Just War, Combat, and Atheism

Non-rockabodas must stop. I don't want to rock the boat. I want to sink it. Are you gonna bark all day little doggie, or are you gonna bite?

Delusional is okay in your worldview. I'm an animal. You don't chastise chickens for being delusional. You don't chastise pigs for being delusional. So you calling me delusional using your worldview is perfectly okay.

It doesn't really hurt.

Desperate times call for faithful men and not for careful men. The careful men come later and write the biographies of the faithful men, lauding them for their courage.

Go into all the world and make disciples. Not go into the world and make buddies. Not to make brosives. Don't go into the world and make homies. Disciples.

I got a bit of a jibble neck. That's a joke, master.

When we have the real message of truth, we cannot let somebody say they're speaking truth when they're not. Blessed be the Lord my rock, who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle. What's up, guys?

Welcome back to another episode of Apologia Radio. You guys can get more at ApologiaStudios .com. That's A-P-O-L-O-G-I-A-Studios .com. ApologiaStudios .com is where you guys can go to get more.

There are hundreds of radio shows. When we're back on terrestrial radio, podcast episodes, hundreds of episodes there. Celestial, celestial, and terrestrial. That's a Mormon joke for all you guys that are in the know.

We have lots there for you guys. Go check it out at ApologiaStudios .com. You can also sign up for all access. You can partner with us, all the ministry that we're doing here at Apologia. Sign up for all access.

When you do, you get all kinds of additional content. You get the TV show. You get the after show. You get Apologia Academy. All kinds of great stuff. And do be sure to go to ApologiaStudios .com. Make sure you guys check out all the really great podcasts that are productions of Apologia Studios.

We've got Sheologians with Joy and Summer. You've got Provoked with Pastor Zach and Desi. And you've got Cultish with Super Sleuth, Super Excited, Andrew Songkrant, and Jeremiah Roberts. Cultish. Go check them out, guys.

They're all there at ApologiaStudios .com. That's where you guys go. I'm Jeff the Culminator Ninja, and that's Luke the Bear.

What up?

Welcome back, everybody, to another episode. Hope you guys enjoyed last week's episode as much as we enjoyed making it for you guys. If you didn't see it, go check it out. It is an entire show on Book of Revelation and overarching themes really throughout the Bible and time stuff.

If you guys are really into that, I think you'll really enjoy it. So I had a busy week last week back in town, still trying to recover stuff for end abortion now. Some important meetings, good stuff happening in Florida for working towards the criminalization of abortion.

Got to go to the historic spot, for me anyways, for us, of John Barros, the man who has inspired so many to save so many lives. He saved thousands of children from death outside of the Orlando Women's Center.

Of course, we've seen it. Babies are murdered here, and babies are still murdered here. We help produce Babies Are Still Murdered Here, and of course, it's in that film. If you haven't seen Babies Are Still Murdered Here, make sure you guys go check it out.

So I've seen it. I've seen video. I've seen content, footage, just really cool stuff. But never been there personally, and it was a really cool experience to get to be at the location that John Barros has ministered outside of for about 16 years.

R .C. Sproul, actually, the late Dr. R .C. Sproul, used to actually sit out there on occasion just to watch John Barros preach at that location. And so many thousands of lives have been saved. And the amazing thing, too, we haven't even talked about this yet, is just how close you are.

I mean, you are close, close to everybody going in and out. They can't avoid you in any way, and there's no way they can't hear you. I mean, you're right there. I mean, it's honestly, it feels like it's as far from here to that wall right over there.

And of course, it's sad. I mean, being that close, you're also really close. You have close contact with when the women have the surgery to kill their children, and the boyfriends or husbands come to pick them up.

They're walking right past you, and they're stumbling their way out. And, you know, it's just, it's very impactful. And, I mean, you're allowed to walk to the side of the building. The abortionist is outside, one of the nurses is outside, and the guys are out there talking to them.

And it really is, I mean, it's just such a blessing. But, for those of you guys who didn't see the Facebook video that I put out, the live video outside the Orlando Women's Center, many of you guys may have heard that John Barrows has been out there for so long ministering, much of the time standing on crutches, that he has literally worn down the sidewalk right in front of the door where he preaches the gospel to the mothers and fathers that are in there.

I mean, it's distinct. You can see it. I hope that when abortion is criminalized there, they build a monument there, because it's worthy of it. But that was a really moving experience. And, yeah, did some other stuff in Florida.

It was a busy, busy week. My brain feels like mush this week, so I'm going to give it my best. I'm going to give it my best.

I wonder if, when they close that place down, if we can snatch up that piece of concrete, you know what I'm saying?

That would be cool. Just build something out of it.

Well, I wouldn't be doing that. It's pretty heavy.

Yeah, it probably would be very heavy. But this is what I'd be doing, too. So, yeah, it was a great experience. And I'll tell you what was not a great experience, and you had to deal with this recently, was flying on a plane across country for four hours with a diaper on my face.

Did you wear it the whole time? Well, I took advantage of the, if you're actively eating or drinking...

I literally held a bottle of water next to my face.

Yeah, that's what you can do to deal with it. Yeah, exactly. No, so in order to be able to breathe like a human being, you have to pretend like you're eating or drinking, just hold it right there by your face.

Several times, I just started to get dizzy and I had to pull it down to gas for air. I mean, you're on an airplane, which is already stuffy enough as it is. You've got the air pressure. I mean, all that's going on, and you've got this mask over your face for four hours.

I mean, it's a nightmare experience. I will say that Arizona seems a little bit more lenient on the masks than Florida. Florida's pretty intense.

And Michigan.

Yeah, you were in Michigan, and they're pretty intense there, too.

And Indiana, too, yeah.

But you see the numbers are going down in Arizona.

They just opened the bars in the old tubing and back up.

Yeah, they opened it back up.

Swim in your fecal river.

Fecal river, yes. Salt River is fecal river.

So they opened it back up. I was trying to think of a politically correct way to say that.

Well, it does mean there's fecal.

There's a lot of brown trout.

Yeah, that's right. Brown trout. Brown trout station. Brown trout river. All right. Anyway, today we are going to be on here talking about combat martial arts. We're going to talk about some just war theory stuff.

I also wanted to just spend a moment here because a lot of this relates to the issue of just war theory. I think it would be important to talk about this. We're going to talk about some atheism, Richard Dawkins, some interaction with Greg Bonson's teachings against naturalism and materialism on the issue of free will.

Then I'm going to play a little bit of a clip from a discussion I had with an atheist on our podcast show here we have called Provoked. And I'm going to show you a really kind of a funny—I think it's a funny, funny clip.

It's this liberal journalist that ends up actually face to face with a cannibalistic tribe. That hopefully will bring us into the discussion about just war theory because I think it all relates. Christianity can give you a theory of just war and what's right, what's wrong.

If you don't have the biblical worldview, you don't have a justification to call anything just in the first place. And the whole concept of war, I mean, in materialism and naturalism, I mean, isn't it might for right?

I mean, isn't that kind of the thing? Might for right? What's the point of talking about just war theory? What's right? What should we involve ourselves in? Should we police the world? Those sorts of things.

The biblical worldview can provide for you a foundation to talk about just war theory and those sorts of things. And, of course, I wanted to spend a few minutes talking about martial arts, combat arts, because recently we did some self-defense stuff for our church, the men of our church.

We're going to do some for the women. We put it up just to benefit everybody. And because we did it, might as well bless the world. I found out some kids actually in Florida I met while I was preaching.

A family said that their kids watched it and trained actually with it, which is kind of cool.

I'm pointing to Wade who you can't see over there, but using him as their pretend dummy.

Drawing a little picture of him, just putting it on a punching bag. So anyway, we put it up and a lot of comments were saying things like martial arts is pagan, it's occultic. People were also suggesting that Christians should not train in combat sports or the martial arts, combat arts.

Martial science is not something Christians need to be involved in. I thought that was a really very unbiblical and poor position to take personally. And not just because I have five black belts, but because of what I know about the martial arts.

And when we think about what it means to love your neighbor, we need to protect and preserve life. I saw some comments even saying things like if you saw somebody being raped or beaten as a Christian, that's of the world.

Evil people in this world and God's sheep are going to be God's sheep. We're just going to get sheared, baby. So I saw all kinds of things like that. So welcome everybody. Welcome, welcome, welcome everybody.

Thank you everyone in the comments commenting. Glad you guys joined us for today's episode. So let's get right into it, shall we? Let me get this turned down here for a second and let's get right into the first part of the discussion.

Let's start with the theory of knowledge and people having wills or making choices. This is a really good clip and it is Richard Dawkins. The first part is Richard Dawkins. He's engaging on the issue of naturalism or materialism.

Talking about human will. Are humans making choices or are we just the byproducts of a universe that didn't have us in mind? Are the choices we make just the result of chemical responses and we can't help being what we are?

In other words, well, I'll let you hear it. I think Greg Bonson's lecture does a really good job of demonstrating the self-defeating nature of naturalism in terms of human wills. And by the way, when we talk about the issue of human will and free will choices in this discussion, it is very different from the free will discussion, soteriologically speaking, when we talk about, say, the issue of Arminianism versus Calvinism or Monergism versus Synergism.

If you don't know what those words mean, we've done some sermons recently at Apologia Church. Go check them out on the Doctrines of Grace. So just really important, Christians have to think of categories here.

The philosophical discussion about free will in terms of the discussion of naturalism and materialism is not the same discussion as free will soteriologically or in the Doctrine of Salvation between, say, a Pelagian and a Calvinist.

It's very, very different discussions, different categories, and so not the same thing. So if you guys are in the comments right now or you guys are listening to this, you're thinking, well, I believe in free will.

I believe Jesus gives us free will. It's our choice to trust in Jesus. We can do that. Just know this is not that discussion. This is a discussion of whether human beings are making choices at all. And so let's get into it.

This is, again, Dr. Richard Dawkins.

I suppose, Dr. Dawkins, I would ask this to you. Is there a scientific basis for the concept of free will in human beings? And if not, is there a biological evolutionary reason why all of us believe we have free will?

The late Christopher Hitchens, when asked, does he believe in free will, replied, I have no choice. It's a question that I dread, actually, because I don't have a very well thought out view about it.

I appreciate that moment of integrity and that moment of honesty from Dawkins. I dread this question because I don't have a good answer.

At least he's honest for once.

Think about it. You might be saying, well, why wouldn't he have a good answer? Doesn't he know he's a person who's making choices? When Dawkins is out with his wife, I believe he's married. Yeah, he is.

When Dawkins is out with his wife and his wife is like, where are we going to eat tonight? And she's like, how about Chinese? And he's like, no, I'm thinking fish and chips. I'd rather have fish and chips, you know, or making a decision to go this way or that way.

I would think that Dawkins believes that, you know, that's a willing choice. He's making choices. He's not just the subject of biochemical responses that are firing in his brain, the laws of physics acting on matter.

I would think he understands, like, these are real choices I'm making. But it's interesting here because if you think about his perspective of the world, reality, here's the deal. And you might be saying, what in the world does this have to do with just war theory and warfare and all the rest?

Everything has to do with whether or not we're making choices, and those choices are meaningful at all, or are we just bags of meat going into combat with each other? It's all related, so it's a foundational issue.

If the man believes, and he does, that we're African apes, and he's very, very strong.

Bonobos is the correct term he uses.

Yes. He's very, very convinced of that himself, that we're just African apes, that we're just stardust. He's with Sagan and all the other guys that would say, you know, we're all just stardust in a universe that didn't have us in mind.

If you take that perspective, one must ask, well, if that's what we are, if we're just a bunch of meat bags firing chemical responses in our brains, well, then are we really making choices, or are we just a slave to our biochemical responses?

Are we just slaves to our own nature in terms of material, just stuff? I mean, is there any meaning in all this? Any real choices being made by us, or can we just not help it? And that's where the joke comes from, by the way.

Christopher Hitchens is an atheist, and someone says, you know, do you believe in free will? And he says, well, I have no other choice. In other words, it's a deterministic perspective that because it's a material universe, I can't help it.

I mean, this is just it's a mixed conversation. But they don't really have an answer, and I do appreciate that he's honest enough to say, I dread this question. I understand why you do, because you don't have a worldview that can make sense of a human soul.

You don't have a worldview that can make sense of something that actually transcends the material and is beyond just the matter, molecules, and atoms that you have in front of you. So anything you want to add to that, Luke?

I was just going to ask if he called it Chinese food, because it comes from China.

China. China. China.

I think that I mean, I have a materialist view of the world. I think that things are determined in a rational way by antecedent events. And so that commits me to the view that when I think I have free will, when I think that I'm exercising free choice, I'm deluding myself, that my brain states are determined by physical events.

And yet that seems to contradict, to go against the very powerful subjective impression that we all have, that we do have free will. I think all I can do is recommend the works of my colleague Daniel Dennett on the subject, which are fascinating.

And there's a new book by another one of our colleagues, Sam Harrison, Free Will is coming out.

Yes.

But I also have to agree that I think

Well, this is an important area for them to start to delve into and to provide answers for, because if you take the premises that they give to you, given their worldview and the framework that they give to you, naturally it's going to start to bring out the questions of the students.

Well, if all this is true and it's just material it's just a material universe, well, then the choices that I'm making, are they really my choices? Are these really choices that I'm what's an I in that worldview in the first place, that I am freely making?

And of course, if you can follow Dawkins' worldview there, in terms of the thought processes, the decisions that he's making, first of all, he doesn't believe there's any ultimate moral ought above any of those decisions.

They're just decisions, left, right, up, down, yes, no. I mean, that's essentially what we're boiling this down to. He says he follows a scientific or a materialistic perspective. There has to be a rational reason for getting to point A to point B, and that all events are because of antecedent events.

What's he all that language, simply to say this, you have a cause and an effect relationship. Well, what's the cause of my thoughts? Well, it's the physical stuff that's right here. It's all the physical stuff.

So if a decision was made, a movement was made this direction, I want to follow the causal chain that got me to that decision, and all I get here is a material universe with physical laws acting upon matter.

That's what he said. So basically, the decisions he's making are just ultimately the result of physical, naturalistic processes upon the material nature, and you've just got stuff that's happening, okay?

So now, let me move ahead here to this little clip here. This is Dr. Greg Bonson from a lecture that he gave on naturalism and the issue of free will. Here is Dr. Bonson.

Let me talk about freedom in our thinking. If naturalism is true, that is, all that exists is the natural order, and there isn't anything that goes beyond man's experience and time, if naturalism is true, then the naturalist has no reason to believe his naturalism.

You write that down and I'll explain why it's true. If naturalism is true, the naturalist has no reason to believe it. Has no reason to believe it. Because, you see, naturalism says all of our thinking is just electrical, chemical responses.

All of our thinking is subject to the laws of chemistry and physics, which is to say all of our thinking is determined by the factors in the physical world or in the physical brain, in the environment around us.

All of our thinking is, in principle, predictable then, because it's just following the laws of nature. Usually, more sophisticatedly put, the laws of physics and biology and chemistry and so forth. But the point is, human thinking is just the species of the physical world and its operation.

Human thinking is just, it's on the same order, but not the same level of sophistication, as weeds growing. And so if naturalism is true, then the person who's propounding it is propounding it, why? Because his or her brain has required them, by the laws of physics and chemistry and biology, to say this sort of thing.

It's not as though they have the freedom and self-awareness to think about different theories, evaluate evidence, and make a choice as to which is right or wrong. They just have to say whatever they have to say.

And that's why the irony is that a naturalist would promote naturalism and try to tell people it's true. You should believe that and not supernaturalism. The answer is, if naturalism is true, so that your brain is just working on the laws of physics, then you have no reason to believe naturalism is true.

It's just the laws of physics requiring you to say that. Which is just to say, if naturalism is true, there's no reason to say that naturalism is true.

And, kaboom! An amazing polemic against naturalism, materialism. It's an internal critique of the system itself. And you can hear here, watch, this is Bonson. I don't even know when this was. My goodness, this looks like it's late 80s, maybe early 90s, something like that.

Here we have about a 30-year-old video, Dr. Greg Bonson, hero and giant of the faith. If you don't know him, you need to get to know him, please. And we'd love to help you do that. But here is a video, 30 years ago, internal critique of naturalism in terms of the idea of free will.

Now, 30 years later-ish, you've got a video of Dawkins and Krauss, who is a local. Dawkins and Krauss talking about the issue and Dawkins admitting, I don't like this, I don't like this question. Well, yeah, because if what you say is true about the world, then there's no reason to believe your theory.

And what's the difference between picking one theory over another in the naturalistic mindset? You've just got stuff happening in your brain. You're just a result of the forces that are acting upon the material and the choices that you're making and the theories that you're evaluating.

One's not true over another, one's not ultimate. And there's no moral component to any of it. So why do you need to tell the truth about any of it when you're examining it? So there's so many layers to this.

Materialism, naturalism is easily refuted within its own framework. Answer the fool according to their folly, lest they be wise in their own conceit. Proverbs 26, verse 4 and 5. Take a look at that in terms of how to answer the fool.

I was just going to say they can't escape some form of determinism. That would be their critique against Christianity. Well, God is, you know, you're robots and God determines everything. Even creation or the beginning of life itself, they still can't escape.

Even if they go with the Big Bang Theory, there's still something there prior. Where did that come from? They just don't like, the point is that they don't like our answer. You know, and they have the same, like you said, the same internal problem that they have to answer for.

They just don't have an answer. They don't like our answer.

Right, exactly. They refuse to acknowledge the God that they clearly know. And so they have to construct very, very interesting theories. So here's a guy. Think about what you just watched with Dawkins.

Just think about it.

Here's a guy who's like, I don't like the implications of this question. I don't like having to answer this because my worldview says that it's just a materialist world, a materialistic perspective of all of reality.

There's nothing transcendent. There's nothing outside of the physical realm and the material, which means that all of us are just the result of all these chemical processes. But dang it, I'd really like to have some personality in this.

You know what I'm saying? I'm up here, everyone reads my books. We're talking like there's interaction between us that's meaningful. And I'm a person who has value and dignity, and so are you. And truth matters.

We've got to fight for truth. I'm up here talking about truth and science and evidence and logic and reason. And yet I don't have a worldview that comports with any of those claims. And so, boy, I really don't like this question.

Well, yeah, it just exposed you as a rebel against your creator. And your answers are bootleg and stupid. And Dawkins' worldview is foolish. He's a fool. And I don't mean that, of course. Biblically speaking, calling someone a fool is not meant to simply be like name-calling.

But it's meant to describe the spiritual condition and intellectual condition of a person who refuses to acknowledge what's obvious to everybody. And so he's a fool, and his worldview is foolish. So, okay, so the first thing I wanted to do is I wanted to lay that down in terms of perspectives.

You've got the atheistic, materialistic, naturalistic perspective that can't even justify decision-making. Do you see what that boils down to? The question of free will is just decision-making. Is this me really deciding to make this decision?

Am I really evaluating a theory here, one over against another? Or am I just sort of happening in the universe? Is any of this meaningful? Is this discussion meaningful? Well, from his perspective, not really.

So that's the question of choices and free will. The next one I wanted to just play, just to show you, again, perspectives, biblical worldview over and against another system, is a discussion we had recently on Provoked with an atheist.

And I'll just play through it because something very interesting happened. If you didn't catch it, go catch it. It happened recently. Just look on our thread here, Provoked. I think it's just labeled Jeff Durbin versus an atheist.

Okay.

So go look for that. It's a long discussion, an hour and 40 minutes long, just about. But in this discussion, the atheist was supposed to come on to debate abortion. But as soon as we started to get right past it, it was like, well, he doesn't even believe there's a moral foundation to anything at all.

So it's like, all right, well, you're on here arguing that abortion is a moral decision, and we ought to allow abortions, but your atheism says that there is no ultimate right or wrong, so what are you doing here?

Well, pressing him and pressing him and pressing him to inconsistency, finally he confesses to cannibalism as not really morally wrong, as long as you dispatch the person quickly and be sure to clean your plates, folks, which is what he said.

I'm not kidding. You guys probably right now are like, he did not say that. Go watch the episode. That's exactly what he said. So I'll play the clip here. I can't play all of it, but just some of it.

It's a natural design.

What I see, it's a beautiful, natural thing that happens. I can see in fossils how it happens.

I can see how nature affects it. Just a point, a couple things out here. When we talk about morality, you say it's arbitrary. You say there's no ultimate, never has been an ultimate morality, but then you keep saying that there are things that somebody ought to do or ought not to do.

As a matter of fact, I would say you're being on the show today, and I mean this with humble respect and love towards you because I do appreciate you and I do respect you, but you're on a show today to argue about what ought to be done in the issue of abortion while you're saying there's never been a moral ought.

Then you're using words like design. I would ask you, do you know of any other time in your experience where somebody would call something design that didn't have a designer? I would say all of this shows you are inescapably, inescapably in God's image, and you're trying very hard as a unique and beautiful creation of God to live in God's world apart from him, but it can't be done.

And the problem is sin. Same God. We will try very hard to construct sophisticated worldviews to get away from the knowledge of our Creator. We'll say there's no ultimate morality, but then we'll complain about somebody stealing from us.

We'll say there's no ultimate morality, but then we'll tell somebody that slavery is wrong. We'll say there's no ultimate morality, but then we'll decry injustice, and we'll glory in the phenomenal design and creation of the world, and then say, although in this case, nobody's behind it.

It's a worldview that sort of collapses and folds in upon itself. Do you see?

No, I don't.

I see it as, like, I get what you're saying. I understand the argument that you're putting, but I still, like, and also I'll say it as respectfully as I can, too, that, yeah, like, I appreciate, I can appreciate the kind words and everything, you know, but I don't, like, no, I don't think that I'm created by God or anything.

I'm created by my parents. Like, that's it. I'm a genetic combo of my parents, and I don't think that this world, as beautiful as it is, then, like, I don't think, like, I can see how it happened naturally.

Like, there are natural explanations for every single thing that we see, even up to morality, as in, like, because it's a social construct.

Ah, it's a social construct.

We have used it forever. Like, it's been, it's evolved over time from simple types of, like, whatever, caveman, days, groups, like, family groups, using morality for, like, rudimentary, I guess, for deciding who gets to eat first or whatever.

Like, we're not going to give the stranger food yet. We're going to have the family members eat first,.

And then eat whatever from someone else. Yeah, well, let me, yeah, I guess I'll ask you on that point. I have two questions, but the one I would ask you is that you live in Texas, right?

Yeah.

So I would say this is a very loving challenge to you. You are heavily influenced by and surrounded by the blessings of the Christian worldview that uphold value and dignity and worth for other human beings, that talk about loving our neighbor and those sorts of things, and talk about justice and all those things.

So I think you've been heavily influenced by the Christian worldview, but I would point to the fact that all over the world today, there are still tribes who kill other human beings and eat them. But in their society, that's a moral, happy thing.

Are they right for that?

I don't know that I'd call it.

You argue that it's by societal convention. So people get together and they determine what's right and what's wrong by convention. And so if that is the case, these cannibalistic tribes that exist today, outside of Texas, they still kill people and hunt them and eat them today.

But their society says it's moral. So is it moral? Because they say that it is?

I don't know that I'd say. Only because it's a taboo, basically, from our own culture.

So it's not really wrong.

Eating other people, we honestly do just think it's gross.

What about torturing them then eating them? How about hunting and killing and then eating human beings? Is that moral? If society determines it is?

Yeah. It is?

Those people will say it is, yeah.

But is it moral?

Those groups will.

Is it moral, according to them?

From my perspective, I don't think it is. But obviously they do. They're going to do it because they're on their own, they're secluded, and so they're not really under any jurisdiction from another larger group, like other tribes or something, or a bigger government type of idea.

They're going to do what they do.

So I'm going to ask you a question. If you and I, we left the confines of Arizona and Texas, we flew over to one of those tribes and hung out with them for about a year, and we joined them in hunting and killing humans and then eating them, and we returned to Texas and Arizona, would we be moral people at that point?

Because we engaged in hunting and killing and eating humans? But we did it over where it was acceptable? I know that you think we shouldn't do it because it's icky, but something more than icky I think is important when we're talking about morality.

So if we went to some other place and we participated in eating people?

Hunting, killing, and eating, yes. It's okay over there. By convention, they've determined that's moral. Would we still be moral men when we returned to Texas and Arizona after having engaged in that for a year?

Depends how you see it. Also, I would say it depends on how it was done. Like if you're just toying with anything, whether a person or a deer or whatever the case may be, if you're attacking, grabbing it, and just killing it slowly, torturing it or something, toying with it.

So torturing is wrong?

I would say that's wrong because it's just more inflicting pain on something that can feel pain, that can feel tear. But if you're actually going to dispatch something really quickly and then eat it, and you're going to use the whole thing, like you're not going to waste anything, honestly, that's not that bad, I don't think.

So if I kill and I told you I wasn't telling tales, hunt them, dispatch them, and clean your plates, folks, as long as you do all those things. Hunt them, dispatch them, and clean your plates. Yeah, there's nothing really wrong with that.

My favorite answer, which I thought he should have just stuck with, I forget the original question you asked, but he was like,.

Meh, he should have just stuck with that.

That would have been much more acceptable than the rambling he gave you.

Now here's the deal. The reason I wanted to play that is talking about the discussion of are people making choices in the first place? Can you even evaluate different theories? We're talking about just war theory.