting. I'm looking at the scripture to decide what taxes are okay. I'm looking at the scripture to decide what's just when it comes to black income disparities and wealth disparities.

I'm looking at the Bible for deciding what laws are just and unjust. I'm not looking to other things.

You should probably join me because then you'll be safe in God's system, in God's worldview.

You'll be doing God's work instead of doing the work of, I don't know whose work you're doing, but you see what

I'm saying? Just because we say something is a justice issue doesn't make it a justice issue.

We have to look to that work. But anyway, guys,

I'm pumped that I got another blue checkmark to respond to me.

This was a very instructive. Wait a minute. He's not a blue checkmark?

He's got 20 ,000 followers. He's the creator of VeggieTales. Someone told me it's VeggieTales.

I was saying VeggieTales. Vegetales, listen, Vegetales, whatever. How is he not a blue check mark? This is, this is an injustice.

This is a gospel issue. How is Phil Vischer not a blue check mark? I think right now we should start a justice campaign, hashtag justice for Phil Vischer.

I'm starting it right now. He needs to be a blue check mark right away. This is a matter of justice.

justice. And I'm asking you, dear viewer, care.