WEBVTT 00:00:00.520 --> 00:00:03.320 It is the 29th of May, 2026. 00:00:03.480 --> 00:00:04.440 I am Corey J. 00:00:04.440 --> 00:00:06.460 Mahler, and this is At Any Cost. 00:00:06.460 --> 00:00:09.260 I assume that you all have sound now. 00:00:09.260 --> 00:00:12.940 The levels all look correct on my end, so please let me, thank you. 00:00:13.120 --> 00:00:14.880 I was going to say, please let me know in the chat. 00:00:15.560 --> 00:00:20.180 But at any rate, no idea why OBS is deciding to do this, which it occasionally does. 00:00:20.720 --> 00:00:30.500 So if you hear panting in the background, that would be Gizmo, who is hiding at my feet currently, because we have a storm starting here, and he really does not like thunder and lightning. 00:00:31.580 --> 00:00:36.980 At any rate, now that the audio is working, I can go ahead and get into the questions here. 00:00:37.800 --> 00:00:42.460 Question one, some easy questions before I get into something that's a little longer. 00:00:42.460 --> 00:00:46.400 Like I said, I would get into some more complicated material this week. 00:00:46.420 --> 00:00:49.260 Probably a longer answer will take up more of the episode. 00:00:49.840 --> 00:00:52.320 But at any rate, question one, an easy one to start. 00:00:52.320 --> 00:00:56.440 Do you think God will have jobs or careers for us in the new creation? 00:00:56.960 --> 00:00:59.940 And the person says, no reason, just fun to think about. 00:00:59.940 --> 00:01:05.500 And the answer is that yes, you will have something to do in the new creation. 00:01:06.520 --> 00:01:11.140 The distinction here would be between labor and work. 00:01:11.660 --> 00:01:18.560 And you're going to have work in the new creation, which say you're going to have something to do, whatever it happens to be. 00:01:18.560 --> 00:01:23.980 God originally made us to be gardeners, so certainly that's going to be a thing that will do in the new creation. 00:01:24.440 --> 00:01:26.500 Some of us already enjoy that, so that's good news. 00:01:27.240 --> 00:01:31.560 But God did not create us just to be idle. 00:01:31.860 --> 00:01:33.140 That's not a human life. 00:01:33.140 --> 00:01:36.800 That's something fundamentally different from what a human being should be doing. 00:01:37.260 --> 00:01:51.540 So there will be work, but it won't be labor or laborious in the sense of being something we dread having to do, or something that is taxing on us, weighs us down, beats us down over time, right? 00:01:51.900 --> 00:01:53.480 Not that sort of work. 00:01:53.540 --> 00:02:00.500 But work in the sense of something that is productive, makes you feel like you are doing something because you are indeed doing something. 00:02:00.880 --> 00:02:02.680 So that will still exist. 00:02:03.880 --> 00:02:16.560 But on a tangentially related note there, I usually don't say that much about paradise or about the new creation because so much of it is speculative. 00:02:16.640 --> 00:02:23.460 There are some things where we can clearly say that this or this will not be the case, or this or that will not be there. 00:02:24.240 --> 00:02:30.560 But in many cases, we live in a fallen world, and we live thousands of years into the fallen world. 00:02:30.920 --> 00:02:34.600 So it's difficult for us to understand what a perfect world would even be. 00:02:35.160 --> 00:02:40.740 And God doesn't really give us a ton of specifics about the new creation. 00:02:41.220 --> 00:02:43.900 We just know that it will be what he intended it to be. 00:02:43.980 --> 00:02:49.240 So everything that is bad in this creation due to the fall will not be there. 00:02:49.580 --> 00:02:57.360 That's why I usually don't say that much on the topic, because it is somewhat speculative, generally speaking, because we only know so much about that. 00:02:57.360 --> 00:03:04.360 Just like we only know so much about angels and demons, and how they interact with our world, and the rules God has set for them. 00:03:05.220 --> 00:03:07.540 God doesn't give us much in the way of details. 00:03:07.540 --> 00:03:12.660 So generally speaking, I don't comment too much on that, because it's too speculative. 00:03:12.660 --> 00:03:15.960 I would just be guessing, extrapolating. 00:03:16.780 --> 00:03:20.380 It's not certain enough for me to want to make a public statement on that kind of thing. 00:03:21.360 --> 00:03:22.220 Question 2. 00:03:22.540 --> 00:03:35.500 If an adult convert and his future wife had a miscarriage outside of wedlock and before they returned to Christ, do we have any way to know if the baby is saved in spite of its faithless parents? 00:03:37.480 --> 00:03:42.800 This is a difficult question, because there's not necessarily an easy answer here. 00:03:43.620 --> 00:03:54.100 Certainly, we know that if you have one believing parent, you can be certain that God has provided for that infant. 00:03:54.460 --> 00:03:56.580 I went over this in a previous episode. 00:03:56.660 --> 00:03:58.160 In fact, I went over it last week. 00:03:59.080 --> 00:04:07.760 Because you have the passages that speak of the unbelieving spouse being sanctified by the believing spouse, and then the children are holy because of the parents. 00:04:08.080 --> 00:04:22.100 And then you have the passage with David and Bathsheba, where clearly a child conceived outside of wedlock, and then David, as a prophet, says that he is certain he will see the child again, and that is comforting to him. 00:04:22.760 --> 00:04:25.040 I have gizmo moving around and now sitting on my feet. 00:04:25.700 --> 00:04:39.840 But with regard to those who are not believers, scripture does not actually state what happens for the children of unbelievers who die very young. 00:04:39.840 --> 00:04:41.820 So miscarriage, for instance. 00:04:43.280 --> 00:04:47.600 All we can do in that case is commend that child to God. 00:04:47.600 --> 00:04:50.720 I don't think it's wrong to pray to God about that child. 00:04:50.720 --> 00:04:54.460 I don't think it's wrong to pray for the departed, right? 00:04:54.820 --> 00:05:01.340 Obviously, in Lutheran, I don't believe we pray to the departed, but I don't think that it's wrong to pray for the departed. 00:05:01.620 --> 00:05:05.880 And it's not a matter, it's not an issue that you're praying after the fact, right? 00:05:05.880 --> 00:05:09.220 You're not praying for something in the future, you're praying for something that's already occurred. 00:05:09.780 --> 00:05:11.160 God's outside of time. 00:05:11.520 --> 00:05:18.940 When you are praying within your frame of reference with regard to time, doesn't matter to God, right? 00:05:19.700 --> 00:05:23.720 So I don't think it's wrong to pray for something like this. 00:05:23.720 --> 00:05:25.640 In fact, I think it's a good thing to do that. 00:05:26.160 --> 00:05:30.060 So, the short answer is that we have to leave this up to God. 00:05:30.420 --> 00:05:38.820 We don't really have any firm word in Scripture other than God will do what is perfect, and all things work together for the good. 00:05:39.520 --> 00:05:43.640 God knew this individual would come to faith, would return to the faith. 00:05:44.120 --> 00:05:49.480 God knew that that was a child of someone who ultimately will be saved, who is numbered among the elect. 00:05:50.480 --> 00:05:54.920 Take comfort in that, and knowing that what God will do is perfect. 00:05:55.920 --> 00:06:00.200 We don't know exactly how that works here in time, and that's fine. 00:06:00.200 --> 00:06:02.020 We don't have to know everything here in time. 00:06:02.380 --> 00:06:05.120 We know enough that we can take some comfort from that. 00:06:05.120 --> 00:06:10.080 We just can't be absolutely certain, because scripture doesn't give us that answer. 00:06:11.400 --> 00:06:18.120 And I know that's not necessarily the answer everyone wants to hear, but sometimes the truth is what it is. 00:06:18.300 --> 00:06:20.560 It's not necessarily exactly what we would prefer. 00:06:20.960 --> 00:06:24.320 But we can again take comfort in the fact that God's plan is perfect. 00:06:24.320 --> 00:06:25.840 God knows all of his sheep. 00:06:25.840 --> 00:06:27.260 God knows all of the elect. 00:06:27.640 --> 00:06:32.060 And it doesn't matter when, how you die, when you pray, right? 00:06:32.680 --> 00:06:35.340 These things are outside of time from God's perspective. 00:06:35.340 --> 00:06:36.960 So, take comfort in that. 00:06:39.440 --> 00:06:45.000 Question three, do you think kindness to animals count as works? 00:06:45.060 --> 00:06:49.020 People exist for people, and they are who God wants us focused on. 00:06:49.500 --> 00:06:52.800 But do you think works extend beyond purely human affairs? 00:06:52.800 --> 00:06:58.120 I guess it's a good question, since I currently have a small dog sitting on my feet, hiding from the thunderstorm. 00:06:59.480 --> 00:07:08.200 I think that those definitely count as works, because many of the things that we have to do are duties that do not pertain to human beings, right? 00:07:08.200 --> 00:07:10.720 We have a duty to care for the natural world. 00:07:11.000 --> 00:07:15.120 We have a duty to care for the possessions that God has entrusted to us. 00:07:15.120 --> 00:07:19.080 So, we shouldn't be destructive, unnecessarily destructive with regard to those. 00:07:19.080 --> 00:07:22.840 We should treat our things well, not just people. 00:07:23.340 --> 00:07:24.360 That includes animals. 00:07:24.360 --> 00:07:26.880 God certainly entrusted the animals to our care. 00:07:26.880 --> 00:07:28.160 We are supposed to treat them well. 00:07:28.160 --> 00:07:29.900 So, you shouldn't abuse your farm animals. 00:07:29.900 --> 00:07:31.240 You shouldn't abuse your pets. 00:07:31.840 --> 00:07:33.040 You should take good care of those. 00:07:33.040 --> 00:07:36.960 And that does count as a good work, because you are doing what God designed you to do. 00:07:37.520 --> 00:07:41.400 And a good work is simply doing that which is consonant with God's will. 00:07:41.480 --> 00:07:47.380 So, taking care of your pets, treating them well, taking care of your other physical things. 00:07:47.400 --> 00:07:51.980 These are all good works, because you are doing your duty that God has given you. 00:07:56.660 --> 00:07:58.280 Question 4. 00:08:00.300 --> 00:08:05.020 How can you argue against race mixing from a Christian perspective? 00:08:05.020 --> 00:08:10.520 I am convinced by natural law, but my family uses Jesus as a defense for their betrayal. 00:08:11.000 --> 00:08:13.140 I want to convert, but this is my hindrance. 00:08:13.140 --> 00:08:24.820 So, this one comes up all the time, which I don't mind going over it again, because it's an important question that's going to keep coming up for the foreseeable future for reasons that are obvious to everyone. 00:08:25.540 --> 00:08:34.300 I'm not going to give the full answer here, because in part the full answer is, you know, go listen to the race series on Stone Choir. 00:08:35.220 --> 00:08:39.140 I will link to that in the show notes, so I'll put a note here for myself to link to that. 00:08:40.380 --> 00:08:56.160 You can also listen to some of the debates that I've done on the topic, so I've gone over it at some length there, although some of those were a little technical, because of the reality of the proposition that was offered by the other side, and it was more beneficial to accept than reject the proposition for the sake of the debate. 00:08:56.860 --> 00:09:00.940 But I would here at least go over three points, really. 00:09:01.840 --> 00:09:06.480 I guess they're really more expansive than three points, but three sort of core points I would go over. 00:09:07.440 --> 00:09:09.760 Your first point you sort of made already, right? 00:09:09.980 --> 00:09:11.960 You appeal to natural law. 00:09:11.960 --> 00:09:19.300 Well, God is the author of natural law, so you are appealing to God when you appeal to natural law. 00:09:20.000 --> 00:09:21.240 There's nothing wrong with doing that. 00:09:21.240 --> 00:09:25.860 Christians have long recognized that the natural law is important. 00:09:25.860 --> 00:09:33.520 The natural law flows from God's character, flows from God's essence, his nature, and so you can appeal to the natural law. 00:09:33.960 --> 00:09:36.340 God is the author, he's the one who created it. 00:09:36.960 --> 00:09:41.720 The way that I've typically said it, and there are other men who said it as well, God wrote two books. 00:09:41.720 --> 00:09:43.040 Nature is the first one. 00:09:43.580 --> 00:09:48.240 And nature really is the more important one in a certain sense. 00:09:48.440 --> 00:09:53.600 It's the greater one because it's the one to which God appeals when he speaks of his own greatness. 00:09:53.600 --> 00:09:55.680 You can think of the book of Job, right? 00:09:55.680 --> 00:10:01.120 He doesn't appeal to prophecy or revelation or anything like that. 00:10:01.120 --> 00:10:04.720 He appeals to creation when he is telling Job of his greatness. 00:10:04.720 --> 00:10:09.160 So even God appeals to nature, creation as his greater work. 00:10:09.540 --> 00:10:13.760 The way in which scripture is greater, of course, scripture reveals the gospel. 00:10:14.280 --> 00:10:15.740 Nature does not reveal the gospel. 00:10:15.740 --> 00:10:18.640 You need scripture for that to be saved. 00:10:18.640 --> 00:10:22.580 So it's greater in that sense, but there's nothing wrong with appealing to nature. 00:10:23.220 --> 00:10:45.040 And when it comes to appealing to nature, I think there are a few points you can bring up with someone who has at least some shared Christian framework, because if there is a designer, right, if there's a God, and you can find evidence of the way he designed something, then you should act in accord with that design. 00:10:45.520 --> 00:10:56.680 One of the strongest points for this is that the peak for fertility is, depending on the group, somewhere between third and fourth cousins, right around there. 00:10:57.020 --> 00:11:02.500 Sometimes a little, maybe a little more out than that, but basically third or fourth cousins, that's peak fertility. 00:11:03.500 --> 00:11:05.420 God designed that into the system. 00:11:05.900 --> 00:11:07.640 God says children are a blessing. 00:11:08.360 --> 00:11:14.380 God is the one who designed where you are going to have the greatest number of children produced by a given marriage. 00:11:14.860 --> 00:11:27.520 And that is with your somewhat distant, not close, obviously, that's a different problem, but your somewhat distant cousins, not distant in the sense of like other side of the world cousins, but third or fourth cousins. 00:11:28.040 --> 00:11:29.520 God built that into the system. 00:11:29.520 --> 00:11:33.400 So that's his design, that's clearly his intent. 00:11:33.440 --> 00:11:44.800 So not going outside of that and not disobeying or marrying your first cousin is a good thing, because you are acting in accord with God's revealed will in nature. 00:11:45.560 --> 00:11:46.940 So again, appealing to nature. 00:11:47.260 --> 00:11:51.040 You can also use issues like the compatibility of immune systems, right? 00:11:51.040 --> 00:11:53.080 There's a reason foreigners smell weird to you. 00:11:53.520 --> 00:11:55.880 It's not just because some of them have bad hygiene. 00:11:56.240 --> 00:11:59.060 It's because you're not compatible with them genetically. 00:11:59.140 --> 00:12:01.500 Usually that's to deal with the immune system. 00:12:01.760 --> 00:12:09.560 Another thing that God built into the system, and so God has revealed his design, we should obey his design. 00:12:09.560 --> 00:12:12.220 We should go along with what he clearly wants us to do. 00:12:13.960 --> 00:12:18.560 There's also the fact that Scripture is just blunt about this. 00:12:18.700 --> 00:12:26.340 God is the one who created the races of men, and not just created the races of men, but set their times and their boundaries. 00:12:26.340 --> 00:12:52.880 So geographic and temporal boundaries, he set those very clearly there in the Book of Acts, and elsewhere as well, because, for instance, you have when the Israelites are coming in to the promised land, God says there are certain places, he will not give them so much as enough to set their foot upon of certain segments of land, because God has given them to another race, the Edomites or the Ammonites, whoever it happens to be. 00:12:52.880 --> 00:12:55.080 God has given territory to other peoples. 00:12:55.660 --> 00:12:59.120 As long as they remain faithful, they retain ownership of that territory. 00:12:59.120 --> 00:13:01.540 Of course, there are consequences for faithlessness. 00:13:02.580 --> 00:13:09.740 But if God created the races of men, and then he set their boundaries, he clearly wanted them to be separate. 00:13:10.120 --> 00:13:22.400 So, when you are marrying outside your race, or when you are moving to a foreign country, you are actually doing something that is contrary to God's will, because God is the one who set those times, set those boundaries. 00:13:22.740 --> 00:13:24.260 He didn't do that idly. 00:13:24.520 --> 00:13:35.500 If he wanted everyone to just turn into one undifferentiated mass of humanity, with no racial distinctions, no national distinctions, he wouldn't have set times and boundaries. 00:13:35.740 --> 00:13:39.960 So, Scripture, very clear on this, that God is the one who set these. 00:13:40.700 --> 00:13:44.860 You may have to explain to people that nation and race are the same thing. 00:13:45.220 --> 00:13:48.740 Some people have trouble with that concept, but they are literally identical. 00:13:48.820 --> 00:13:52.680 Look back through history, look at the etymology, they mean the same thing. 00:13:54.040 --> 00:13:58.420 And sometimes people will try to argue about, you know, ethnicity and race, and they are just arguing over Greek vs. 00:13:58.420 --> 00:13:58.920 Latin. 00:13:59.360 --> 00:14:01.160 These are all the same terms, I mean the same thing. 00:14:02.020 --> 00:14:07.960 And scripture is also clear on that point, because you will have the race of, insert name here, right? 00:14:07.960 --> 00:14:13.300 Israel is called Israel, because they are the race of Israel, descended from Jacob, renamed Israel. 00:14:13.300 --> 00:14:14.680 That's the reason they have the name. 00:14:14.900 --> 00:14:20.820 So that's a point you can make with someone who has that shared Christian framework, at least some Christian framework. 00:14:21.740 --> 00:14:27.160 And then the third point I would make would be, look at the consequences of miscegenation. 00:14:27.520 --> 00:14:31.500 And again, God is the one who designed the system. 00:14:31.880 --> 00:14:34.040 God is the one who designed how it works. 00:14:34.560 --> 00:14:43.220 So when you do something within creation, and it has negative consequences, God is the one who designed those negative consequences. 00:14:43.680 --> 00:14:46.340 Miscegenation has negative consequences. 00:14:46.820 --> 00:14:56.280 It leads to health issues, it leads to psychological issues, it causes all sorts of problems, and that's a very clear indication that it is contrary to God's will. 00:14:56.600 --> 00:15:13.840 So I think if you bring up those three points, if you're dealing with someone who's going to be honest, if you're dealing with someone who is going to be open to actually examining the issue instead of simply shutting down immediately because they've been trained to react in a certain way, you can probably get somewhere. 00:15:14.780 --> 00:15:16.160 That's probably the best approach. 00:15:16.160 --> 00:15:37.120 And it shouldn't be something that prevents you from being Christian, because it's only in the last, say, 50-ish years, maybe a little longer, kind of 1960s when it really began in earnest, where you have people who claim to be Christian and subscribe to this modern so-called morality. 00:15:37.340 --> 00:15:41.080 We've called it the new global religion or the post-war consensus. 00:15:41.760 --> 00:15:43.040 That's not Christianity. 00:15:43.240 --> 00:15:44.540 That's a different religion. 00:15:44.860 --> 00:15:46.620 It doesn't matter what they call themselves. 00:15:46.620 --> 00:15:49.080 They're not Christians because they don't subscribe to it. 00:15:49.080 --> 00:15:50.480 Christians actually believe. 00:15:50.900 --> 00:15:55.020 So you're going to have to do some work probably in dealing with that. 00:15:55.040 --> 00:15:57.340 Maybe you can get them to listen to the series on race. 00:15:57.720 --> 00:16:02.880 It is just purely factual, dealing with the issues as they exist. 00:16:03.020 --> 00:16:09.400 It goes over the fundamental issues, the Christian perspective, consequences, you know, where do we go from here? 00:16:09.880 --> 00:16:11.560 So again, I'll link that in the show notes. 00:16:11.560 --> 00:16:19.560 I would definitely recommend that you listen to that, and then maybe recommend that your family or others listen to it as well. 00:16:25.192 --> 00:16:34.872 The next question here, a related question, this one's easier to answer, and then I'll get into the enlightenment, which may take up a little bit of time here. 00:16:36.212 --> 00:16:47.992 Question five, since you want deportations of people who are not white in the US., what happens if someone like an Indian born in the US doesn't know how to speak a language other than English? 00:16:48.632 --> 00:17:00.192 That person gets deported, but he wouldn't feel like, or he would feel like a foreigner in India, but since he can't communicate with other Indians, how would your nationalist political view address this problem? 00:17:03.452 --> 00:17:05.292 There are a number of ways I can address this. 00:17:05.292 --> 00:17:06.972 The first one is probably just to be blunt. 00:17:06.972 --> 00:17:09.092 It's not our problem, right? 00:17:10.932 --> 00:17:13.492 Our own people are the ones for whom we're supposed to care. 00:17:13.492 --> 00:17:21.332 So a foreigner who doesn't feel like he's at home in his own home nation, that's not my problem. 00:17:21.792 --> 00:17:24.772 That's his problem, that's his home nation's problem. 00:17:25.332 --> 00:17:33.172 So yes, it may be that his parents or grandparents created the problem for him, but that doesn't make it my problem. 00:17:33.532 --> 00:17:41.172 My concern is my people, because I have the greatest duty to family, and then extended family, and nation. 00:17:41.292 --> 00:17:43.432 And yes, sometimes nation trumps family, right? 00:17:43.432 --> 00:17:46.272 When you have to go off to war, that's nation trumping family. 00:17:46.712 --> 00:17:49.832 But that's how that works. 00:17:49.832 --> 00:17:56.372 I don't have the same level of duty to the foreigner, even if he speaks my language and doesn't know his own language. 00:17:56.892 --> 00:17:58.772 That's fundamentally not my problem. 00:17:59.152 --> 00:18:04.912 Now, in this particular case, not really an issue, because plenty of Indians know some English. 00:18:04.912 --> 00:18:08.092 So this particular example given isn't even a real example. 00:18:08.612 --> 00:18:16.352 If you speak English, you can get by in a lot of countries, particularly living in a city, and then you pick up the language, right? 00:18:16.352 --> 00:18:21.512 When you're living there, it's not that hard to pick up a functional use of the local language. 00:18:21.512 --> 00:18:22.832 It's not a real issue. 00:18:23.192 --> 00:18:27.852 It's an argument some people try to use, but it's not a real problem. 00:18:28.152 --> 00:18:36.052 And it's not a valid argument against a nationalist policy of deporting those who don't belong to the nation, because they shouldn't be here in the first place. 00:18:36.352 --> 00:18:37.972 Related to the previous question, right? 00:18:37.972 --> 00:18:40.792 God is the one who set the boundaries and the times. 00:18:41.172 --> 00:18:44.412 These people belong in their own lands, not in ours. 00:18:44.432 --> 00:18:46.572 And so they should be sent home. 00:18:46.592 --> 00:18:50.312 They can use Duolingo on the plane or whatever it happens to be. 00:18:51.452 --> 00:18:52.172 Use a better app. 00:18:52.172 --> 00:18:53.452 That one's not great anymore. 00:18:58.987 --> 00:19:07.427 I'm going to copy some questions from the chat that I may get to today, I may not, but I just want to keep them for future reference. 00:19:08.687 --> 00:19:17.367 The next question is a longer one, because I need to go over some background, it's just more complicated question. 00:19:18.527 --> 00:19:23.287 Someone asked about the enlightenment and its connection to the American Revolution. 00:19:23.967 --> 00:19:31.127 And so in order to go over this, there's some background information you have to know. 00:19:31.607 --> 00:19:59.547 Because if you don't have the history here, and how these things developed, and some of the nuance, the differences between different groups within this time period, you're going to miss how these things interacted and played out, and how we wound up with the American Revolution, and perhaps more importantly, the documents that proceeded from it, and then indeed the United States polity as well. 00:19:59.547 --> 00:20:02.867 Because it is very much a product of the Enlightenment. 00:20:03.427 --> 00:20:06.407 You know, I'm not sort of, I'm not bearing the lead here, right? 00:20:06.407 --> 00:20:07.927 I'm not, it's not a spoiler alert. 00:20:07.927 --> 00:20:09.427 We all know that's where I'm going with this. 00:20:10.387 --> 00:20:15.507 But in order to start off, you have to understand the Enlightenment proper. 00:20:15.987 --> 00:20:27.367 And there are a handful of different regional distinctions under sort of the umbrella of what we could call the Enlightenment, primarily the Enlightenment. 00:20:27.367 --> 00:20:32.547 When we speak of it, you know, uppercase E, we mean English, Scottish, French. 00:20:33.047 --> 00:20:46.727 And in the American context, obviously, the Anglo portion, the English speaking portion is a little more relevant to us just because many of the founding fathers had a smattering of other languages, but they were reading primarily the English authors. 00:20:47.327 --> 00:20:58.987 Some of them loved the French, Jefferson, Franklin, but mostly, they were going to read Locke and others like that, or in translation, of course, because these things were still being translated back then. 00:20:58.987 --> 00:21:01.847 It was just a lot harder without AI, took more time. 00:21:03.527 --> 00:21:12.567 The focus of the Enlightenment, in short, would be a focus on reason, their formulation of reason, so bear that in mind. 00:21:13.047 --> 00:21:20.227 Empiricism, so divining things from the natural world, and then what they called natural rights. 00:21:20.287 --> 00:21:27.367 Well, that's a big part of this, obviously, because that's where we get the Declaration, and the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. 00:21:27.507 --> 00:21:33.967 That conception of natural rights that is a core part of the Enlightenment claims. 00:21:34.227 --> 00:21:41.507 And this is perhaps against some of the claims of traditional European thought, and even traditional Christendom. 00:21:42.427 --> 00:21:46.567 There was also, attendant with this, a skepticism court authority. 00:21:46.567 --> 00:21:56.267 So, particularly against the aristocracy, the clerical class, significantly more so against the clerical class in the French case than in the American case. 00:21:57.267 --> 00:22:01.767 Partly for historical reasons, partly because, to be blunt, Satan was A-B testing. 00:22:01.767 --> 00:22:02.727 He likes to do that. 00:22:03.407 --> 00:22:07.167 He ran the American Revolution in one way, he ran the French Revolution in another. 00:22:07.627 --> 00:22:12.367 As it turns out, American Revolution was the better way to go, worked better for him long term. 00:22:13.307 --> 00:22:18.747 France descended into greater chaos, and kind of has cyclical chaos still stemming from that. 00:22:19.607 --> 00:22:24.887 But by and large, the American experiment, far more productive overall than the French. 00:22:25.467 --> 00:22:50.887 So, that skepticism toward the clerical class was because you had the great power of Rome, historically, in France, and the amount of wealth and power in society, and things like that, that were wielded by, particularly, archbishops and others in higher positions in the church, that made people very skeptical toward them. 00:22:50.887 --> 00:23:09.967 And then there was obviously the relationship of the French crown to the Roman Catholic Church, and because of the anti-monarchical sentiment, in particularly the French thinkers of the Enlightenment, it transferred over from there into the church as well, into the Roman Catholic Church specifically. 00:23:10.407 --> 00:23:18.427 Not as much hostility necessarily toward Protestants, because Protestants don't have a pope, and typically don't have archbishops. 00:23:18.767 --> 00:23:24.367 Some exceptions, of course, Anglicans and others, but it's not the same level of control in society. 00:23:25.067 --> 00:23:32.787 Even the Anglican Church did not wield the sort of power in the English context that the Roman Catholic Church wielded historically in the French context. 00:23:34.287 --> 00:23:42.907 But in addition to what we'll call the Enlightenment proper, which is in England, France, and Scotland, that's the core of it. 00:23:42.907 --> 00:23:52.187 And then American Enlightenment is obviously sort of a daughter movement from largely the English and the Scottish, some French influence as well. 00:23:52.767 --> 00:24:02.767 But there are two other movements of which you have to be aware, because they run somewhat in parallel, and there's a feedback, a relationship between them and the Enlightenment. 00:24:03.247 --> 00:24:08.987 There's more of it with regard to one of these movements than the other. 00:24:09.807 --> 00:24:11.607 But I'm going to get up for a second. 00:24:11.607 --> 00:24:12.947 I'm going to release Gizmo. 00:24:12.947 --> 00:24:13.467 He'd like... 00:24:37.337 --> 00:24:40.677 Released Gizmo, he's free to wander about now. 00:24:40.677 --> 00:24:53.337 So, going back to these two movements, you have the Haskala, which is the so-called Jewish Enlightenment, taking place primarily in Central Europe, largely in German-speaking areas. 00:24:53.857 --> 00:25:00.857 But it has some relationship to the French, as well as to the English Enlightenment movements. 00:25:01.837 --> 00:25:10.457 Not as much overlap there necessarily with the American, but obviously you're going to get a connection between that through the English into the colonies. 00:25:11.817 --> 00:25:21.497 And then the other movement, the final portion of this, which we have to be aware, is the Aufklärung, which would be the German version of the Enlightenment. 00:25:22.557 --> 00:25:28.977 Not the same thing, because the Jewish one is sort of similar. 00:25:28.977 --> 00:25:53.817 There's a focus on reason, and, you know, reason on secularization, on secular education, and on, for the Jews, integration into European society in order to avoid persecution, and a push for religious tolerance from the society, the host society, with regard to the Jews. 00:25:54.657 --> 00:25:59.977 You see this push for so-called religious tolerance across the board, all of these movements. 00:26:00.537 --> 00:26:07.657 Not as much in the German version of it, the Aufklärung, but you certainly see it there as well. 00:26:07.657 --> 00:26:16.697 Because, for instance, in Russia and Austria, you see liberalization of control over the Jews and more tolerance. 00:26:17.037 --> 00:26:25.157 But you certainly see it in the French context, with the French Revolution, and in the English context, and then a little bit in the American context as well. 00:26:26.237 --> 00:26:43.157 But the distinction, with regard to the German version of the Enlightenment, it's almost a misnomer to call it the Enlightenment, but it's the equivalent intellectual movement happening in continental Germanic Europe, roughly the same time that the Enlightenment is happening in the Anglosphere and the French. 00:26:44.497 --> 00:26:49.537 The focus in the German context was on reformation instead of revolution. 00:26:49.797 --> 00:27:00.057 So you get the revolutions and the radical changes in some parts of the Anglosphere, because obviously you don't have a revolution in England, really. 00:27:00.317 --> 00:27:05.397 You have some changes, but it's not the same thing as the American Revolution or, say, the French Revolution. 00:27:06.257 --> 00:27:19.897 But you didn't have this just sort of wholesale desire to oust the aristocracy and the monarchy that you certainly found in the US, in the colonies, and in France, in the German context. 00:27:19.897 --> 00:27:34.197 In the German context instead, you had the nobility, the aristocracy, and indeed the monarchy, sort of working with the intellectuals, working with the philosophers and others to implement some of these things. 00:27:34.517 --> 00:27:51.397 So the rational exploration of some of the sciences and things like that, the philosophical examination of some of these things, that sort of stuff took place, but in a structured way that did not trend toward revolution. 00:27:51.757 --> 00:27:55.217 Obviously, until you get into the 1800s, and that's Marxism, it's a separate thing. 00:27:56.037 --> 00:27:59.757 It was very bureaucratic and administrative in the German context. 00:27:59.897 --> 00:28:02.997 Very unsurprising for anyone who is aware of how Germans are. 00:28:03.537 --> 00:28:17.637 If you want to get more into that, because typically speaking, Americans are less familiar with this than they are with the Enlightenment, the sort of three thinkers you would want would be Immanuel Kant and then Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolf. 00:28:17.817 --> 00:28:19.277 Those would be the three thinkers. 00:28:19.277 --> 00:28:23.697 I'll make sure to put that in the show notes for people, so you don't have to know how to spell those German names. 00:28:23.697 --> 00:28:37.637 But the core focus here, of course, is going to be the Anglosphere plus French Enlightenment, because that is what influences American thinkers the most. 00:28:38.637 --> 00:28:47.597 Because while there were Americans who spoke German, certainly, the first speaker of the house was a German Lutheran pastor, son of a German Lutheran pastor, he certainly knew German. 00:28:48.497 --> 00:28:51.097 Most of the founding fathers did not know German. 00:28:51.377 --> 00:28:53.137 They were reading the English materials. 00:28:53.717 --> 00:29:05.777 And so, in the American context, what you have, perhaps even more so, certainly than the British, but perhaps even more so than the French, is sort of a classical republicanism. 00:29:06.437 --> 00:29:10.017 This love of the republicans, they were obsessed with Athens, right? 00:29:10.237 --> 00:29:12.437 The Athenian model was a big thing. 00:29:12.757 --> 00:29:22.217 And so, this republicanism focused on, derivative from the Enlightenment, the social contract, which is to say the consent of the governed. 00:29:22.217 --> 00:29:29.077 And the argument is that the government is legitimate only so long as the governed consent to the government. 00:29:30.337 --> 00:29:36.697 We're just going to ignore the fact that that's incoherent, but that is how this was structured. 00:29:36.697 --> 00:29:42.637 This was a big part of the thinking in the American context, subsequent to the Enlightenment. 00:29:43.157 --> 00:29:45.237 This is social contract theory, right? 00:29:45.897 --> 00:29:53.857 And so, that suspicion or hostility toward the monarchy, toward the aristocracy, also carried over into the American context. 00:29:55.017 --> 00:30:12.357 Perhaps a little easier in the American context, although at the same time a little less relevant, because you didn't have the same formalized structure with regard to aristocracy and nobility in the US., in the colonies, what would become the US that you had in England. 00:30:12.357 --> 00:30:14.257 It just hadn't developed yet. 00:30:14.577 --> 00:30:31.277 You had stratification in society, but largely as a result of wealth, not necessarily as much a result of family lines, because that just hadn't entrenched yet in the new world, at least in the American context. 00:30:31.877 --> 00:30:37.217 And some of the writing that would be most relevant for this would be Common Sense from Thomas Paine. 00:30:37.657 --> 00:30:43.197 He was definitely anti-monarchy, perhaps more so than a number of others. 00:30:43.417 --> 00:30:48.977 He described it as artificial and basically railed against it and just wanted to complete the do away with it. 00:30:49.577 --> 00:30:55.637 So, argues for the state of nature, things like that, obviously, descended from Enlightenment philosophy. 00:30:56.817 --> 00:31:05.397 But key here in his writing, and this was very accessible, many men read this because it was very accessible prose. 00:31:05.397 --> 00:31:06.277 It was in English. 00:31:06.277 --> 00:31:08.097 It was not something that was difficult to read. 00:31:08.097 --> 00:31:09.957 It wasn't in Latin or anything like that. 00:31:10.417 --> 00:31:36.557 He argued for a right of revolution, that basically the people, the common people had a right to rebel if certain things, basically this enlightenment checklist of things, was not fulfilled by the government, if the government was not properly achieving the ends for which the enlightenment argued that government was instituted. 00:31:36.917 --> 00:31:41.737 And you can see the ends in the Declaration of Independence. 00:31:42.197 --> 00:31:52.037 Life, liberty, and the Declaration says pursuit of happiness, instead of doing, essentially, this is Locke, right? 00:31:52.217 --> 00:31:55.217 But for Locke, it's life, liberty, and property. 00:31:55.577 --> 00:31:59.337 And of course, you have property protections as well, but we have pursuit of happiness instead. 00:31:59.337 --> 00:32:03.417 It's the same sort of idea, advancing the same arguments. 00:32:03.717 --> 00:32:05.317 It's the same thought behind it. 00:32:05.317 --> 00:32:06.357 It's the enlightenment. 00:32:07.157 --> 00:32:11.357 And then, subsequent to that, of course, you have the Constitution. 00:32:11.617 --> 00:32:22.457 The Constitution carries forward a great deal of the thinking of the enlightenment, this time pulling in a lot from the French, and in particular, from Montesquieu. 00:32:22.937 --> 00:32:32.197 So, in Montesquieu, you find the division of the powers that would historically have all resided within the sovereign. 00:32:34.017 --> 00:32:37.437 And you can think of Carl Schmitt, perhaps, as a contrast to this. 00:32:37.437 --> 00:32:47.217 But within the sovereign, you have the right to legislate, you have the right to enforce the law, you have all these different powers, right, and the right to interpret the law, so judicial. 00:32:48.397 --> 00:32:49.657 Not in our system, right? 00:32:49.917 --> 00:32:52.957 We have a tripartite division of our government. 00:32:53.017 --> 00:32:57.077 We have the executive, we have the legislative, and we have the judicial. 00:32:57.077 --> 00:33:08.097 So, this is from Enlightenment thought, which basically argued that if you have this division of power, you can have checks and balances, and you can stop the power from becoming tyrannical. 00:33:08.637 --> 00:33:30.057 I think those of us living now in this time at a distance of some centuries from these men and what they created can see that in fact, our government has become more tyrannical despite these supposed limitations than the kings of old, and is certainly doing less for us and is certainly doing more evil against us. 00:33:30.737 --> 00:33:36.257 So, for Montesquieu, that would be the spirit of the laws, would be the book if you want to go and look at how that sort of developed. 00:33:36.857 --> 00:33:46.437 And then, we also have enshrined in the Constitution this freedom of religion, which is very much, like I said, sort of across the board. 00:33:46.437 --> 00:33:57.977 You have the Jewish involvement in the Haskew Law, leading in to these other groups, and then you have this push for tolerance of different religious opinions in society. 00:33:57.977 --> 00:34:02.177 This is a deviation from the historical norm of having a state church. 00:34:02.777 --> 00:34:20.137 Even if you were in a country that was divided with regard to confession, like you may have some reformed, some Lutherans, some Roman Catholics, usually in a given area, you would have an established church because the ruler of that area was of that religion. 00:34:20.917 --> 00:34:21.997 That was how that worked. 00:34:22.377 --> 00:34:24.897 And then in some cases, you have just a state church, right? 00:34:24.977 --> 00:34:25.797 Anglicanism. 00:34:26.657 --> 00:34:31.057 Even in the US context, you had established state churches. 00:34:31.877 --> 00:34:34.017 This is the beginning of the end of that. 00:34:34.697 --> 00:34:54.857 And so, you have what the founding fathers almost certainly meant to be, and their writings do support this, but what they almost certainly meant to be a freedom of denomination, eventually becomes what we have today, which is, you know, you could call it a true or a full freedom of religion, right? 00:34:55.657 --> 00:35:01.837 What they thought, undoubtedly, and this is backed up by Locke, I'll mention that in a minute here. 00:35:02.377 --> 00:35:17.957 What they thought is, basically, you can be Anglican or Lutheran or Methodist or Presbyterian or Baptist or whatever, freedom of denomination, freedom of tradition, not necessarily freedom of religion. 00:35:17.957 --> 00:35:29.017 So, the idea of being, you know, a Hindu or a Muslim would have been completely insane sounding to the ears of basically every founding father. 00:35:30.917 --> 00:35:41.077 But, that is ultimately not what they actually wrote, because the way they wrote it was freedom of religion, which is unfortunate. 00:35:41.617 --> 00:35:47.997 They could probably have solved some problems we've had subsequent to their wording if they had just done a better job. 00:35:49.277 --> 00:35:58.457 For instance, one of the ways you can see this, like I said, Locke, Locke has a letter concerning toleration, is what the title is, a letter concerning toleration. 00:35:58.817 --> 00:36:13.497 And in that, he argues for this freedom of basically conscience and denomination, tradition, but he actually explicitly says, this doesn't mean that we should tolerate atheists and papists, so Roman Catholics. 00:36:14.197 --> 00:36:18.277 That's more in line with what the founding fathers had in mind when they were drafting this. 00:36:18.857 --> 00:36:24.637 They didn't draft in that way, and so that's why we now have, you know, monkey statues in Texas and things like that. 00:36:26.597 --> 00:36:37.857 But the fundamental point is, they were already doing away with Christendom by their actions, because Christendom requires you to have an established church. 00:36:38.477 --> 00:36:45.717 It doesn't mean that you have to go out and persecute, say, every group that is deviant in some way. 00:36:46.197 --> 00:36:53.477 If you have the Presbyterian church, it might be difficult for the Presbyterians to make that argument, so the Anglican will go with them instead. 00:36:53.737 --> 00:37:00.637 If you have the Anglican church as your established church, it doesn't mean that you have to go out and execute all the Lutherans, right? 00:37:01.117 --> 00:37:15.357 But there is a fundamental difference when you have an established church, you have Christianity as your official state religion, you have ceremonies that are Christian, you have all these trappings of Christendom versus what we have today. 00:37:16.217 --> 00:37:23.017 The most we get today is sometimes Congress will say a prayer, and sometimes it will be a Jewish woman leading the prayer, right? 00:37:23.577 --> 00:37:33.637 That's where you end up when you start doing away with all these pillars that supported Christianity, that supported Christendom, that ultimately supported our civilization. 00:37:34.317 --> 00:37:40.837 Because this is what many of the individuals who were part of the Enlightenment did not realize. 00:37:41.837 --> 00:37:49.677 What they were doing relied entirely on centuries of Christendom to give them the foundation to pursue these things. 00:37:50.077 --> 00:37:53.757 But they were undermining that foundation with what they were doing. 00:37:53.977 --> 00:37:56.977 They were destroying the very thing on which they were standing. 00:37:57.517 --> 00:37:58.837 And this happens all the time. 00:37:58.837 --> 00:38:13.197 It happens even today, when you argue with atheists and others, they will import the moral law, they will smuggle it in, and deny they're doing it, but they're relying on Christian morality in their argument. 00:38:13.197 --> 00:38:19.537 And so it comes up all the time in debates where, you ask them, why is murder wrong? 00:38:20.057 --> 00:38:22.017 And they don't have an answer. 00:38:22.717 --> 00:38:29.757 At best, what they'll do is construct something that ultimately is actually resting on Christian morality. 00:38:29.757 --> 00:38:34.657 It's resting on the moral law, but they reject the moral law at the outset. 00:38:35.237 --> 00:38:38.637 So their argument is self-defeating, it has no foundation. 00:38:39.437 --> 00:38:41.217 This is sort of the beginning of that. 00:38:41.537 --> 00:38:51.597 Many of the enlightenment thinkers were undermining Christendom and the ability to maintain and restore Christendom with what they were pursuing, even if they didn't realize it. 00:38:53.597 --> 00:39:00.817 And so, the bottom line here, I guess in summary, I don't want to go too long necessarily on the topic in any one given episode. 00:39:01.157 --> 00:39:15.457 I can comment more on it in the future if people have specific areas of interest, but the United States is, and particularly with regard to its founding documents, a product of the enlightenment, and particularly a product of enlightenment thought. 00:39:15.997 --> 00:39:33.937 And the attendant rejection of tradition and traditional forms of governance and how authority runs and rights versus duties, all of that has contributed to the decline of Christendom. 00:39:35.337 --> 00:39:37.917 It's one of the reasons I am opposed to the Constitution. 00:39:37.917 --> 00:39:39.737 I do not think it is a good document. 00:39:40.177 --> 00:39:51.517 It is a thing that is descended from and is tied to, inextricably tied to, the enlightenment and all of the wickedness that flowed from the enlightenment. 00:39:52.357 --> 00:39:53.637 You can't divorce them. 00:39:53.977 --> 00:39:59.997 It is something that is fundamentally alien to Christendom and to all of our history. 00:40:02.857 --> 00:40:04.337 It was Satan AB testing. 00:40:05.017 --> 00:40:11.977 The US system was better in the long run with regard to the goals he wanted to achieve. 00:40:12.237 --> 00:40:14.877 The French option was too chaotic. 00:40:14.877 --> 00:40:15.997 It was too violent. 00:40:15.997 --> 00:40:17.937 They went overboard. 00:40:18.317 --> 00:40:19.937 The French kind of do sometimes. 00:40:20.677 --> 00:40:29.497 And so, that's why I oppose the way our government is currently structured and the documents on which it relies, because they are products of the enlightenment. 00:40:29.497 --> 00:40:44.017 And I do not think that the enlightenment is something the Christian can in good conscience support once you actually delve into it and learn about not just the things they were arguing, but the consequences of those things, because consequences do actually matter. 00:40:44.717 --> 00:40:45.317 You're right. 00:40:45.817 --> 00:40:46.697 Fruit, tree. 00:40:48.157 --> 00:40:49.457 Good trees produce good fruit. 00:40:49.457 --> 00:40:50.957 Bad trees produce bad fruit. 00:40:51.297 --> 00:40:52.877 The enlightenment produce bad fruit. 00:40:54.137 --> 00:41:04.437 So, I guess that's the overview, as it were, of the connection between the enlightenment and the American Revolution, and the American experiment that proceeded from that. 00:41:04.777 --> 00:41:13.777 And I do want to briefly note, there is a distinction between the United States, the political construct, and the American nation. 00:41:14.177 --> 00:41:16.857 The American nation should be preserved. 00:41:16.857 --> 00:41:18.617 That is the thing for which we are fighting. 00:41:19.397 --> 00:41:23.697 We're not fighting ultimately for the Constitution, the Declaration, the United States. 00:41:24.377 --> 00:41:26.797 Those are political creations that come and go. 00:41:27.237 --> 00:41:29.757 The nation is what endures, the nation is what matters. 00:41:39.573 --> 00:41:40.193 Let's see. 00:41:49.864 --> 00:41:53.804 I guess, sort of a follow-up question, I may as well answer it now, since I just went over some of this stuff. 00:41:53.804 --> 00:41:57.084 Someone asked, let me get the exact text here. 00:41:58.724 --> 00:42:03.584 Do you think, this is question seven, do you think a republican form of government could be Christian? 00:42:03.804 --> 00:42:11.464 The CSA wrote its constitution on behalf of God, and the Boer Republic tied citizenship to race and church membership. 00:42:12.784 --> 00:42:27.604 I think that, yes, you can have a republic that is Christian, and I think that it can function for seemingly, well, maybe not seemingly, but in theory, an indefinite amount of time and remain Christian, functional, etc. 00:42:27.604 --> 00:42:29.664 Apparently, I activated my HomePod. 00:42:30.384 --> 00:42:34.344 At any rate, I do believe that's possible. 00:42:34.784 --> 00:42:50.944 I think the problem is that as we have seen, the form itself inevitably leads to certain forms, certain types of decay over a not very long period, a couple centuries, give or take, and ultimately, I think it destroys itself. 00:42:51.364 --> 00:43:00.364 And if you compare that to, say, centuries of Christendom under aristocracy and monarchy, I think the option is pretty clear. 00:43:00.744 --> 00:43:11.104