 veganism is biblically required and we are starting right now with the yes side and in particular Nathan Thompson. Thanks so much for being with us. The floor is all yours. Thanks for having me James. Congratulations on almost 100,000 subscribers. I want to say to the two people that I'm debating against Jim Bob and Posh. I really respect you guys, which isn't normal for me on modern day debate. Normally the other side is harassing me, stalking me, doxing me. It's ridiculous. So I think we're going to have a really cordial debate. I think both of you guys are legends, you're truthers, you're woke on a ton of topics. This one we just happened to disagree on, but the Bible. I think my argument ladies and gentlemen is that the body is a temple, not a cemetery. The Creator put us in a garden, not a slaughterhouse. And if you look at the Bible and how it starts, when the Creator had it all to himself, there was no sin and no death and no violence. There's no cruelty against humans, no pain. It was paradise. That's how he designed it. So if we could emulate that environment to the best of our ability, I think we should. Also, let's take a look at how the Bible ends. It ends in a place called heaven. And heaven will also have no death and no pain. So if you look at the grand scheme of things, it's very obvious that we're not required. It is not the Creator's will to be violent or cruel or brutal towards animals. So I think where a lot of people get mixed up is there are things in the Bible that the Creator allows, but that's not necessarily His will. And I'm sure Andy's going to speak on this more. For example, divorce and slavery. I don't think those are necessarily His will for you to divorce your wife or own slaves. But if you're going to do it, if it's already taking place, this is how it should be done. Israel begged for a king. And the Creator's like, look, you really don't want a king. I'm telling you, here's what's going to happen. They said, no, no, no, we really want a king. And He allowed it. So meat eating is allowed. Yes, but I think morally, it should be required from each of us because we are told to be good stewards of the animals. When the Creator said, be fruitful and multiply, that wasn't just towards the people. That was towards all the animals too. And if you look into the Bible, the word meat doesn't always mean dead animals. A lot of times it just means food, but they changed it to meat because they wanted to have this people this have this concept of eating dead animals all the time. Oh, it's it's in scripture, so it must be good. But if you look at the words, they've actually changed it similar to how they did with the word church. The word church means the out called ones or the ecclesia, they've changed that to mean a building. So people think that you go to church. No, wherever the Bible believers are, that is where the church is. So Andy's an author on this. I really respect my partner today. So I'm going to pass it over him. I know he's got a lot of info to cover. Thank you for my time. All right. Okay. So to begin, I just want to say that I'm not here to send anybody to hell for eating animals. And I'm not saying that I'm better than you. But I do believe that abstaining from animal flesh is a higher moral standard of living. It's how we were created. And it's what the Messiah taught during his ministry, according to multiple texts. And for all the readers out there, yes, I've already resolved most of the disputes in my book, Shifting the Torah Paradigm, things like eating, eating fish, Jesus eating fish. I saw someone in the comments earlier who tried to use that verse to checkmate us already. So but it's just a common dispute that people who have never researched always use. They don't know that there are other gospel accounts that have been preserved that depict him eating honeycomb in that scenario. So anyway, for all the non readers out there, I've made it even easier for you because I discuss each topic from my book in greater detail on my channel arc builders paradigm. So please check that out. Because I do talk about the fish, the Passover lamb and things like that. Okay. From the outset, I just want to say I want to highlight a few key points on context that I try to emphasize anytime I discuss this topic with anyone who has somewhat of a biblical background. And I'll first I'll list each point and then I'll try to elaborate later. Number one, context starts at the beginning. It doesn't start with later parts of the Bible like Noah getting off the Ark or the Levitical Food Laws. The Bible begins with the creation account and establishes the context for the rest of the story. Number two, the Israelites were pagans not just coming out of Egypt, but in multiple occasions throughout the Old Testament history. Number three, the sacrificial system, the system in the law of Moses, it revolved around food consumption. A lot of people think it revolved around worship to God or that it was a religious ceremony for sin atonement. Those concepts, they're nothing more than pagan adaptations to their religion, much like modern churches in the commercial setting today, who incorporate as many worldly practices to enhance our worship experience today. So we can't really separate the concept of eating animals from the sacrificial system because it was established for that purpose. And contrary to popular belief, the sacrificial laws were not mandatory. They were voluntary according to Leviticus chapter one. Number four, eating flesh. It's biblically defined as lust according to Numbers 11, Deuteronomy 12, 1 Corinthians 10, and even extra biblical texts like homilies 345. Number five, the Levites who were the priests and the scribes, they were wicked, not righteous. Look at Deuteronomy chapter 31, Moses exposed them. Jeremiah the prophet, he also exposed them in chapter eight for making the law of Yahweh into a lie. Number six, Jesus was anti-sacrifice. His teachings on repentance and baptism destroyed the man-made institution of animal sacrifice for sin atonement. And I believe this is something we can all agree on that Jesus did away with the sacrificial system. Maybe you can correct me later. Okay, another thing I wanted to establish is whether we can all agree that Genesis 1 verse 29 and 30 is an instruction for humans and animals to eat plants. And for people who don't know, that's what the text says, that God gave humans the fruit trees for food and He gave the green herbs to all the animals for food. And most of the time, Christians are at least willing to admit that Genesis chapter one does describe this civil environment in the garden where nothing had to die in order to eat. Okay, so if we can all agree that Genesis 1 does teach that our Creator instructed humans and animals both to eat plants, then we can also agree that it was His original intention and purpose for the design. It was the natural order in its perfection prior to the fall of humanity. So this means that it was the Father's highest expectation or moral standard for humans and animals. It's the picture of perfection that He had in mind when He created the world. So no matter what happened going forward on the timeline, nothing changes the fact that a plant-based diet is an absolute irrevocable picture of the Creator's perfect will from the beginning. It's a law of creation. It's one that will be restored in the end like my friend said. Okay, now where people today usually get tripped up is when it comes to Genesis 9 verse 3, eight chapters later, many generations after the fall of humanity, the fall of man. Humans had already been sinning for well over 1500, 1600 years. Anyway, Noah gets off the ark and God says, every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. Even as I give you the green plants, I give you everything. So naturally, most people just assume that after the flood, God suddenly changes His mind about killing and eating animals. And most Christians today embrace this view of God that in the beginning, He imagined it one way, but then He amended His moral standards for killing and eating these creatures. So consequently, people who subscribe to this view, they call it permissive will because it sounds a lot better than saying God changed His mind, right? Now, aside from the fact that I do not believe Genesis 9 verse 3 is an allowance or a permission to eat the animals after the flood, I actually interpret the story completely different. I believe it does offer the same instructions that were given in the creation account, but for the sake of the debate, let's just say it is. For this discussion, I'm willing to just assume that in this event, God permitted humans to begin eating animals because I can go either way in the debate if you want. We can discuss our interpretations of it or we can just go with the notion that it was an allowance for humans to eat animals. Because here's the thing, there are possible explanations either way. It doesn't always have to be a matter of God telling humans to kill and eat animals. Humans just prefer to interpret the Bible this way. Now, if the chapter of Genesis 9, if it does teach that God allowed humans to begin eating animals, then we have to understand that it's not a matter of God changing His mind about His will or His moral standards or how He wants humans to behave. He still wants us to submit to what He initially intended for humanity when He created us. And when it comes to killing animals and eating flesh, it only proves that mankind is more inclined to behave the way we want and God ends up conceding to our weaknesses and desires. So what changes is the way He deals with humanity as we degenerate over the course of time. So again, God doesn't change His mind about His original plan. Humans do. God just changes the way He responds to our rebellion. The problem is that people today believe that our rebellion to that design is normal behavior when it's actually a violation, right? And when it comes to the children of Israel coming out of Egypt, we're dealing with a people whose reality was so far removed from the garden, they didn't even know the Creator's Torah commands, just like today. These people didn't, they didn't realize the Creator intended for us to eat plants only. And today it's even worse because we have the television commercials telling us what we're supposed to eat and we just accept it as a norm. It's indoctrination. And it was the same with the Israelites in Egypt. For a few hundred years they were conditioned by Egyptian society and culture to the point they just assumed that eating animals was natural behavior. So again, we see how God responded to these people. And it's really important to understand that the Israelites had retained hundreds of years of pagan culture in Egypt where it was common to sacrifice animals and eat their flesh without any limitation. So looking forward, when the Israelites were delivered, they retained the culture and lifestyle of the Egyptians. So forget about what you learned in Sunday school as a child. The Israelites were not a righteous people, okay? They were just as pagan as the Egyptians. And this is the entire theme of the prophets. They called them out for their evil intentions constantly. And this is one thing that modern churches need to understand. The Israelites were lustful. They were sinful. They were wicked. They were not a righteous set-apart people. God was trying to set them apart through the laws. And that's why he established all the restrictions for killing animals when he gave the laws to Moses. He was just trying to govern their wicked behavior. He wanted to reveal himself to them because he was the true God. But they were more invested in worshiping the gods of Egypt. And that's one of the first things they did after they were delivered. They worshiped the golden calf in honor of the pagan gods, right? Anyway, God attempted to pull them out of their wicked lifestyle and redirect them back to the higher moral standard of the garden, the original Torah, the law of creation. And he used the sacrificial system to do so. Hence the libidical laws where, yes, flesh-eating was allowed, but it was heavily governed. Killing animals could only be done in a certain place by a certain party, only at certain times under the proper supervision. And only certain kinds of animals in certain physical conditions were allowed to be killed. You're at 11 minutes. Okay, how many do I got? 13. If you need 14, we can go there. But hopefully, if you're able to do it in 13. Okay, so God, he took a nation who was killing recklessly at their own discretion and he eliminated the majority of killing through the sacrificial system. The purpose was to eliminate it altogether. Okay, so despite popular belief again, animal sacrifice was not established because it's a form of worship that God desires or because it atones for sin. That's just something they incorporated into their religious sacraments. Their motive was to, it was centered around their bellies. The whole purpose of animal sacrifice was to grill animals for food, but in this scenario, God placed heavy restrictions over it. Okay, he couldn't convince them to stop eating animals, so he established sacrificial law to eliminate it. Okay, and back to the Levites, who were the most wicked, they eventually invented that blood atonement concept, or they at least borrowed it from the pagans, and they incorporated it into Judaic law. And so by the time the Messiah enters the scene, all right, he comes in and he's speaking against all of these sacrificial laws. He's ending animal sacrifice, and that was the purpose of his ministry. And that's why he drove out. That's why he challenged the business of the temple administration. They invented their own laws to replace the father's law, and they accused him of blasphemy. Instead, he preached repentance for the forgiveness of sins, and this is why his ministry was so significant. It exposed the man-made religion of animal sacrifice, and it revealed the higher moral standard of the Creator. So it showed the people what we were meant to, how we were meant to live according to the original design, which includes a plant-based diet. You got to thank you very much for that opening statement, and I want to let you know, folks, if it's your first time here at Modern Day Debate, we are a neutral debate platform hosting debates on science, religion, and politics. My name is James. I'm your host, and I want to say we hope you feel welcome no matter what walk of life you are from, as well as just in case, folks. If you haven't seen it already, we're absolutely thrilled for a lot of upcoming juicy debates on Modern Day Debate, so don't forget to hit that subscribe button. As an example of the bottom right of your screen, you can see Daniel Hukikachu, Muslim, and inspiring philosophy, Mike Jones will be debating child marriage. It's going to be a juicy one. You don't want to miss it. Hit that subscribe button so you don't miss it. And with that, thank you very much. Made by Jim Bob and Posh, you're going to go next. Posh, the floor is all yours, and thanks for being with us. Well, thank you for having me. Thank you for hosting this and organizing this. It is a very pertinent topic nowadays, but like many other topics that arise on this issue, it is this idea of moral philosophy completely devoid of any theology, any biblical input, and then rereading that through esegetical methods back into the Bible. The topic of this debate, is it a moral duty? And I'm afraid both of our opponents have already conceded that it's not a duty. It is a preferred moral behavior to consume plants as opposed to consuming the flesh of animals. But as Genesis 9.3, if we do interpret it as being allowed, it literally says, as I gave you the green herbs, so I give you all the animals, it literally says they are equated, and they are equated indeed. But that already means it is permitted, therefore, it is not a duty. So this is not the topic of the debate. The debate isn't, is it morally superior to eaten or plant diet? But also I've been a bit struck by the idea that the sacrificial system was somehow established by wicked Levites, because the Bible is very clear that God instructs all of this, how are we to, or at least how they were supposed to sacrifice animals. So I will give you a short read to you, a short excerpt from Exodus 29, from verse 10 to verse 14. It says, And thou shalt cause a bollock to be brought before the tabernacle of the congregation, and Aaron and his sons shall put their hands upon the head of the bollock, and thou shalt kill the bollock before the Lord by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and thou shalt take the blood of the bollock and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger, and pour all the blood beside the bottom of the altar, and thou shalt take all the fat that covers the inwards and the coal that is above the liver and the two kidneys and the fat that is upon them and burn them upon the altar. But the flesh of the bollock and his skin and his dung shall though burn with fire without the camp, it is a sin offering. We can continue reading, then it goes to the killing of the rams and then how with certain different offerings you also eat. So I don't know how we are supposed to interpret this with this post-modern lens of where there were Levites and they were wicked, so they really wanted a juicy steak or something, therefore God doesn't really really like it even though he apparently commands it and gives very detailed instructions and indeed he does, with all types of animals, how are they to be sacrificed and with dietary restrictions, which types of animals you're allowed to eat. I think it is incredibly post-modern and innovationist to consider this a type of compromise. Worship itself includes eating, indeed this exists in the pagan world because the pagan world being governed by demonic entities and that is to say fallen angels are aping and creating false religions by accepting sacrifice to themselves and trying to cause more men to fall as much as they can, that is the rebellion of the angels. But if God commands this and he concentrates it in one place and a certain group of people, this is to avoid not eating of animals but to avoid idolatry. It is imperative for their entire sacrificial system to keep it centralized so people can't do what they want and indeed with the Northern Kingdom of Israel they establish golden calves and Bethel and Dan, they sacrifice there which is not allowed etc etc which is why they get given over to the Assyrians. So all of this seems again I can't find a better word than post-modern but even if we come to the New Testament, oh sorry I should mention this, God in many places says he refuses sacrifices and there are an abomination unto him. If we should get to it in Malachi 1 we have an explanation that it is because they are giving lame animals, blind animals, the worst ones, the ones they don't need which is something the pagans were very want of doing, they would just burn the bones and then keep all the meat for themselves etc etc and God is not too pleased with that. In Psalm 50 or 51 depending on which enumeration you're using in the KJV it's 51, we talk about how God doesn't care for burnt offerings, he cares for a humble and contrite heart. However that is not how it ends, it ends with when you have that humble and contrite heart then will the burnt offerings be pleasing to God. This is a complete innovationist approach to the sacrificial system and I'm sure we will get to it as some people did in the chat that Christ multiplied fish which were fish not some type of first century Judean teriyaki or whatever that type of fish with bean paste is called, they were actual fish, they were fished out in the net, the Greek is clear, it uses the word if fish etc etc, he also eats fish as again someone pointed out in Luke when in his glorified resurrected form and it also uses the word if fish, if fish actually in the grammatical case. So we don't have anything other than conjecture, anything other than the same type of argumentation that is nowadays used to oh we can have women priests because back then people were pagans so they were patriarchal but now we're not, we're all nice people, we actually love women nowadays so now we can have women priests and interpreting verses such as Galatians 3 28, there is neither Jew nor Greek, free nor slave, man or woman all are one in Christ Jesus as is some type of endorsement of a globalist transgender communist system because oh you see people back then they were still pagan so they were divided into nations and God created this nation but it was not really a nation, it was a big nation supposed to grow all throughout the world which is kind of true actually but is this globalist system is the only way to remove all of this nationalism and ethno-filatism and all of these nasty things, there is man or woman, you know you can identify as anything you'd like that's why we should embrace that type of ideology and free nor slave aren't you really a slave if you have to work in a cubicle four four four eight or ten or how many other hours a day to get paid some measly wage so we should all have this democratic system where all the people vote how much they should work and how much they should be paid it is just postmodernism it has completely devoid of any history it is just supplanting the the the intent of the authors with modern perspectives and I think it is perverting the bible and that's it from me for now. Do I go right into it James? Oh thanks okay thanks good thanks Bosch yeah so when I'm listening to the openers of our opponents I'm listening from the lens of the title which is veganism a moral duty I heard the same thing posh heard in the opener that at best to be fully charitable the best I heard him get to is it's a neat suggestion and then maybe some liberal interpretation biblically of where it might be less permissible or they didn't mean it that way this still doesn't get to the moral duty which is to say that it's a moral obligation that there is a moral foundation to argue you ought not eat meat right so what I didn't hear much from Andy in that regard I did hear some you know no offense but like a modern the modern dance version of interpreting the bible to suit a vegan presupposition as far as Nathan Nathan I heard slogans I heard things like the temp you know the body's a temple not a cemetery now that would make a decent bumper sticker in Portland but it doesn't actually stand up against biblical interpretation it doesn't actually affirm your position biblically which is the question of tonight is veganism a moral duty not just a moral seemingly morally good idea now he also said that you know be fruitful and multiply right well he certainly didn't sit down a dog and tell the dog such that the dog could understand the metaphysical foundations of such a principle even that right even if it was granted some level of personhood to animals which we reject in Christianity all together to say they ought to multiply would be to say we ought to consume them because the multiplication without consumption would would cause havoc right so there's a logistical problem there there is also the problem back to the the personhood so if we're going to say the fall happened if there's four claimed Christians who who accept the fall and that there's this duty to seek prefall seek Eden right and that's our duty here well I would disagree with that our duty is not an outcome based paradigm where we're chasing the beginning of creation right we're actually our our teal so they smuggled in a teleological priority that we don't agree with which is seek Eden right we can create Eden we can get close right we can go there well if you follow that as your priority you have to actually accept the intervention of animals eating animals because they are also the symptom of the fall their their consumption of other animals is the same and so the argument seems to be intervention right and so how would you practice this form of Christianity is something that's interesting to me and whether that's consistent doable uh is it something you can ground in in uh the scripture I think the answer is no no and no thank you very much for that opening as well and we're going to jump into the open conversation folks but before we do want to mention if you haven't yet consider sharing this debate as we are trying to grow this neutral platform as large as we can so that everybody has their fair shot to make their case on a level playing field so appreciate those of you have shared as we've seen a lot in the stats thank you guys so much for doing that seriously it means more than you know and with that we're going to jump right into the open conversation gentlemen the floor is all yours um I would start with just asking them could you finish the statement it's morally wrong to eat meat or it's eating meat is immoral because um because that would to me I would I would skip to that I mean anything else would be going back into some like posh said in our view a perverted uh freeform hermeneutics you know interpretation of scripture and such so I would like any any position an affirmative position on why it's immoral biblically immoral not just like preference or anything why is it immoral to it's immoral because the animals want to live so the same the same way that it's immoral to rape a woman or to kill somebody is forcing your will upon something else okay so how did you determine what an animal wants versus what an animal reacts to as far as external stimuli well are you going to say the animals want to die no I'm asking you a question okay so would we agree that the animals want to live no that's begging the question I asked you if we agree so do you disagree the animals want to die no I don't grant animals the term want so I want to know if you can justify an animals want versus their reactivity to external stimuli so animals aren't allowed to want water when they're thirsty or want food when they're hungry because you don't allow it is that what you're saying so you're not going to answer that question all right maybe Andy can answer it better than me go ahead I'll answer it yeah they were given the will to live animals do not want to die when they have something that plants don't have and that is a fear-based instinct if you go after an animal it is going to flinch they do want to live it's not just a matter of I prefer this or what it's a matter of usurping the free will of an animal now here's the here's the part that didn't answer the question though you just affirmed the position again I'm asking you how do you determine a want or a desire from an what you just called an impulse or an instinct according to their reaction how do you determine you have plants that react to external stimuli and not just fear-based such as you have what is it called the shy whatever it is when you touch it it will contract immediately the venus flytrap that is that is different I'm talking about it starts with an a but I can't remember it but it is a type of plant when you touch it it will immediately close up not the venus flytrap which basically traps flies but you also have the distress signals which are chemically given off by lots of plants when you start eating them when an animal would eat let's say tea when you pick leaves of the for the tea you pick just a few of them from the top and then you switch over to the next plant because it will start releasing a chemical to make it bitter which is a defense mechanism so it wants to live here's the difference though there is it's not connected to a central nervous system where there's a brain and blood flowing through its brain or flow through his body god did not breathe his life into plants like he did animals they were given the breath of life and they became living souls and yes the bible does call animals souls and uses that same word as humans and it's the same way when you put an anatomy chart up together we were all built the same brains blood the blood life and the breath of life you can't get around it but still that doesn't answer the question how would you determine the difference between a strict reaction and a want like a desire because you would also have to then treat the coniferous animals as sinful murderers well right let me and I don't know if you guys's texts are limited to canon only but I mean jubilees does tell us it's the lesser genesis is what is called and it does say that lawless increased on the earth and all flesh corrupted its way like men cattle beasts everything that walks on the earth all of them corrupted their ways and their orders they began to devour each other and all flesh had corrupted its order so they made the conscious decision to define their natural instinct their their natural order and to do what they wanted to so what so and we'll go to hell right well I don't believe in hell I don't believe in the modern concept of hell but Andy the other they got two problems one distinguishing reactivity from want like a conscious thoughtful desire for something a concept of the past present and future etc but the other problem is if you appeal to wants right so let's say let's say I want to eat a steak suddenly want isn't the the the variable here because a bear wants to eat a deer it's going to kill the deer the deer wants to live according to your standard um so even if you granted want which which we're not going to grant animals wants because you didn't justify it but if you did you still have another problem the bear wants to eat the deer the the human wants to seek his desires so your your standard for morality is grounded in a term want which biblically right not only is it not uh it doesn't logically follow but even biblically it's inconsistent we don't follow our wants for what is good I feel like you're creating problems that don't even exist they were given the will to live let's not use the word want animals have the will to live that's why if you try to attack them they are going to resist and it's not like it with plants it's not animals have the animals have the will to kill to know that now that's that's a one according to jubilee's that is more of a want because they defied their orders and chose to do that now as time went by it was their natural instinct because they're you know the parents of these animals over time they just learn it that way just like us okay jim bob you're not an animal so you can stop worrying about what animals do and animals are not humans so how would you grant them human like properties oh god has granted them the breath of life i didn't give them the breath of life did god our animals uh image bearers no they're not made in the image of god like we are okay but but this argument that oh plants are also living so let me let me like tea leaves are stressed out when you pick them okay let's say you're driving down the road and there's a field of tea leaves and you see someone's dog in the middle of the road are you going to try and hit the dog because all the tea leaves have feelings too no if you say yes you're a psychopath that's because animals are intrinsically more valuable than plants that's why god gave us plants to eat and not animals and the scripture says be perfect just like your father in heaven is perfect so how do you determine both agreed in your opening that yeah these guys are arguing it's it's it's morally superior to not kill animals so it should be perfect like your father in heaven and not kill animals okay we did not argue that it is better to not eat animals we said it's not even the framing of the debate yeah so if you want to debate that that again we would disagree and that's why i read parts of exodus 29 because god commands literally killing of a bull and and the ways you use their blood and after that it goes on for rams and and and all such things well will you guys agree that jesus was the final sacrifice so you can stop using all that as an excuse to go through the drive through at mcdonald's well that's not that's not the it's not an excuse because you don't need an excuse that's that assumes your position is correct where where does jesus forbid eating flesh and violence upon animals you can just do it that's we can't is literally reveal that he can eat all the things that the gentiles eat if because they were made clean by god no you talked about genesis nine where he says uh eat everything it's the same as fruit now there was no you mentioned jesus that's why i'm mentioning the book of acts because it comes after that okay so so the bible contradicts itself now it says clean and unclean animals in the old testament but then later on it says everything's clean go ahead eat everything ceremonially clean and unclean and indeed the what is the council of jerusalem in acts 15 what do they decide is the the the necessary uh minimum for the gentiles to come in it is not the dietary restrictions except for not eating the flesh of strangled animals but also sexual immorality and idle worship so none of this you don't eat meat at all that's what happens when you stab a cow in the neck you strangle it so that's like one of the main ways that they're killing the animals most of people most so so wait you don't you have a problem with how it's killed killing it period is inhumane it's violent it's barbaric and it's cruel okay so from the biblical perspective with your perspective right sounds like a natural perspective the animals want to live god told us there's that there's that word again wash and bob you're gonna let me respond i can't let you smuggle wanton though we'll just use the word will then if that if that's the hold up we can how did you how did you determine the will run away when you try to kill them jim bob how do you know that's will and versus reaction you keep begging the question that because i did something that most bible believers today are afraid to do and that's use my god given logical thought process and people look at a text and they want that text to teach them and they're afraid to just use like here's here's the thing seriously think about this animals are vulnerable to suffering just like humans so why would the creator give them a natural fear-based instinct to escape harm if his intention was to harm them animals don't have the will to die anymore than humans so why would god make animals with the will to live if he just planned on killing them so i that's right hold on why would he want me in other words why did god create animals with a nature that opposes their intended purpose everything about the nature of animals according to you guys contradicts the idea that god made them for the purpose of of living like does that might not make sense so so wait a second why why wouldn't you apply that to the animals themselves eating other animals say that again i mean why wouldn't you apply that why wouldn't you apply that same structure of an argument to animals eating animals well i do but there was a point in time when they defied their orders just like humans did but that's an argument from incredulity why would god do x assuming that the thing you don't like right in this debate why did why did why did he make you you're like saying that's like yeah but that's like saying if god didn't want us to suffer why did he give us pain receptors well he doesn't want us to suffer so why did he give us pain receptors i guess the same god bad god listen to this it's i'll put it into perspective for you it's the same reason why he put adam and even a garden told them not to do something knowing that they were going to do it okay so i mean you can't use that as an argument like god wouldn't do something because because humans might do this you're now making one of the very basic problems that people who believe in one god make and that is to equate god's mind to a human mind but just it is immensely more powerful so he is bound by time and and that's the point is that people are people are taking the god who created animals and they're lowering him down to our sensual pleasure saying that he oh it's a pleasing aroma to him he loves you just did that as an animal so you reject the bible when it says when it says that god finds it pleasing oh well yes i believe the writer wrote that from his perspective but there's not one place in scripture where yahoo is speaking saying that he loves the smell of dead animal flesh burning over a fire it's always written from the the writer's perspective who even just like people today in the church they were just as confused back then too uh andy i did ask a simple question you swapped out will or want for will and i said how do you determine the difference between an animal's will versus an animal's instinct and reactivity and you said well i used my logic and then you went into this whole diatribe about some you know most people don't read the bible this way and i do and i did all the work i asked a very simple question you take an animal it reacts to something how do you determine its its will it has a will right this this assumes like concepts metaphysics like the concept of a will that you saw its reaction that you're thinking about right you're thinking about what you want in a way right so versus reactivity and and i haven't gotten an answer from either of you well it's well would be based on its reaction you go out of carol with a knife it will react a certain way because of its will so if it doesn't react then it doesn't have a will it has the will to live it does not want to die and and i don't know how you can't how you would just ignore that no i can't even believe this is even an argument they're having like a like oh the animals don't have a will to live they just know yeah everything are you serious well no you didn't you didn't demonstrate you being amazed that we reject it isn't an argument okay so you're gonna say animals don't have a will to live um what is a will an urge animals have urges how do you separate an urge from an instinct again and again again it's like you guys aren't hearing the question so that's your whole argument is that we should be violent and cruel animals because they only react to being killed they're not actually trying not to be killed because they want to no i didn't i didn't make an argument okay so what is your argument that they don't have a will i'm you're arguing that they do have a will i'm asking you to distinguish what that is yeah and we already did both of us said they have a reaction they want to live and you don't accept that i asked you what's the difference between will and reaction you say they have a reaction to live does that sound logical to you it based on their reaction i can tell what their will is if it's a reaction with plans because what we've heard is the central nervous system and how is that how is that an argument hold on i was trying to not hurt plants an argument that we should hurt animals so if a doctor if a doctor hits my knee and my knee goes my leg goes up he can look at me and go i knew you wanted to lift your leg and that's reasonable hypostatic knee insane that's like that's absurd so animals don't have feelings they just react feelings about what how would you know the feelings of an animal have you ever owned a dog have you ever not a dog asking me to communicate with you and you're telling me animals don't have feelings you can you're telling me they do similar to humans i'm asking you how you know that and you're saying do you own a dog don't you know they know names you can train an animal to know a name and react to stimuli pavlovian you know do you have you ever heard of pavlov pavlov's dogs right that's not feelings based it's it's input output input output i'm asking you you're making the claim that there's something more going on i'm asking you how did you determine that and you all you do is double down that there's more going on and that's insufficient it's just observation it's using my logical thought process now i mean i i seriously can't believe we are having this discussion the denial it's unreal it's like the denial of the denial of the thing you asserted and didn't justify yeah should we arrest carnivorous animals i mean i didn't know we were debating do animals have feelings or not i thought that was genuinely accepted by most cognitive lucid people that's appeal to popularity okay fine so you're going to say that animals don't have feelings that's your guys's position that's right not in the way humans do you can call it that as much as we would say god god has a mind but we would say it's a human mind disconnected we are with animals no you still have a problem though even if we granted feelings which we won't if they had a feeling they wanted to do something then you'd have to deny their want to do something which is why there's a moral position here so if a bear has a feeling that they want to eat the deer and i'm like looking at like let's switch it let's switch it bears kill a lot of cups in the wild right let's go to that they're infanticidal maniacs yeah they want to right yeah they want humans want things too so if you argue that things uh beings right if you try to equate animals with humans you still have a problem our wants are not the thing that determines whether something ought to happen you it's an is ought gap you're not feeling right so animals have a will or a want to do x therefore let them do x right well people have a will and a want to eat meat but you're arguing they ought not so you can you can appeal to the wants because if it's granted you have to actually allow humans to uh follow their wants and desires to eat meat because after all you're saying they have wants and feelings we must we must uh abide by their wants and feelings right is it possible jim bob to be a good steward of animals but also stab animals in the throat yes or no sure so yes you can be a good steward listen to this audience get this real clear because this is the mindset of a me head you can be good stewards and take good care of the animals but also stab the animals in the neck and they both said yes how pathetic is that that's an argument pathetic so when upside down that's not an argument when the lord when the lord appears to abraham with the two angels uh and he gives them he slaughters a lamb for him and the law doesn't refuse it or anything that's that's what god was a pagan he didn't realize wait the minute i should only receive he didn't push he didn't know how insane it would sound to naphin so he's probably a lot of that was foreshadowing but i think did you guys agree or not that jesus was the final sacrifice yes yeah we don't sacrifice right it's not exactly was the final sacrifice great so we can stop pretending we go we do you know in sense of sacrifice has been commanded to do what kind of you don't know anymore and pretend that's some religious sacrifice but why would god command evil uh as a form of regular worship and not like eliminating the canaanites which was an order as a form of punishment it is a judgment exacted on the canaanites for and they also engage in bestiality so that's fun you know which are vegan which are vegan by the way has to accept if we get to the point where the bear's feelings they want to uh do something and then you go well as long as it's consent based because you know two beings want something after all when a dog humps your legs jazz music starts playing right will you please tell your partner that he's not a bear because he's not listening to me um the thing is the other thing about sacrifice is it does it does it end all sacrifice or a specific kind of sacrifice biblically historically i thought you guys agreed just now jesus was the final sacrifice what kind of good good but but why why would god have commanded uh the slaughter of animals before why andy and i thought that wasn't a command it's an allowance if you're going to do it so literally you don't have to do it you didn't command anyone to divorce their wife so so isn't anyone to own slaves so it's a suggestion is real to have a king certain things it's like it was so wait hold on so is it's is it a suggestion no what what you read as god's mandatory commands for them to do something was actually a stipulation for their behavior that they were already doing he wasn't telling them i want you to do this these things he was saying as long as you're going to do it anyway at least put some restriction over it you know have some self-control i'm placing these stipulations over so so but wait a minute to go to more ritual properties of it a lot of wine was sacrificed oil was sacrificed wheat cakes were sacrificed a lot of non-animal sacrifices were given so why didn't god say if he can command you shouldn't wear fabrics of different two different fabrics i'm pretty sure he could say no animal sacrifices they weren't willing to do that and that's why they weren't willing to do a lot of things and and god tolerates a lot of course he does and calls for repentance and part of repentance is sacrificing animals which is in the ancient sense which is like burning your own money to because that's what you had you didn't have you know fiat currency that you could donate or burn whatever what you had was your property and in fact the levites were not allowed to own property and could only eat from the sacrifices is there a question in there or just yes why why would god establish this system or if it is a permissive system why would god permit it as if god would why didn't god permit homosexuality people did do it he forbade idolatry people still did do it god says at one point there's not a shade of a tree small enough that you didn't put an idol under it so why didn't he go with like okay you can have like tiny items you can have little ones we're dealing with 600 000 plus uh israelites and then the mixed multitude that was with them and you're asking me why he didn't just change it in an instant overnight they were just vegans there there has to be the indication that he wanted that in the creation account and that's one thing that i said from the beginning people are going to skip over what god intended in the beginning and they're going to jump to verses like tinnitus is nine three what did he intend then in the beginning from your perspective exactly what he said in verse 29 and 30 for the humans to eat plants the fruit trees and for the animals to eat the green herbs of the earth okay so if if you're if you're a priority here to like in your view to live a christian life right uh the duty of man which you haven't really established is to seek uh the uh an outcome close to eating correct yeah the highest moral standard so should we intended okay so would you say to be a consistent christian from your worldview biblically we should intervene with animals eating animals bear jail i haven't gotten that far i mean yeah uh is bear jail in the gospel there are instances in the gospel of holy 12 where yeshua where jesus intervened with that and he prevented on many occasions animals from being harmed and there might be an occasion there where he uh where he addressed animals killing other animals so there actually there was where there was a dog that was trained to hunt and he dealt with that and from that point forward the man trained his dog to love animals so yes what source are you talking about the gospel of the holy 12 and i mean i i realized you guys are christians you probably think the canon is like the only thing we're supposed to go by so no we don't think that but but we have uh we are author well i am orthodox christian jim bob is an inquirer uh but we first of all so nathan said in the chat earlier that the bible is 66 books so even he wouldn't agree with you but uh we also wouldn't agree with him because uh Protestantism throughout a lot of the books and got cut it down to 66 we don't have the same view of canonicity or what is apocryphal as in canon means it's infallible and good i mean we agree with that but as on the opposite side the apocrypha you can ignore that's not how it works but uh you you seem to accept anything that comes along with so why not accept the gospel of thomas so i evaluate everything you know if it comes my way i'm going to read it and if it resonates with my spirit and my logical thought process that god gave me and i compare it to other texts the whole textual criticism thing i do as much as i can and i can see that hey there were some wicked leibites who wrote this crap into the text and andy where does it say biblically to intervene with animals eating animals because that's the logical conclusion right of your your prescription in the canon it might not okay so would uh does your partner fiction does things does your does your partner uh like the idea of bear jail intervening with bears eating uh deer like it if we can add in books to the canon hey why don't we start with you jim bob and then we can worry about the bear you're not you're not gonna answer yes my answer is do you want to intervene with animals clean out your ears real quick do you want to intervene maybe we could get you to start caring about animals first and then we can worry about the bears later jim i care about animals i want to keep them alive so i can eat them yeah i heard your argument the it's humane and moral and being good steward is stabbing an animal in the neck do you think we should do the question is simple twisted your mind naphin naphin you're a very you're very uh up here it's a simple you're the one interrupting everyone jim bob your your partner answered it i want to know what your answer is do you want to intervene to live a christian life in your do you intervene with animals eating animals no personally i don't intervene with animals eating animals why hard time communicating with animals they don't speak english unlike jim bob and posh here so english and i can communicate why are you up here bro just let me talk you're up here you need let me talk you ask me a question yeah go ahead yeah so i don't have any position about getting interfering with the animal kingdom when i have people friends people i look up to legends like you and posh that could really make a big difference in the animal kingdom and save a lot of lives that don't want to die even though you won't grant animals want okay i thought this was given i didn't even know people question animals want to live so yeah that's my position jim so you said you wouldn't intervene with the animals because they don't speak english or talk so like a human that didn't learn to talk and kind of like deaf and mutant dumb but goes around killing you wouldn't ever you wouldn't have you wouldn't stop them right because that's your reason to write them a note and and say don't kill people and then they could read it jim bob right okay yeah yeah yeah so this and how about this can you guys agree food can be used as a weapon of course what about you jim bob can food be used as a weapon all right how's america doing on the standard american diet with one out of three obese one out of eight children it's not fat jim bob where's the uh let me answer that for you please for the corn syrup let me let me uh let me uh let me answer that for you where is it where in the bible does it say anything about being concerned with the american diet america wasn't around when the bible was written jim bob so that's a begging the question welcome back to the topic of the debate if you're all the moments you know yeah i just i thought it was worth mentioning real quick that food can be used as a weapon and it is being used as a weapon that's why they programmed you from a very young age with an illuminati food pyramid i need my music music you have to and then they program you and tell you you're top of the food chain and you're an omnivore anatomically humans are not like bears anatomically food pyramids say that you should eat mostly bread it labels meat and dairy as essential food groups posh food uh but again it says you should eat mostly bread and that is rubbish because bread isn't very good for your feet if you have the long kinds that's because people are eating enriched grains that have been processed but if you grain your own uh wheat like i do as you're getting a pure bread you can mill your own flour and uh there are there are ways to do it right so jesus said he was the bread of life but bread is bad for people no i'm talking about the food food pyramid that you talked about because it promotes white bread okay but bread is bad for you even though jesus said i'm saying it's leaning very very you know vegany and secondly he's saying he's the bread of life he is much more than that and of course i agree with that also says you should eat his body and drink his blood if you want to talk about that some other time but uh as far as the the topic is concerned um let's go this way do you season your food with yeah season my food yes why because i like the way the seasoning tastes okay so let's say you get salt uh you have to get it from either rock salt or you're going to get it from the sea or something and you have to establish entire uh supply chains and supply lines that are either going to enslave animals to pour carriages of salt or you're going to have to use all types of fuel that damage the environment and you have to transport it and all sorts of insects die while you're transported why would you subject so many animals to death or slavery just so you your your potatoes you know taste a bit better posh do you use salt yes but i'm not but i'm not a vegan your argument makes no sense when your argument is we should stab animals in the neck and you're over here saying transportation kills transportation kills insects so we should stab animals in the neck no i'm saying how ridiculous that sounds i'm giving an internal critique of your system i'm not a vegan you are a vegan why would you do such a thing i'm not a vegan i don't abide by the same rules you're saying oh you say you're a christian but you don't pray towards mecca what what sort of hypocrisy is this you could easily get a pail of water from the ocean boil it and that no insects have to die you don't have to stab any cows in the neck and posh could still get his salt do you use sugar i try not to but you do sometimes yeah i think it's better than the fake sugars like splenda even stevia i've been doing some research okay how does one make sugar you get it from the cane sugar plant not very often you mostly get it from the what is it called the sugar beet and whatever it is but you so you need to engage in a lot of agriculture which kills a lot of animals oh here we go this is one of my favorite arguments no no no i'm talking about sugar i'm not talking about basic things the agricultural argument that oh animals die in the process that's why i said sugar okay i i didn't say why here's the difference because i think i think the audience needs to hear this there is a difference between agricultural animals animals being killed in the process of agriculture versus intentionally slaughtering animals you have to intentionally slaughter them you have to intentionally slaughter them you have to shoot them you actually i've never intentionally slaughtered an animal jim bob if you know it's going to happen first of all it's going to happen so it's intentional you know it's going to happen and you go through with it so that's intentional second of all it's not just accidental machinery stuff you have to actually pick off animals to protect the crop it's just a lame excuse to use it's just a fact no we're not talking about you could build a fantastic imbob is an internal critique not an excuse we don't we don't need excuses because we're doing an internal an internal critique of you your guys view right it's not our excuse it's your claim you're offering us poor arguments that's that's all it is so you will see you're willing to grown in agriculture is fed to animals so i know you're trying to use sugar as an example to get around that but you can't pretend to care about animals that are killed during agriculture when you're saying we should be violent and stab animals in the neck we're vegan we don't make the claim it's your claim this is an internal critique do you know the difference i don't pray you understand you have no argument crying about agriculture when you stab animals in the neck what if we what if we didn't stab them and we just made it we just got them killed through the vegan process of making vegetables like sent the cow into the machinery uh kind of guy bro if you made roadkill your entire life just animals on the side of the road that were slaughtered by moving vehicles i would be completely fine with that imbob what about a cow what what about every day go and pay for people to be cruel and violent and brutal towards animals it's not the same thing as eating roadkill or eating some rodent that was killed while you're doing agriculture it still didn't still didn't tell us why veganism is a moral duty from the biblical perspective it's how we were created that is the moral duty and i don't know why we're not we're not in the we're not in the created world we're in the fallen world and so why do you want to jump towards after the fall of man to learn how you should behave when you could be going to how we were expected doesn't the bible say be perfect jim bob the because the bible doesn't say seek Eden and create it on earth it says be perfect just as your father in heaven is perfect now if your father in heaven made earth vegan why wouldn't you try and be vegan jim bob well god doesn't even eat so i think you should try that diet for a while see how it works for you right no i think god might eat i just don't think he needs to eat the way humans do matter of fact there he can eat fish once he once he resurrects there there is a passage that says uh if i were hungry this is yehua speaking if i were hungry i would not tell you for the world is mine do i eat the flesh of bowls or drink the blood of goats no so he's telling us he doesn't where are you closing from psalm 50 verse 12 to 14 okay the the the problem is if you go back to this argument of seeking the the eden status of the world problem okay it's a problem because you have to put bears in jail if we're not account i'm not accountable to a bear or a bear it's not about to intervene it's about you as a human no you have to you have a moral duty to intervene with animals eating animals which is also post fall right so you're seeking the outcome of eden here on earth which is satanic by the way but that's another story um and you're you have to act out as a christian from your worldview intervening with animals eating animals so be consistent just insist this so we shouldn't seek to honor the original design what god originally intended for us that shouldn't be our priority seek to honor it what does that mean god means do his will it means god didn't want us to deal with him he commanded animal sacrifices and that we already went over how simple jesus was the final sacrifice so you can quit pretending you drive through mcdonald's sacrifice he did though he did he allowed it he demanded with all sorts of regulation demand and god demanded he said i'm going to create these animals with the will to live but i i don't mean that you kill them like that's the common sense that i'm talking about that's why i say we people are afraid to use their logical thought process because they read it where did jesus do a sacrifice also guys he didn't he didn't so if we're trying to emulate jesus you can quit pretending that let's eat fish you get so wrecked right there dude this is the only thing these guys back to the drawing board that's not no that's not a wreck because the argument isn't about sacrifice it's about eating eating animals right you know guys you can't separate eating animals away from the sacrificial system because that was the point it was so that they could eat their flesh and then later in time the Levites incorporated this whole blood atonement let's worship god this way if they can put killing animals into their their religious service to god they could justify why they're doing it and that's what i believe that the bible is inspired i believe the bible is i believe our modern bibles have been manipulated and written by men and no i don't believe moses wrote the first five books of the bible and that's why i was trying to tell you earlier in deuteronomy 31 moses called out the Levites the scribes the wicked priests he said you're going to become even more wicked after my death and and Jeremiah was the prophet who accused them who said you have made the law of god into a lie so you know this very well no exodus 29 the verse you mentioned exodus 29 is like the best reason to question the men who wrote the bible because it depicts all of these priests doing an occultic blood ritual showering each other in blood and you think that's righteous behavior that god demands that's the point because i believe the bible is inspired yeah you're afraid to use your own thought process because you think the bible that the catholic church provided to you is the highest moral state you can't question it's the highest of them but okay well well you still have a problem and because you're still appealing to the same bible but just reinterpreting all you're really saying is i have the bible too but my logical brain that needs bear jail to happen by the way as a consequence um isn't properly interpreting the uh the co-opted manipulated source of scripture right i'm saying there are other texts beside the bible and how do you know those are that say different things that these texts agree with one another too and they show you where the Levites were but i think those texts whichever are the ones you're thinking of i think those those were written by wicked men right yeah see how i know i know any anything that's not in traditional christianity and mainstream whatever is you'll just reject no no no he didn't no he just gave you your argument back to you it's not that he's rejected i know what he did he's using your argument on you i know what he did but that's what you guys are doing you're saying if it's not if it's not a part of our mainstream religious views we're going to reject it well that no no that's not the reasoning i mean we we're seeking coherency right you said logical brain right you're using your logical brain yeah i have to okay that's why i gave it to you so posh asked you a question that challenges your your assumptions here is that the logical your logical brain must concede with intervening with animals eating animals if you want to be consistent one two you're you have to reinterpret right the the command to sacrifice animals that that happened right you have to say like no that wasn't really a part of it i don't have to reinterpret it i realize that other texts say other things and other texts expose the Levites for writing their own laws into the text and i accept that is true because it doesn't make sense why the god of these animals would create them only to kill them so there's a lot of text that's not preserved how would you know what was added and what was taken out etc how does anybody know how can you prove that about the bible how can you also that your bible is the infallible completely preserved word of god and it hasn't been tainted at all depends on how you take preserved as in the messages it preserved all particular wordings because we are very well aware that in the times of moses biblical Hebrew did not exist to paleo Hebrew was the the language that he would have spoken and written in we're also aware that his funeral is described not his funeral his death is described in the first five books we are very well aware that it was edited over time absolutely no one denies that we just don't have this idea of there's like the mosons view the Quran there's golden tablets in in in heaven and they confirm the original the ones that they would have we know it was edited because you had priests with the duty to preserve them and we know that they were there were priests and even high priests who were corrupt we're also very well aware of that but the Holy Spirit preserves things in particular manners not just again as I said word for word because that's not how languages work even over time even the same language over time so you just assume that it has been preserved through the Holy Spirit over time that Exodus 29 was God demanding them to hold on hold on the topic hold on the topic of the debate however requires you to appeal to some uh uh um preserved scripture that you actually trust that actually grounds the claim veganism as a moral duty that's the topic okay so the the problem here is you the only thing I heard close to an argument which you just said which is why would God and correct me if I'm wrong if not stealing this properly um why would God create animals just to be consumed correct is that something along the lines of your position sure okay so if you apply that to humans like why would God create humans in a world uh where there's pain and suffering and mayhem and and it's temporal like uh why would he do that the question of why would God do something is an argument from personal incredulity yes it's based on human behavior not God's behavior what the your argument is because humans have the decision to do these things and humans are the ones who did them but God himself his moral standard he wouldn't create something with the will to live only to kill it and make it suffer on what basis if if that is well yeah on what basis if that's the God that you know then he's a savage no no that's a that's that's just incredulous I want you to tell me logically because you said I'm using my logical brain and think you're tinker you're thinking um you said a God my God wouldn't create animals his command is thou shall not kill killing kill kill what kill what exactly it doesn't say humans only I know people love to say oh that doesn't pertain to animals so why don't kill animals okay so you think do you think the law should follow that we we go to uh to go to jail for hunting an animal no but that that's a good point that you bring up hunting and uh because the laws for hunting uh only apply to hunters I'm not a hunter so those laws don't apply to me is is killing an animal murder yes according to Isaiah it's murder it's no different than slaying an ox so if I kill your hamster do I go to jail the same as uh according to Isaiah let me let me I mean I can google it real quick if you want dim bob you do know people go to jail for cruelty against animals yeah but yeah yeah but is it equal to killing a human it should be from your view right Isaiah we never said it was equal to God says do not kill period and you want to sit there and say oh but I want to kill some things and that's okay no it says don't kill don't kill let's be perfect it says be good stewards and you define being a good steward is stabbing something in the neck that's where we have this huge diametrically opposed no no I would say a good steward let's you keep doing that neck thing the classic vegan imagery if I just gave a cow an overdose of DMT and put a virtual reality on their head and and it killed them in a euphoric state where they're floating up into the eschaton of moomoo land you'd have to abandon the stabbing in the throat right as this visual appeal to appeal to a motion right even if you date rape a cow and they die it's still killing so so okay so you want to you you want to jail people you think you should jail someone for killing an animal correct perfect straw man when did any of us talk about putting anyone in jail you're calling it murder he just said it's murder Isaiah does not say it was mad I just checked it and again this is oh read it read to us he says killing an ox is just as killing a man if he's equating that to killing a man what do you call it it says he that sacrifices a lamb as if he cut off a dog's neck he that offered an ablation as if he offered swine's blood he that burneth incis as if he blessed an idol yeah they have chosen their own ways and they're so delighted in their abomination they have chosen their own ways yeah he's comparing it to murder and saying they have chosen their own ways because they have made thou shalt not kill into thou shalt not only kill just humans and we can kill all the animals we want that's what he's talking about you're taking things out of context he's saying you are not following the laws that I gave so if you sacrifice like in malachi one when it mentions you are giving me the lame lamb and he asks for lambs without blemish he asked even for crops that are given in sacrifice he asked for the crops of the first harvest he's asking for the highest quality because sacrifice is there for you to give up something as a sacrifice not that you owe there's this technicality I can so this is technically a lamb you know yes it's basically dead but I can give it up as a whole burnt offering and I've checked that of the list and God says this is an abomination to him and when people start doing that he says I refuse them and it is an insult to God to do this I also want to say that I've given your methodology some thought and I now realize that Genesis 129 was added by some hippie levite nice and it used to say you should eat little puppies but then he removed that part because apparently that's what happens all the time yeah your god wants us to eat little puppies and it was changed brilliant argument posh well done excellent no concept of internal critique he doesn't he doesn't know that that's not his argument um uh Nathan you have a dog right yeah I have a dog has it ever run away from you um it's ran towards other things like away from the house where you had to retrieve it no because he always comes back and he just goes for a walk by himself so if he goes away and he doesn't come back will you retrieve him uh geo ran away and never came back no I wouldn't even try and retrieve him it would be too impossible that that dog is like 40 miles an hour okay but if but let's say he ran away and someone called you and was like I see your dog come you want to come get it you would you would retrieve him right well I would go there immediately and stab him in the neck because that's being a good steward to my dog according to you and posh cool dodge cool dodge um the the reason I'm asking is you'd have to separate his will to leave you uh and and figure out a way to justify against going against his will to pick him up and put him back in your house and enslave him as your pet for your own feelings and I just wanted to know where this guy broke so I wanted you to draw the line between what he desires as far as running away right the torture this dog is going through he's just he wants to leave so bad yeah yeah he doesn't he doesn't interact with any of the questions no that was jim bob who wants to drug cows and give him day rape drugs until they die no I'm saying that that would really relieve you of this uh the horror scene of the killing you could just give it a pill or uh you know sedate it and there's all these other methods of killing that um just demonstrate that the type of killing you're actually going back to over and over again is a type of tactic that tries to appeal to emotion and uh you know draw even you call it killing jim bob even you call it killing when the Bible says do not kill no no the bible refers to killing as personhood animals no you just go to it as animals I want to see the we're showing where it's where thou shall not kill pertains only to humans yeah coherency coherency would fall apart if you say god says no killing but then command sacrifice exactly and that's why you have to question the men who forge things into the bible yeah but I think I think uh you know if you pull a carrot out of the ground you're murdering it yeah you see and another problem is that you only accept the catholic version of the gospels and you don't look at other so you only see one half of the story how is and and no no no no it's I'm talking and when you read other gospel versions other gospel accounts of the story Yeshua talks a lot about how men would not fulfill this law of thou shall not kill so god gave them extensions of the law and permitted them to kill animals but that the higher moral standard was to live up to thou shalt not kill in its purest form is pertains to all creatures of god you need to really think outside of the new testament kin and the catholic bible uh when go ahead go ahead you want to say something I was going to say how is uh how is killing an animal and act against against god aside from thou shall not kill or what do you mean the fact that he created these animals with the will to live who don't want to die and then asserting their free will to kill them how other than that well I'm saying like you know once you get into it I mean you're assigning animals right the same value right as humans but you're saying argumentation of why would god make animals right uh just here for us to to consume and what not after you know uh why would that be the case but you also have to ask why would god make animals that kill other animals if it wasn't as if it's not as will for for killing to exist in a way he didn't make animals to kill other animals like I read did they say they defined their orders five times already jibbub oh animals sinned yes they they violated their natural that's what the text says that I read okay are animals sinning today like a berry eats a eat a you know you know a random rabbit somewhere sin to call it sin well you I'm asking you because you're calling it sin now so I'm wondering how far you're gonna take it I'm telling you they're violating their orders they had the coherency to speak in the same language as human according to the text and they understood everything adam gave them names there was a civil environment where humans and animals who walk or to beat they they live together in a community if they're violating the law of god and it's murder and it's sin you're stretching to say it's sin you don't have to say it's sin if you want to say they're they're acting against god's command why wouldn't we jail them and intervene with their behaviors as humans we should if we were supposed to be the dominators if we were supposed to be stewards over the animals maybe we should okay so it let's take the bear for instance if we start intervening with the bear eating the fish and eating its animals because it's doing what bears do you're saying it's not doing what bears do it's doing what sinful bears do if we intervene what happens to bears you're making it sound as silly as you can no I'm making it sound as silly as you said it I didn't say it that way do you want to intervene with sinful bear behavior yes or no I can provide fruit for a bear to eat but I'm not going to if a bear who's stronger than me who might kill me if I'm going to intervene and take that semen out of his mouth just because I think he should eat these berries instead I'm not going to do that it's putting my own life in jeopardy but you have a duty as a steward you do have a duty though you have the duty as a steward both to the salmon and to the bear and we do the best we can to be stewards in the circumstances that we're in yes which just happens to be the things that you find to be convenient at the moment would you kill would you die to save another human being andy sure why wouldn't you die to save an animal because like yashua spoke about in the gospels in these other gospels that you don't trust at all he said if it comes between life of an animal in the life of a human choose the human and at the expense of the animal but don't just kill animals to eat or to profit off of let them die if it if they're if they're attacking someone you can kill the animal yeah I think that's like Peter Peter felt bad when he was starving and like his only option was to eat a dead animal and the creator said hey dude don't worry about it is because he would rather have Peter not starve to death than the animal but this idea of bear jail is so ridiculous because it is you're not it isn't it you you should worry about yourself not what bears eat I mean your argument is bears eat deer so I'm going to continue slaughtering animals and consuming their flesh like I am no I am considered I am thinking about myself in the life a Christian life according to you guys is to minimize the the sin among animals and humans and and you just said that animals basically sin and they're acting against God's command and I'm saying well based on your paradigm we would actually intervene and Andy took Andy actually bit the bullet on it will you bite the bullet intervene so how about this Jim Bob we can worry about all the bears once you stop eating animals it's not my paradigm I'm not we could go for the bears but let's start with Jim Bob and someone posed would attack Jim Bob to save an animal no why would I attack violence just begets more violence and I for an eye leaves the whole world blind you guys don't understand I'm not pro violence I'm against violence that's why I'm a vegan and you guys are over here like oh would you be violent to Jim Bob to save an animal I'm against violence you guys are the ones that say we should stab animals in the neck to be good stewards what about my DMT virtual reality alternative that I presented you know you guys are Jeffrey Dahmer to the animals and now you want to pretend like you're Bill Cosby it's not going to work dude okay you're not Bill Cosby to the animals you are Jeffrey Dahmer well you're in you're in prison an animal you're in prison an animal right now you've presented all sorts of unique and unlikely circumstances for us to answer all of these questions that will never happen in our lives but when you look at the creation account and what God intended which is what this debate is about it was God's intention his highest moral will for humans to eat plants and for animals to eat plants and you can't get around that you guys have had to jump forward to after the fall of man in order to do plant it are there are there plants that eat animals no they're not they're not yes they are yes they are let me stop you there you asked me the question plants do not eat plants do not digest plants will absorb certain things that come into their oh so it's about the word eating and what it means to absorb life right oh yeah because you're making these plants with a brain and a digestive system when they don't have that they don't have the central nervous system you're using so eating okay okay okay so eating and close up on the on the fly right so they have a will to yeah they are they're sitting in it no it's not a will because the mechanism is different you can't have a will without a brain just because the mechanism is different does not mean that the same oh please this is why this is why i tell you don't be afraid to use your logic what you guys are not doing right now oh we're using logic no no no no no you're not you're comparing things without brains do things with brains and you're saying that animals and humans are not the same even though we do what's what's a brain you're saying the brain is what constitutes our ability to seek and abide by understanding the human and animal anatomy okay brain it's like no no no hold on hold on hold on hold on i'll ask you a simple question if it's the brain that distinguishes the human and the animal from the venus fly trap right what makes the brain uh just not another mechanism just like the venus fly trap because you're saying brain right you're not saying like mind or consciousness or or a free will or or image bearer of god you're saying brain you're you're actually listing off everything good we do have morals we do have decisions free will plants do not have that so it's not the brain then so it's not about the brain then it's about the the whole anatomy which humans and animals are comparable plants are not would you say that anatomy is strictly mechanical it's just material uh no i believe that the the bible actually says when god breathed life into humans and animals we all became living souls okay so then it's not the brain and the nervous system that distinguishes in your argument the difference between a venus fly trap it's a combination between that where god took the the dust of the earth he formed us all you know the way he does things i don't know if you national where you're going with well what i'm going where i'm going is you're you're making an argument of god's intention of our behavior and i pointed to an a plant that consumes animals right and i would even argue that when animals die um they decompose and even that goes into the plants and the trees and the and all that the fun of him guy comes right and even fungi if you're going to take a strict mechanistic view of like there's a brain and a nervous system well from our view without without the with the mind and the spirit and all and all of that the metaphysics of all of it you're really just talking about machines right so a brain and a nervous system is just another machine right and uh a network of um fungi underneath the redwood trees that are all connected and communicating in a way um that's just another system that's transferring information as well and so why i'm pushing on this is that you appeal to the brain as the thing that distinguishes why it's okay for the venus it's it's it's not the same for a plant for god to will a plant to eat a fly or any other animal that falls in its trap because it doesn't have a brain right well i'm saying the brain itself isn't enough for you to actually make that distinction because it's strictly mechanistic what i see is that you are trying to elevate plants up to human level and you're trying to to attack us because we do that with animals apparently you guys don't know what an internal critique is you're taking uh i just used your reasoning right to not my reasoning that's not who said it has a brain and a nervous system that was your distinction that you you're repeating a lot of things and saying that i did you not say that and i don't did you not say did you when we said venus fly trap eats animals right it doesn't eat it digests or a dead digest or eat it it absorbs so you're taught i i just said you're appealing to mech mechanics now to make the difference correct you just appeal to it again mechanics well we'll go with whatever you're trying to do so the point is plants don't have plants don't have the breath of life they don't have blood life in their veins they don't have veins because they don't have the circulatory system like humans and animals because they don't have a brain they're built different that's all i'm saying right you're appealing to natural properties in nature uh along with the breath of yohua that's the creator there's a spiritual element with it when you talk about the soul soul and life are synonymous terms uh that is what it says also later on nefesh nefesh means soul or life they're interchangeable the equivalent in latin is anima which is where we get the word animated it means for something to have a soul that is to say it's alive right um but because we're debating whether it's biblical and we don't seem to agree on the bible at all at least what constitutes the bible which is going to be a bit of a problem but can we agree that saint paul is an apostle of christ i think he was a self-appointed apostle i don't think he was chosen by god or by any of the other original 12 who were yeah definitely more legit and i'm not saying i'm not here to debate the how the bible no no no we're talking about veganism not whether or not paul was a good guy or a disciple or that's not what we're here to talk about i mean you guys gotta get back to the side listen the bible starts and ends vegan and you guys are stuck in the middle with all the sin with all the death with all the animal cruelty the the rape the murder the lies the deceit the creator is going to do away with all that so that's his will for us okay and we will do that yes we are told to be perfect just like our creator in heaven is perfect and you guys are over here saying oh bear jail okay if you have two dogs at a dog park and they attempt to party do you just let them kill each other or do you intervene jim bob um well depending on how funny it is to watch the the question is why are they restrained in on a chain and a collar against their wants and desires to roam free that's the first question i said they're at a dog park i didn't say they were leashed or they're on a chain or they're on a collar they want to dogs start fighting jim bob do you pull up a chair and grab some popcorn or do you try and intervene to stop the loss of life i don't stop dogs from fighting you pull up a chair i literally couldn't care i don't care if they do whatever they want to each other okay yeah because you don't care about animals that's an appeal to emotion it's not an argument let's let's get back here you just said you don't care you think it's not appeal to anything it's what you said they won't save the summer from the bed hold on hold on hold on posh they do they want to fight because they're doing it after all right or do they want to fight nathan right obviously if they're getting into a fight maybe one of them doesn't maybe one of them i don't know i mean it depends on the circumstance oh no so if two dogs want to fight you're gonna have to determine their want from their reaction to fighting and you're gonna have to make that point very quickly to intervene buddy yeah question um are are we all in agreement though that the bible does begin and that it does end with no killing and no eating flesh are we all at least there yes okay i just want to make you too jim bob yeah okay so if we know that that is a perfect fixture of how he intended it from the beginning and how it will be restored in the end i guess my question for you guys is why would you want the middle part where the sin is going on where things that aren't god because that is where we are and god has prescribed things for that that's where uh that's where child pornography is that's where all these other sins are too but we don't take in those because andy ask the question answer the question ask the question against he did i said again ask the question again why why would you want all that is that we are allowed to use our will for even though it goes against the design why do you want what god doesn't will just because where we're at on the timeline the basis of our argument against you is that what we want is irrelevant if god says sacrifice a bull you sacrifice a bull that's it when did god tell you to sacrifice a bull posh if he said so he established an entire priesthood to do so so why did he do that did he break his own will wait when did god ever tell you to kill an animal posh no he never said i couldn't he never said i couldn't right it's not a it's not a moral consideration in that regard no right and you guys haven't established that big and that is the entire topic of this debate that's the whole debate right i i just it blows my mind that if you know god has a higher moral standard why wouldn't you want to live according to that why would you look at the lower morals and say oh we're here so i want to be down here i'll tell you why andy it's a total anti-christ spirit that's why anti-christ spirit yeah to know what he wants to know what he wants and to do the exact opposite is anti-christ no our entire position is there's no prohibition for us to eat animals you're making the affirmative and and again the reason we bring up sacrifices is because at one point he literally commanded you to do so unless it was some evil you know priests we all agree jesus was the final sacrifice according to popular right okay and he ate fish what was your why did he eat fish according to mainstream religion he did all those things that you said but that's why i'm saying a special religion why did you're not willing to look at other stories it's like if something happened between two people you only want to hear what's popular what the mainstream churches are here you're not willing to look outside of it it's just like in the public schools where they teach certain things in science and you as a researcher you know that the school is teaching something that's false but how how silly would it be to be unwilling to research anything else and just to stick with what's popular in religion or popular in school unlike the school system god didn't establish a church when people do this with the bible and what it says that's what they're doing it's no different in religion than it is in the public school system it was written by the victor of religious history who had political things to gain they had religious agendas at hand yes the Levites yes Rome and you guys are unwilling to consider these things because of this pedestal that you placed the the bible on and you think that there's nothing outside of that or that there's no error in it can you read the topic of the debate again but we're not getting anywhere we're not it is a biblical duty right because you have you you don't have the same idea of what the bible is you're willing to throw things out and bring things in Nathan doesn't even care about the bible he cares about he cares about before the fall there was no death after the after the new heavens and the new earth there will be none of it so all the things in between don't matter and can be ignored so you don't have an idea what the bible is and you're trying and you even say it's not a duty it's a preferable thing the and you're trying to defend the idea that it is a biblical duty that is a huge huge problem i'm saying it's a duty it's our duty to live in accordance with the highest moral standard of the creator you know whether we want to use the word is it a biblical duty or not i'm talking about your creator who originally envisioned you to eat plants and you wanting to say oh well i'm going to look for all kinds of reasons after that design to justify why i can still kill and eat animals was there sex before the fall oh possible i you know there are all kinds of theories this is not about sex before the fall i get you know i i've heard and i've entertained a lot of different ideas but we're we don't have i can see that yes this might be an opportunity to jump into the q and a if you have any final thoughts though gentlemen i don't want to rush into it this is such a good conversation i let it go about 20 minutes or so past but it was just too hard to stop it because this has been a super high quality conversation but like i said before we go into the q and a q and a do you have any last points you want to mention yeah i do have one more um back to the wants if the they double down on a want or a will for an animal um if you say an animal as a will and you can determine that by what they do then you you have to accept that they can also um um consent right is if there is a system to determine a want you could actually set up a system to understand the communication of that want if that's the case if human if animals have wants and desires um there's a lot of uh consequences to that one being um you can't really stop them like in the fight uh scenario uh with the dogs right because you'd have to determine that they wanted to fight right or the bear wanted to kill the the deer or or let's say um you granted some level of consent to a chimpanzee like you know you'd have to go in and figure out why would it be wrong because if it was wrong based on they want something and and look how they react we ought we ought to honor their wants what if uh what if uh in your view right this isn't my view if your view uh from your observation the animal wanted to have sex with a human and the human was like all about it those are two wants right there right so clearly you're either gonna have to accept that scenario be based on wants or you're gonna have to reject them which in fact you're gonna have to reject wants as the basis of morality altogether so uh that's a big hurdle you're gonna have to uh you know get over and you didn't really hurdle that with the dog scenario you couldn't determine whether they wanted to fight or not then you said it was ridiculous that I wouldn't intervene with dogs but if I borrowed your worldview if they wanted to fight it would be wrong to intervene because they wanted to do so uh I would just say you know that are the peacemakers for they will be called children of god amen and I would just say that if you've never seen any footage of a slaughterhouse or a factory farm uh I would look at that and then ask yourself are these animals consenting to this and they consent yes or no can they consent because if you're saying it's wrong because they didn't consent you're assuming that they can so can an animal consent oh sure sure an animal if you own a pet you will know when they let you do things versus when they do not and all of this all of these factory farms these animals are not consenting okay all of this all of this flesh that people are eating today is taken from animals who do not consent to being killed so if they do consent to some behavior that's not the slaughterhouse is it okay because they consent uh like such as the sexual thing that you were talking about I don't know I know the debate was whether or not it's our moral duty to uh be vegan or eat animals and it is it is our moral duty to seek after that highest moral standard right and if and if the highest moral standard you're you're arguing now we ought not do the factory stuff because they didn't consent I'm asking you what's permissible now that they've consented they haven't consented no what would be permissible if they consent I guess it depends on what moral standard you've placed yourselves under like the words like the well no my according to my moral standard we shouldn't eat animals at all we shouldn't harm them or kill them Andy he's interrupting your closing statement I think you should get back to your closing statement and then I should be mine and or posh and vice versa is it closing statement I thought it was still just not really officially closing statements just any last points you guys want to rig up in the open dialogue yeah I'm saying based on your model Andy if consent is the reason why the animals ought not be slaughtered then um if if it if someone did consent to some sort of weird activity um you know I'm asking you where you draw that threshold and why if it if the consent is already there right saying what's permissible from your view if consent is there and what's not permissible well nothing's permissible because unless it was permissible by the creator knowing his will okay I don't even go there because it's not what he originally imagined okay so the thing is if you were to stop if you could stop a bear from eating without getting hurt uh from eating a deer um wouldn't you be violating their they didn't give consent to do that so why is that okay now I guess it'd be like when you're ministering to someone on the street who you see uh doing something that is unrighteous and you try to show them a better way it's as simple as that so you you think you can teach a bear a better way morally I know you can because I have seen it done uh and I know you haven't probably spent a lot of time uh looking at it as a researching but I have seen where animal behavior can change according to human interaction yeah like training them sure yeah so the difference would be can you change a bear's heart where they're like I really am a changed bear and I really I really thought about this and that deer I'm just gonna I'm a changed man and they get baptized somewhere like up you know down by the front all right you're making it into a joke so it is a joke this might be a good opportunity to jump into the q&a unless there were any last thoughts want to say folks if you're watching out there you've gotten a good sample of the ideas from our guests in this especially good discussion and I've got to say if you enjoyed one or several of the speakers they're linked in the description box below what are you waiting for you can even still hear them talk now during the q&a by opening up an additional tab and you can put their link in that tab right now and that way you'll remember to check them out right after and that includes if you're listening via the podcast as all of our debates end up on the podcast folks usually within about 24 hours of them being live you can also find our guest links there in the description box for the podcast episode so check those links out if you want to hear more from andy nathan made by jim bob or posh with that we're going to jump into the q&a i'm going to try to move fast because we have a pretty good amount of questions so this one from upside down guy says open two-part question number one is molesting an animal a bigger sin than killing it they don't say who it's for I guess we can do a right down the line I guess it'd be a matter of opinion but I know the bible does depict killing and sexual sins as two of the most immorally impure types of sins so I don't know I don't have a definite answer for that I just know they're both very morally wrong yeah I'll agree with that I don't know how one would qualify a molestation and I think it is a pointless endeavor to try and compare the two because on the one hand you can say the person even if it was about humans the person would still live but they live with the trauma is better to just end it and I as an orthodox christian we always say life would still give you more time to repent and more time to start living a christian life so but with animals I didn't see it that way right and I wouldn't see killing an animal um as immoral to begin with sort of begs the question whereas um what you would deem molestation in the way we kind of generally understand it right if we were to kind of be uh general and what we mean by that I think that's more so an act against yourself um there's a perversion of of uh sexuality that's peculiar to the humans that we don't apply the animals and whether you're doing it to an animal or another person is still the same act against yourself because it inverts and perverts um an activity between a man and a woman that's designed for a certain thing uh under a certain context um and through a certain lens you got it they have as I mentioned these follow-up questions number two is is molesting an animal immoral if you eat it right after according to jim bob it's not immoral to kill him so I mean if you can kill an animal you can pretty much just do whatever you want to an animal not immoral how ridiculous is that dude geez oh wait well again Nathan's expert conclusions that what he finds ridiculous or somehow call you know some sort of uh validation of an argument it's not um I just said uh it's an act against yourself is what we're actually looking at here now you didn't establish that killing an animal is immoral nor did you establish that it's immoral or is a vegan uh life a moral duty biblically which is the topic of the debate so I'm you know you finding it absurd isn't an argument that's what vegans always do it's it's absurd it's insane it's absurd I didn't establish that it's immoral to kill animals so you're gonna argue that it's immoral no it could be no it could be amoral it's your job it's your job to affirm and and argue that it's immoral someone could take an amoral approach you go nah I just I don't think it's a moral or moral it's just you know it's the way the world works bro let's say they weren't even in fiest you'd still have to convince those people it was immoral you didn't you can't because it's it's it's incoherent you don't have a standard right and I have a feeling that this question will go to factory farming and the types of things people do for reproductive purposes but even if that is not the case the whole problem of having some type of sexual interaction with an animal is an abomination before the Lord has been and continues to be the point is if people are going to say factory farming is the problem they're not critiquing eating meat they're critiquing factory farming so by that logic if we can eliminate factory farming and your best buds with your cow now you can you can eat that cow without any problem and therefore veganism isn't the problem the problem is excessive consumption of meat that leads to these conditions everything that's wrong with factory farming is also wrong with killing and eating your best friend cow just so you know once again what is wrong we don't know this might be you don't know their third part is is it okay if I don't kill a cow but I eat its mountain oysters or in other words it's testicles a cow with testicles we have a transgender cow goodness gracious that cow needs to be saved it needs Jesus right we we need some type of intervention but no the entire point is should you beat you know a cow to death with a with a stick you know just until it dies no it's the point isn't to torture it it isn't a point of pleasure and indeed if you engage in torturous behavior for the self of self-satisfaction that is going to be the problem so if you start eating an animal alive which a lot of animals do and should go to jail for it you try to do it in a quick way and to the best of your abilities end it quickly it sounds like you know it's wrong it's why you're trying to justify it by oh I do it quickly if murdering an animal is good take all year to do it bud how do you define murder you talked about killing a cow by giving it Bill Cosby is is killing murder is killing murder they are the same thing yeah it's murder the exact same thing if you're gonna try and say they're not you're good so why don't so why don't bears go to jail what if I commit cow slaughter not cow murder Jim we don't send any animals to prison right murder is a legal term killing not all kill is self-defense and killing someone who's going to kill you murder that's thank you thank you yeah thank you not killing the animal to eat them and self-defense Jim Bob it's so killing so killing is in murder got to move on the next one this one they say if I neuter my dog for Bob Barker can I eat the leftovers that is an epic point are there any serious questions that can be seen as a serious question should you be allowed to neuter your dog I would say no I don't think people should mess with or you know cut off any part of dogs right so maybe someone has a different opinion it's violent and violence is the reason God flooded the earth posh why didn't we circumcise the animals in the old in the old days we should come on let's come on circumcise the cows apparently they also said if I eat a cracker and pretend that it is flesh is this itself immoral so that's a critique of the Eucharist I assume specifically the western right when they use the wafer like host Christ literally commands he's to eat his body and drink his blood and at the last supper he institutes how this is to be done with the bread and wine so no it's not the same thing also going back to the dog but like we culturally have a problem with eating dogs I don't see a moral problem with it I just wouldn't do it the same I would assume would apply to people in who are vegans it's not like they would eat any edible vegetable or fruit it's a thing of preference in a culture but I mean it's not immoral to eat it I just don't know why you would you got it this one coming in from coffee mom says humans are also animals heart emoji thank you very much coffee mom good to see you again I don't know if any of you add anything on that otherwise I go to the next one lift I think it's racist you got it lifted and gifted says do trees have a quote unquote will to live if not why there's a trillion sense of the term will would say yes because the will is this expression of the nature so even a tree would have a will what we're talking about is free will and the will that Jim bother and I hold is something that exists only for humanity and we would not even if we said okay animals have wills they have animal wills they don't have human wills and to that extent you could fall back on the Aristotelian definition but you could not say that animals have the same type of will as humans do because animals are not made in the image of God you got it they still have they have a conscious mind though different than plants so another problem I see just keep separating the the conscious human mind the mind of an animal sentience from plants that's that's a big mistake in trying to understand it yeah I think of a tree had legs and it had eyes and could see you coming at it with an axe the tree would run similar to how the animals do because things want to live it's a natural order and things and things want holy crap things want to kill too therefore want is not a it's not a good enough term to appeal to because things want to do a lot of things the reason Bob I don't want to kill anything animals want to kill things this one you're not an animal this one coming in from appreciate it is Italian though try edge gaming says you guys need to discuss do animals have a conscience not do animals have feelings spoiler alert they don't therefore they were not made in God's image therefore we can eat them yeah and they check whether it says conscious or conscience someone in the chat said it's consciousness and I don't know if I was the same person but they didn't specify consciousness this is definitely double checking it it was conscience this is why I asked both of my opponents to to figure out and tell us how they determine the difference between conscious thoughtful experience in which qualitative analysis is being performed and and the will to want to do something is given by a value judgment of reality versus strict reactivity and they failed because that you can't you can't determine you know the the dog's wants from it's just reactivity and you can't assume the human concept of of qualitative analysis value judgments about the present past future where we ought to go I really want this for my life kind of kind of scenario you can't just assume animals have that because you project it into their little glassy eyeballs when they're staring at you begging for a vegan plate of dip a vegan dip that your dog actually doesn't like it's not something we imagine or pretend as present in animals it's something that is clearly and obviously clearly right yeah yeah that's begging the question this one coming in from do appreciate it someone actually responded to them Liam Henderson in the chat says triage gaming you're wrong so this is the person that sent the last super chat about conscience and they say they animals are capable of altruism I think they're saying that therefore they must have a conscience now that's a good they're also capable of all sorts of things like if you look at the way hyenas eat so they're they have a conscious conscience to the point that they can do unconscionable things so then therefore we should treat them we should be allowed to kill hyenas and presumably them because we got an excuse to kill them also altruism assumes that there's a universal concept among animals or even a group of animals of the good right this concept so these are transcendentals these are humans have access to transcendentals we can debate we have you know communication we can know god so no whatever you're calling altruism is probably just watching behavior and transposing our value assessment of our behavior and so and going oh that looks similar they must have altruism no these are these are metaphysical concepts these are value judgments about strict physicality in motion and so we're the ones doing that we're we're overlaying these concepts onto reality and accessing them and debating them you got it this one coming in from do appreciate it nick says research is indicating that a vegan diet is contraindicated i don't know if i'm saying that word right contraindicated for humans contraindicated so it's indicates in the opposite direction contraindicated thank you very much for that they say why would god make us eat a diet that starves us of nutrients leading to brittle bones more strokes and more mental illness now that's big in the question falcy you're assuming that a meat-based diet is a healthier diet but uh that would contradict the daniel one fast in scripture where daniels men uh were not eating the king's diet and they were stronger after 10 days then all this is one of the things i expected to come up it assumes hold on real quick posh and then you can talk it assumes that uh animals are these little nutrient packets that that we can't get from earth and animals just the middleman a sentient middleman when you could go straight to the source what the animals eat plants this one coming in from okay just a moment to address the daniel thing very quickly the whole point is that daniel and his buddies they were now in nebuchadnezzar's court because that's what you do you conquer an empire start bringing in educated people and daniel was literate which was a huge thing back then into the court of nebuchadnezzar and the nebuchadnezzar says that they can eat the meat that i eat and the meat that he eats is the meat he sacrifices to his deities the problem is that it is meat sacrificed to idols which is to say to demons and this is also something st paul touches on a lot that is the reason they refuse the meat and of course god blesses them because it's a problem to refuse the king's offering because you're saying you're too good for what the king is offering and that is why god blesses them and in fact they also change people then to eating vegetarian a vegetable diet because god is providing for the people that there is also all sorts of verses where people bless where god blesses people with all sorts of supernatural abilities this is proof that these people do not engage in exegesis they just try to reinforce their own paradigm you guys are convinced that we need dead animals to be our healthiest form by just saying it's not a problem this one from brian w says posh i love your accent what is your derivation my derivation i'm not a native english speaker uh so it's just received pronunciation it's just academic that's that's why i sound so fancy because i didn't grow up with a particular accent so you can just engage it with academically and with all the languages i've learned i've always first gone for the pronunciation uh but but that's basically it for people who i take it as a compliment if people think i'm a native english speaker you've got it this one from upside down guy strikes again says do fruit trees or plans have a will to survive yeah we kind of covered that earlier yeah i think it's a natural order of things they want to live they don't things don't want to die that are living that's nonsensical it's insane this one for you nathan brian w says nathan yelling at your opposition isn't debating with that said the bible supports both is the correct answer what do you all think support yeah from my position you don't you don't really make the judgment on on just your diet because it's not about what goes in it's what comes out of your body and um from that perspective there's no real um moral obligation to for to establish bear jails intervene with nature in its ways and there's no obligation to not eat meat and uh and feed and live off the the land uh that we have both plant and animal right and if both are accepted it's not a duty you got it this one coming in i go back to the last question real quick i didn't get the answer do fruit trees have the will to live i just want to say that that's the difference between killing animals and eating the fruit that got designed when you go pick an apple off a tree it stays alive and there's life still in the fruit and you eat the fruit and there's life in that it gives you life but in order for uh to eat the animal there it requires death you have to kill it no i can cut out a section of the the hind part of the of the cow and keep it alive are you okay with that so is that what you do i eat i eat the cow alive bro no seriously do you keep the cow alive and just sliver that's that's not disgusting that's not no that's that's not an argument that's not an argument i'm using your own logic and and transposing it on to eating an animal you said it the apple doesn't die so it's fine if i kept an animal alive and just slowly you know cut some my favorite cuts from it but it kept it alive and gave it all the antibacterial and medicine you know back to you're actually proving my point i'm saying that's the point is that you have to kill i didn't kill it to eat animal what does kill mean to end the life of i i just did you not hear what i just said okay all right let's pretend in your fantasy world that people keep animals alive and sliver flesh off of it that piece of flesh is instantly dead the moment you you sliver it off there's no life in that piece of flesh so so now it's not about the life of the animal it's about the life of the flesh you're making it into that so so okay so you're making the apple also rocks you can't just make up a fantasy world and then base an argument no your logic is so garbage the apple rots too no it says the seeds you can also eat so you can eat the seeds yeah and then you put them out and then trees can grow it's it's a very productive design see that's the thing it's very productive and it's convenient whereas killing an animal is not convenient you're left with heaps of death and blood pools of blood for the bearish the bear it's convenient though and what if i just ate exclusively lizard tails they keep right yeah just just lizard tails i don't know is uh the he has a willfully ignorant it seems like i know you're making stupid arguments dude no i'm not the tree is alive you have to kill in order to eat an animal that was my point no you don't that's not a stupid no okay just give an example of that show me where you just gave you slice the cow up like a freaking deli slicer i said it's possible you guys don't know what internal critiques are we're using your logic jimbo that's possible but it's not reality nobody does it i could eat lizard story i could eat lizard tails and can you drink the milk of a cow can you drink the milk of a cow gravity of these meat heads that they're like what if i just lizard tail hold on hold on hold on i think posh asked the question a question that ends your entire position can you can you drink the milk of a cow uh baby milk or cow's milk is designed for baby cows that's not the question it's not killing it and you yes you can so you don't need to kill it of course argument over on the other of a cow but it's not natural that's how milky was that's a very performative way of saying the argument you just got you guys presented is now over no it's not i can i can give you my personal opinion and conviction that drinking a cow's milk does not kill the cow so in a sense it's not as morally uh morally incorrect but killing a cow is probably the most immoral and then drinking now here's the thing it's not a part of design like he said that cow's milk was made for the baby cow and i can't believe that people don't consider that they think that in this world we were put in that uh we were babies were only meant to be on their mother's milk for a year and then weaned them off to be put on the milk of another species for the remainder of their life and somehow that makes more sense well saying that doesn't make sense i think you're you're basically doing a naturalistic fallacy of uh you're basically saying that design right tells us but but again i just i just i just pointed out that if you're pointing to design and going well this goes against the design well bears are apparently designed to eat meat not originally not originally okay so if everything that we're experiencing now is not based on original design you can't point to anything you point to in the world that we should and shouldn't do is just an arbitrary position why not because all of why why can't i say why can't i say hey look i because nothing is by design why can't i acknowledge what the creator originally i'm telling you why and say that i want to live according to i'm telling you why it's arbitrary because based on your logic nothing is by design in this fallen world and chicken lay eggs and not all of them are fertilized so apparently unfertilized eggs do you just crack them and you know leave them be i mean it doesn't kill the chicken the chicken will produce it fertilized or not you guys are using a fallen world for all of your arguments and that's the point don't think of the fallen world think of the perfect world that's satanic well i think god's will is satanic no no no especially when he commands sacrifice but but uh i think your your interpretation of what the perfect world is is through your fallen mind right so your interpretation okay by all means eat blood eat flesh it's not a response i'm not here i'm not trying to convince you that you need to do that i'm just telling you why it's morally it's a higher standard than your lower standards that's all from your fallen logic yeah fallen no no no no you're it's backwards your logic is according to the fallen world your logic so you're not you're not falling you should have opened with that i hate to do this we just have so many questions i want to move thank you very much for your question enslaved by truth says some animals convert plants into nutrients bigs turn all sorts of things into bacon that is correct this one also from enslaved by truth says saman choose to die in order to reproduce it's their will they want it gosh yeah they're sort of simpsons this one from atw says vegans let me they're saying this this is what vegans say quote unquote let me rewrite the bible and explain why it agrees with me vegans this is true is that what you say gem bob and posh agreed it starts and ends with no death so we don't need to rewrite anything they are obsessed with violence and cruelty towards animals it also says god established a church and i'm part of that church and you're not so you know you're denying the will of god this one coming in from do appreciate your question and also want to i think this is maybe for this could be for you andy let me know the way that you guys might see another context that applies or it might be for you nathan as well they say how does not killing not also apply to plants i think they're saying because of the idea of the commandment of thou shall not kill i think someone earlier maybe said something to the effect of like exactly like it doesn't say humans in particular like it's just a broad commandment of don't kill i think they're saying so like how does it if it also applies to animals how does it also not apply to plants yeah this is what's so funny with the meathead they have to say that you can't kill animals but then they ask us why we're okay with killing plants this this is the problem with beet heads um you know you dig a carrot or a beat or a potato out of the ground you're literally killing the plant that you can use the rest for if you let it also stealing it stealing it from an animal too posh you're stealing that carrot from a yes there's a very penitent you're not moal you're not ending someone's soul you're not taking the breath of life someone do you know a someone do you know a cow someone yeah hey do you count do pets have names they have a personal identity if yes yeah or someone if you okay okay if you if you went to a farm and not even interested in like no no no no we're looking at hold on hold on hold on let me just ask you in natural language if you went to a farm and pet a cow already worth is over another i need a lot of questions they can't hear they can't hear your i'm asking would you tell someone that you that like someone at a coffee shop that you met someone today and would they would you expect them to uh know that you're talking about an animal like a cow or someone a personhood you're basically saying animals have personhood do animals have personal identity personalities and it's something you've never been around an animal in your life if you don't do animals have personhood jim bob have you ever been around an animal what do you mean by personhood do they have human identity no they have animal identity so if you're defining a person as a human then no they are not a person i mean we can play games like this if you want hey i want to address this person who said andi is suffering from the vegan diet let me tell you something real quick absolutely about 12 years ago i was diagnosed with an incurable disease that i've been on pills on forever and only until i went vegan and got all of that animal dna out of my body was i able to remove all of those pharmacias from my life and i and i don't even have any symptoms anymore guys there's there's the plant-based diet is the way to go no okay okay sorry sorry but that is no i'm addressing if you have a problem if you have a health problem and a vegan diet is suitable for you i'm not going to go there and call your cock or something no but would you like to talk to Tristan Haggard who had a problem digesting all types of vegetables and had inflammatory reactions to them and when he switched to fully carnivorous diet then he's his problems were solved is he not a counter example um well you can look at all of these fad diets and keto and all that crap that make your body operate unnaturally not according to the way it was designed you can lose a few pounds and do things but it's not good for your cholesterol it's not good had inflammatory reactions meat causes inflammation not plants but depending on the person uh anatomically we are all the same all of us have flat teeth we have long intestines we don't have claws why aren't we all allergic to bees why aren't we all allergic to bees then if that's your argument why aren't we all allergic to bees human anatomy has nothing to do with allergies einstein yeah we're not talking about anatomy we're talking about talking about well then you're not talking about the conversation that's happening which is counter example you're like you need b12 now that's gaslighting this one's coming in from do appreciate it mo bash says stop asking if animals are as conscious as humans we don't want to grant them the right to vote or to drive cars they are just sentient enough to be granted the right to live and not be tortured why i don't what's the threshold because they why not give them enough to hold them responsible for their actions like i i didn't have the dog my brother had the dog i i'm not a fan of dogs animals don't have duties right the the demons but uh but uh that dog had a litter of eight pups and kept abandoning one of them even though my brother kept moving it back to the the dog would consciously uh make the decision to move seven of them and leave that one out and it died this one coming in from unless anybody else had anything i just wanted to add into that question is that when we're talking about there we heard a lot of why would god make animals just to die for us etc and be used like this and all the suffering is terrible um well why would god make a bunch of animals that couldn't fulfill their moral duties right right why why would the duties suddenly disappear but our application of our moral uh um evaluation should be transposed onto animals but they don't even have the same duties they don't have any duties actually there's no there's no they have a lot of duties they have a lot of duty but they don't have any uh duty they can't reciprocate any of it so um they don't care about if you die they don't care they don't care at all this one coming in from do appreciate it nix says if yashua gave men extension to kill must all men live in the purest form if they kill do they go to hell that's not for us i assume because oh i don't think i i don't think anybody goes to hell just for killing an animal if that's what you think why well i don't believe in the concept of hell as it's popularly understood in mainstream christianity first of all but as far as a penalty i think we'll be judged according to all that we do uh our decisions for killing will be a part of that so there are repercussions either way i'm not saying a person's going to be uh eternally tortured in fire forever if that's what the person was asking then no this one coming in from do appreciate your question mo bash says either bears stop or i won't either all humans a human rapists stop or i won't great logic let's take our morals from the jungle why don't we that is basically the vegan position no it's not no not even close no because they assumed they assumed animal behavior equal to human behavior that's not our pre-subposition it's yours is there a single vegan who understands the concept of internal critique no they don't they don't if i call you upon your worldview and how it justifies actions and reality within itself that is how do you think i i don't adopt your worldview that's why i mentioned you have a christian i don't i don't pray towards mecca because that's what muslims do that's not what christians do so if i ask them why do you pray towards mecca they say well why don't you pray towards mecca this one coming in from do appreciate it upside down guy says my hamster ham frank is jewish ham frank is in the attic furiously writing in his diary that jim bob is conspiring to kill him for no reason that might be a very very small circumcision knife that's a lot of layers this one from trope says nathan can you inform us on what you feed your hostage animal with canines are known for wanting and needing to eat meat do you abide by its wants this is geos dog food it is 100 percent plant power because dogs are omnivores similar to bears which jim bob is obsessed with that's why it comes move the question was for me posh and i'd appreciate it upside down jim bob the question was for me i'd appreciate if you let me finish so yeah dogs can eat dead animals raw unlike humans which have they have to cook it no we don't they don't that's not true the question was for me jim bob if you're lying though do we have to mute you go ahead and finish and then we'll go to jim bob if he has a response yeah humans are told that they're omnivores but anyone with two eyeballs can see anatomically we are not analogous to bears and dogs at all so why are you discriminating against blind people i guess the question was for posh take it away posh what percent of the world is vegan isn't this peanut gallery over here andy you said you said clearly you said clearly humans aren't supposed to eat meat they're just supposed to eat plants but clearly if i use the same clearly argument what percent of the world is vegan so you're going by majority wins or popular no no it's not a moral it's not a moral position you guys still don't understand internal critique still don't talk to them they're trolling go on one from pimm eras says great debate good back and forth comedic gold nick says if the vegan thanks for your support pimm all credit to the speakers who are linked in the description if you haven't yet clicked on their links folks you can find andy's nathan's made by jim bob's and posh's links below this one from nick says if the vegan diet is starving people of nutrients could vegans resemble peter should they be allowed to eat since they start they are starving nutritionally it's a myth that people are starving nutritionally being now there was a year where the only olympic weightlifter for the united states was a vegan the world's strongest man with all the world records uh is a vegan i highly recommend you check out a movie called game changers the the long distance marathon runner vegan the oldest lady to medal in the olympics for cycling vegan and she says she should have she should have done it sooner so and we hear that from a lot of people i've been vegan for seven years i know countless people lost 30 pounds their first month going vegan they got rid all the varicose veins in their legs after 30 days of being vegan um and they were 60 years old and thought they would have this problem the rest of their life so it's actually a very healing diet it's not detrimental to our health but that's another topic for another day you could just eat chips and crisps and be vegan so it would also you could also eat a lot of rubbish and and be carnivorous so it's not that there is one vegan diet versus one uh uh carnivorous diet so of course if people ate all sorts of garbage uh but were carnivorous they would have health problems and they switched to a vegan diet that was healthier than the previous one they would not have this uh those problems anymore but at the same time i i don't doubt Andy had a very serious illness and that his switch for for diet uh really helped him i don't doubt that for a moment but i also gave the counter example of someone who had problems with plant-based sustenance and switching over to a carnivorous one and getting those results not to mention all the things with brain uh implementations that are solved with butter and and and all sorts of things so it's not a one size fits all i don't have a problem if people want to go vegan i don't have a problem with that but this is not the topic of the debate it's not is it acceptable to be a vegan it is is it a moral duty biblically this one coming in from do appreciate your question nick says if the vegan diet is starving people of nutrients could vegans we just did that one thanks for that georgia of porgy says nathan would you stop my cat from killing a bird yeah if i could i would try and end violence against other animals whenever possible just like i would try and stop violence against people whenever possible oh my god what a noble concept it's actually possible to do that right now why aren't you doing it bucko this one from oliver b pares says for the vegans if you were in a situation where feral animals attacked and killed a loved one and was coming after you next would you kill it while having the means of defending yourself so imagine you have some sort of firearm that could for sure bring down the animal yeah sure that's not the same thing is going through a drive-through and ordering mcdonald's from an antelope and stabbed in the neck yeah to be honest they're probably isn't a question wasn't for you possibly have a vegan sorry go ahead and i'm saying it there's no animals i know you're talking during our question i know we heard you it's just not your turn to talk go ahead and yeah i was going to say i mentioned this a little bit ago that according to yashua it is perfectly acceptable to kill an animal in self-defense so why not i have a question about self-defense if you're on an island and it's your christian and your view moral duty to not eat animals and you're about to die do you do you fulfill your moral duty and not killing the animal or do you eat it and justify living in why the audience is turned to ask questions jimbab so if you want to submit a super chat down below and ask us that go ahead but other than that andy he's trolling let's not talk to them anymore it's another unique and unlikely circumstance it'll never happen in our life but that those are the questions he loves the most here's something that'll never happen starvation doesn't starvation doesn't happening what are you talking about no you asked me if i was stranded on a desert island and all this crap you think of the most unique and unlikely circumstances to put us in to try and trap us and i'm just saying that's silly you need to quit we can go on with the next question in the chat though this one coming in from do appreciate your question coffee breath says can i eat jellyfish which don't have a brain bacteria avoid predation by swimming faster is this a will where is the line between raw macanation and a will dude wants to go with can they eat a jellyfish because it has no brain i don't know the anatomy of a jellyfish i thought it was an animal maybe i'm wrong i thought it was an animal but if that's something i need to look into i will would bug you answer worms i don't do bugs either worms just out of curiosity i'm not trying to grill you worm you know i don't need worms i know people who eat meat have worms all right fair enough good job they said bacteria avoid predate predators by swimming faster is this a will and i think when they see raw macanation i think like macanation not like uh like scheming but macanation or i think maybe they mean like machine likeness because the bacteria propel themselves away is that is that a is that a will that the bacteria has if it's propelling itself away from the predators let's go to a more serious question that is a very serious question that's the foundation of your argument dude because it's not about bacteria yeah why that is what what he is asking he's asking why if it tries to escape so he wants to live yep silence are you you're equating the bacteria taking the bait dude you're taking the bacterial bait there you're not taking the debate it literally tries to escape meaning it's alive it wants to preserve itself why did god make bacteria with a will to for self-preservation he doesn't address bacteria in the bible he addresses animals and humans so i can speak on their behalf no no no okay um but but then you would have the same problem like if it doesn't which one is it like with the jellyfish it doesn't have the breath of life i can't i don't i don't know i need to maybe i need to study the anatomy of a bacteria but like i said it's it's not an animal what about a crab a crab is an animal so it has a will to live and you ought not kill it because it really wants to live sure what about an oyster uh yeah i i view oysters the same way we can get into some gray areas where you can try to trap us and i might have personal opinions and nothing biblical we can do that if you want but uh i think you have to take each and every case individually when you're starting to get into uh maybe it's not an animal type crap would you which technically we can't get into that because this is the question and answer portion from the audience we were we already talked to you guys when i don't know why stealing time from the audience stealing time from super chats is important questions i want to because andy would you agree that controlling it would be interesting to determine where that line becomes less blurry right where some people use the term sentience right we we always ask well if a like is it a crab is it before the crab and then if if there is an assumption of where that line is what we constantly ask really is is how did you determine the line not what what you think the line is but how did you actually delineate that line of uh smudge reactivity to sort of sentient thoughtful desires of a being or in your case a being or a or a an animal and i don't i think you admit that it's blurry you think it's there but you're not really sure where it is i i think i mean it would be neat to know like uh like because even when you look at plants under microscopes you see these organisms but do they have a central nervous system and are they thinking type of stuff i don't know i know what's obvious what the creator talked about in genesis one plants and animals and humans that they're you know so i can't speak on uh plant cells or bacteria sorry if i i can't appease your your question on that reason it's a reasonable question i don't need you to but it's i think it's an important question for when we make moral claims about trying to say it's not it's not a legitimate question it's not important i think it's the root of your entire argument well it's not an animal yeah and determining what is an animal what's not is the blurry part so it's essential to your argument i think you're the only one confused on what's an animal here jimbab you guys think plants are animals so our oysters okay our oysters animals all right next question james thank you thank you well i'm sure it'll come back up posh because it's an interesting uh i i get i'm interested in like where the lines are drawn kingdom of context says all of scripture has to be rewritten for veganism to be biblical from genesis to ezekiel's millennial temple animals are used for covenant meals prepared to the almighty by his priests well this guy also teaches that jesus is now killing animals in heaven either i don't know do a tone for your sins or because he's a glorified chef so uh he takes the context out of context the worst more than anybody i've seen so it's hard to take any of his questions seriously he can't really get past square one so i don't know i don't i don't have an answer i don't care to answer that this one from and say by truth says 613 commandments by god in the old testament but nothing on veganism those are some hard-working corrupt leabytes do not kill i mean did you guys forget kill what kill what a tree according to you you want to bill cosby a cow no you said don't kill so why not a tree why not a broccoli you know why not why kill that it's life right so you have an established what it actually means to kill right or not to kill something do you kill a plant when you harvest it and there's no more roots yes there's thou shall not kill broadly undefined right moving on this one from tristan haigard thanks for your question says is andy a hebrou roots guy what tradition is he coming from so i was raised in a christian home i've been a part of the hebrou roots community for a few years i came out of that just because the theology was so messed up and um so i i definitely that's that's what my book is directed towards the hebrou roots community they think god that you have to kill a lamb on Passover to be saved to be in covenant with him so uh yeah hebrou roots is kind of a sore spot with me just because you are dealing with so many hard headed people who subscribe more to popular ideology and that's where people get a lot of the uh the the context a lot of the bad context they are sort of ice agitating animal sacrifice into uh genesis chapter one because they use the law of moses to say that that's how you have to interpret genesis chapter one uh so i wouldn't get into it but yes for a few years it was a part of me or i was i was into it but um i don't really lean more towards hebrou roots uh or christian one way or another but i'm i'm definitely a believer in Yeshua and uh that our creator designed us to eat plants you got it this one coming in from do appreciate it theo megawarty says question and this is serious they say to the vegans can you read on air and respond to first timothy four one through five yeah first timothy four is about uh people being commanded not to marry and to abstain from certain foods the word there might be translated meats but it actually means food or substances that are eaten did you read that like like meat i'll read it for you they say now the spirit expressly says this is in the esv by the way now the spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons through the insincerity of liars whose consciences consciences are seared who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that god created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth for everything created by god is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving for it is made holy by the word of god in prayer yeah the problem is that people read that and they think animals are food so when they walk into that text they're thinking of animals when it just talks about food our animals food can animals no they're not humans have made them into food so i can eat an animal and as food but it's not food you have made it into food you're creators so it's food so it's food so it is food you could eat a sock jimbab that doesn't mean a sock is food actually you know no no it wouldn't but it's not good no it wouldn't for you jimbab it wouldn't it wasn't for you but it's food so you're going to talk putting your sock in it is about not eating it but having it stay there and having problems talking so you're contradicting yourself thanks i was very confused about that that's a definition of a problem that's a definition of you're confused about a lot of things uh this one coming in this one coming in from the omega word he strikes again says god gave us rules about eating animals as well as permissions to eat animals in the scripture directly therefore the vegans opinions are irrelevant allowed to it's not a requirement doesn't mean that it's optimal either so you might want to do a little research into that again we're we're allowed to uh polygamy is not against the law we're allowed to have yes it is we were oh was it because it was it says you shall not you shall not marry women sister to sister i can use uh i can use other examples but uh there are plenty of things like slavery like Nathan was talking about in the beginning where they they were allowed to do things that was never god's will it was not according to design and that's why you know uh yes you are he came correct in people he said yeah you're allowed to get divorced things like that but according to creation that the messiah always pointed back to creation and he even did that when he was talking about flesh eating he pointed to creation to show his viewers his ears that what what the diet was supposed to be this one coming in from do you appreciate it the omega word he strikes again says read romans 14 they also say chilean cat actually says everything that lives and moves about will be food for you just as i gave you the green plants i now give you everything genesis nine three yeah but that's based on the definition of food which is eating stuff for nutrients yeah enjoy your snakes and spiders bro since i'll eat them then whoever keeps using i i got i want to say something whoever keeps using genesis nine three can you just go ahead and read the next verse uh that says don't eat the flesh or the blood and then keep reading because god makes a covenant with all the animals that's huge guys a covenant with the animals what do you think the covenant was just to eat them here i'm making a covenant with you so that you can be eaten by the humans it just doesn't make sense this one coming in from do appreciate your question enslaved by truth we got that one the 40 year old vegan says all should for all should the u.s constitution include religion i don't even know what they mean by that i'm pretty sure it already does but yeah not the first amendment freedom of religion i think technically strictly speaking the amendments are distinct from the constitution so i don't know exactly what they mean by it um let me know in the chat i mean i i don't mean to i could be wrong about that nathan so maybe that's what they were saying but the omega word he says i could do this entire debate with only scripture then says i haven't heard a cogent statement since i joined oh my gosh they're really hammering you they i think they're talking to you they because they were targeting you earlier nathan and andy they're targeting you here we didn't make any cogent statements yet we got our opposition to agree the bible starts and ends vegan so obviously that was coherent enough for them to agree upon also starts without sex yep whoops whoopsie enslave anything it just whoopsie enslaved by truth's have you had anything i don't give you a chance otherwise uh it's not worth it you got it only a few more questions reading closely on these enslaved by truth and this might go back to the interesting question that posh had of technically it's not the exact same thing but it's in the ballpark of where where we draw the line posh's question being on oysters this one says eating apples stops trees from reproduction well the guy who stabs cows in neck pretends he cares about trees andy that fake laugh that is actually funny the guy is pretending to care about trees yet he has a position that we should stab animals in the neck no no no no that was not a real laugh but but to be honest only with a vegan diet can you have that poor of a fake laugh so i'll give you that as a necessary prerequisite that's the omega word he says i haven't oh we got that one they said i dedicate this debate to my next delicious steak and then says or enslaved by truth says laughing my butt off yeah vegan moby looks great what's moby moby's an artist moby uh debatable but maybe he means steak as an sdak e so he's eating a tree a pointy tree american musician andy you look like a famous popular musician i used to listen to moby a lot i loved him i never knew he was vegan i even had his animal rights album when i was young i just never cared about veganism so i was quite surprised to learn a few years ago that one of my favorite artists as a teenager was vegan okay this one from zen Shapiro says the vegans keep appealing to eden because it was perfect however adam and eve were naked before the fall should we replicate that as well veggie boys uh don't worry we mentioned heaven as well which is where we're all going and there will be no t-bone steaks or hamburgers or hot dogs in heaven there will be no death yeah no answer that was an answer that's the question should we go around naked because you didn't like the answer jim bob doesn't mean that it's your turn to ask a question okay it's a question to answer portion from the audience next question no answer what about failure disrespecting the audience i i got a kick out of let's see the oysters question though i do want to i do want to press you nathan if you have any other thoughts for zen's question comment before we go to the oyster because i just out of curiosity i'm not trying to take a side but because i it's not like it i just want to hear what your guys's thoughts are on some of those gray areas like uh shrimp might be another one but remember like roaches of the ocean oysters are the filters of the ocean if you put 20 oysters in a fish tank of dirty water you're going to have clean water the next day now you want to argue we should consume all that it's a literal pollution collector for the ocean and people are like oh let's eat it it's fancy no it's but you understand in the end times good will be treated as bad and bad will be treated as good so being a good steward of animals according to posh and according to jim bob with their antichrist spirit say stab the animal in the neck that's being a good steward go back and watch the debate they said that guys yes yes this in terms of zen's comment or question is should we replicate this are you in new i wouldn't be surprised nathan are you a nudist like what are your thoughts on this namely that prior to the fall adam neve were naked what are your thoughts i like you know to be consistent is it uh i think they're saying like hey to be consistent what do you think about that like what's your justification for distinguishing why we draw the line on this case is there a good reason for why this is a where we would not go naked you know i haven't thought about that gotcha this one from the omega word he says the vegans haven't made one scriptural point to quote unquote yes they're coming he's coming at you this is Theo he's got he's got an appetite go ahead what have you got sounds like a blood thirsty appetite enslaved by truth let's see let's see it's laid by truth apparently not a fan of jim bob something about let's see he says i will let you guys sort that out georgia georgia of porgy says nathan will you stop a gecko from eating a cricket if i could try and stop violence against animals i would ladies and gentlemen just like if i saw violence happening against a human i would also try and step in and end that i mean i don't understand what is so difficult about this would you stop ducks from reproducing because they do it rather violently next question james duck lives yeah this one from coffee breath can i eat an urchin like a a sea a sea cucumber a sponge or a starfish these are all animals with no brain all more complex than a mosquito can i kill a mosquito and i guess you have to decide for yourself there's a lot of gray areas if i don't know you could look at at killing a mosquito with self defense because of what might be contained in their blood and you could easily justify that but when it comes to eating certain things uh i would pretty much just stay away from whatever you can whatever you can unless you know it's a plant that was meant to be consumed that's the best advice i can give you got it this one from enslaved by truth okay they were just teasing before so they okay i just in case there was like some sort of uh conflict i didn't want to bring it in here but they were the one that earlier i said enslaved by truth is apparently not a fan of jimbab because they said jimbab's mods timeout paid members is this some sort of meme or joke they say they say oh it's yeah okay they say actually i'm a huge fan of jimbab okay i just didn't want to in case there was a fan he's a fan but he doesn't like me that much but he's a fan but uh my mods are very uh either like you know you know ravenous watchdogs that's excellent they also said jimbab's mods ban jimbab supporters juicy well right nick says short colon long small intestines bile protein enzymes strong jaw teeth capable of masticating raw meat no fiber digestion in the appendix stomach acid 1.5 ph what anatomy makes us vegan again well you have flat teeth uh not canines like a lion or a bear i'm sure you have uh fingernails you don't have claws uh real carnivores consume the animal sometimes while it's alive raw from the tongue to the anus and until i see jimbab out in nature doing that i've even i've i've i've eaten uh of animals uh full intestines all the way to the the anus in a in an asian soup that's wonderful jimbab so don't spew lies about me why are you so racist against asians alive with your teeth in your hands i would eat an animal alive if i had to wait but but you have to there's no alternative to killing an animal it's not preferred that's the good thing we don't have to but yeah people still choose to have to have to for what andy we don't have to eat animals to survive you don't have to eat anything you're gonna just die why do you have to survive only eat animals because it's convenient it's a part of their religious paradigm uh it's what they've always known but you know the average person doesn't eat flesh because you don't you don't have to survive you don't have to be starving yeah but you don't have to do a lot of things you don't have to be alive so i don't see how that's an argument you don't have to this one coming in from do appreciate it samaria anna says andy slash nathan how did you get into serious debate platform without understanding the concept of an internal critique i snuck in with a fake id juicy this one from adult small bear says slavery is okay as long as it's a dumb dog not a person i don't look at geo as a slave i look at him as a companion companion that could go out in nature and get hit by cars or possibly start death trust me i think he has a much better life with me being my companion or even my slave than he would out there in houston texas where i found him all right andrew tate yay this one the 40 year old vegan clarified regarding the question of whether or not religion should be in the constitution they say i know it is already but where does the bible stand on it or god i don't think the the american constitution is based on the bible you got it and this one coming in from enslave by truth says i really like jim bob jim bob should relate to his fans why don't you guys get a room tell us juicy this one let's see oh i think there's one more other ones that came in earlier this one was from eric thanks for your question says ask made by jim bob quote unquote how we know that he has feelings and i think he's saying like hey at the very start of the debate there was discussion over animals whether or not they had feelings or a will or desires i would just communicate what we know the universal category the feeling is and then inside that category i would select a particular like angry mad or frustrated um or embarrassed for my opponents and i would convey that through language using the laws of logic perhaps a mathematical equation if someone could uncover the meaning or draw a picture and so i have a variety of ways i can convey what a feeling is that i have a feeling and i assume other people have feelings too such that they can actually isolate what i meant uh through the identity over time thank you but being embarrassed jim bob it's just a reaction to losing the debate jim bob we just reacting you can you didn't actually thank you for telling us how that feels but uh it's a reaction thank thank you for understanding the the question that's close to you that you didn't answer but also uh we would say as humans we know what the human mind is like we don't know what a dog like uh dog mind is like that is going to be a category difference there that is why we don't make claims on on dogs having the same attributes as humans but you know they have different bodies no we would say they have completely different minds and we have no scriptural basis for thinking otherwise you got it this one coming in from do appreciate it all right just see this the the omega wordy strikes again says the vegans position was that we have a biblical duty to not eat meat then they said in response to me that we are allowed to eat it thank you for debunking yourselves we are allowed to uh sure yeah i'll agree you you are allowed to do a lot of things our argument ladies and gentlemen maybe we have the wrong title for the debate is that it is morally superior it is more in line with the creator's intention and will for our lives to not stab animals in the neck he wants us to be good stewards now if i gave my child to my brother-in-law to watch or babysit for the weekend and he said i stabbed him in the neck because that was being a good steward that's what jim bob and posh think is being a good steward that would be ridiculous but you do it with animals and people are like oh bravo that's so smart yes we have an obligation to stab animals in the neck brilliant good exactly we don't do it with humans we do it with animals no thank you let me stop you now some people do do it with humans too just by the way here's the people you do it with some animals but not others people know that it's immoral and inhumane when it comes to like dogs and cats but when they do it to animals that they consider food that's not true it's perfectly acceptable that's that's not true the koreans would have a word with you yeah these guys don't even think it's wrong to molest an animal no that's no internal critique internal critique this one coming in from broken record broken record you guys certainly have chemistry this one coming in from pk says andy what is the population of vegans nathan can you please stop pissing and complaining and relax might help your position a little thank you i am relaxed this is me very relaxed coffee is vegan i suppose so is math at a roll will you say it's not i okay we'll give you a chance to georgia pedagogy says hey nathan would you stop a mama bird from feeding its birdlings live worms no no i wouldn't do that juicy this one from adult small bear says dookie doggie slaves doggie slaves film them for money he is he has a very eccentric sense of humor it's probably a reference we're all missing you got it and then jan thanks for your question have you or do you consume yeast as the bible gives more prohibitions and more explicit ones on that or do you choose what to follow high and thanks well the bible talks about how christians are on a narrowing path a lot of people will misconstrue it or say that it's a narrow path it's actually a narrowing path so the day you become a christian you don't know everything about being a christian you have to learn it so the path is narrowing it becomes wide is the way that leads to destruction like babelon and everything they're doing killing animals uh and narrow is the way that leads to heaven you got it this one from demassing the movers says andy would make a great orthodox monk monks have vegetarian diets not out of compassion for animals but rather for self-denial desiring to emulate the edinic state orthodoxy affirms a hierarchy well maybe not orthodox i'm anything but orthodox but okay i'll go with it just to be clear orthodox monastics are not allowed to eat meat but they do eat dairies the person did say vegetarian but they will see fish so this that's not exactly how it works but the reason again is self-denial and like a lot of things that are mentioned in the bible it has historical context so the reason they don't eat meat is because meat is a luxury historically speaking fish is poor people food that's why you are denying luxury that is part of discipline and in english you have a pretty interesting etymological vestige of this where a lot of your name for the animal is not french but the meat of the animal is french like with pig and pork and cow and beef because the french after the norman invasion the aristocracy was french and spoke french at least if you want to go with the home oh no the nordic etc but at the same but they did speak french and that is a vestige of that time but it's about luxury not about oh it's bad to eat animals because then you wouldn't be allowed to eat fish like jesus did you got it this one coming in from do appreciate it the omega word he says i won this debate best 32 dollars i spent in a while thanks to that and mo bash says since meat eaters keep asking about the quote unquote threshold why is it wrong to torture animals to death if it's okay to kill them it is because the torturing is just powerless and we believe it is demonic to engage things such as that there is no point to it other than just causing suffering if you kill for food that's completely different from torturing to death because there is no point to it right and i would actually add to that that as a human being you would be some place in spirit right and with intent to do that right it wouldn't be like i'm hunting and you have compassion for life and you and you take it and it feeds your family and such this is not like a vicious like looking at the animal with hatred right you're not it's not a hatred of creation or anything like that whereas a torture well essentially would be an act against yourself first right you would be already acting against yourself before you you enact something it's a spiritual it's a spiritual not a legal problem right right you got it trope says nathan stated his dog is an omnivore why does he only feed it plants as if it were a herbivore is he denying an animal's wants and needs omnivore means it can eat dead animals does not mean it is required to eat animals that would be a carnivore so if i had something like a lion in my garage and i only fed him plants you could argue yes that goes against his will or or actually what he's designed to eat but sorry but not the same as a dog mo bash says to the meat eaters in the debate picking on andy they don't exactly look like like they uh they lift a much that's gordo did you guys i don't remember you guys ever making fun of andy yeah they made fun of him and they made fun of me i heard it wait i don't remember that i remember you calling people it was a super chat but we didn't i remember you calling people meat heads Nathan but i don't remember them making fun of andy yeah meathead has nothing to do with someone's appearance it's more like their philosophy of being okay with eating and killing and being violent towards sentient defenseless innocent animals you mean a coherent philosophy juicy i'm sorry i have to go to the bathroom quickly i'll be right back no problem yeah this i'm from the slave by truth says jim bob's mods timeout paid members weak in all caps i already sorted it out you got it and then i think there's maybe one more we got jans i think we're actually all caught up let me check this list over here want to say folks let me give a hard if you have not already opened up a new tab let me give a hard plug for our guests seriously really do appreciate them they all have their own links in the description box and certainly you've enjoyed this because for real i can tell the engagement tonight thanks for all of your likes appreciate that i can see so many people are watching right now you guys must have enjoyed it so it's certainly because of the debaters so click on at least your favorite debater click on their link check out their stuff but i encourage you to check out more than one and even i know this sounds crazy out there folks because i know that sometimes it gets fiery but even consider checking out the debaters that you disagreed with in addition because hey i mean you at least get to hear the other side that's important being able to give a charitable strong strong representation by truly understanding the other side that's important in terms of intellectual growth and maturity so highly encourage you to do that that includes at the podcast as i mentioned any last points though from you guys before we do wrap up much respect to the opposing side you guys did you know great job defending your stance and andy i think you did a great job too as well and congratulations on 100 000 self-chance thanks uh yeah thanks uh yeah thanks for the debate thanks andy thanks nathan um and always good to see you nathan over on my channel in the chat and stuff um yeah i would i would just add especially to andy um to explore uh or maybe maybe rewatch because this comes up more and more in these vegan debates the distinction of how do you determine reactivity to thoughtful mindful experiences with animals but that also assumes we've established where animals start and and which you've you've uh conceded that that can be blurry too and i think that's a it is an essential part of arguing not eating animals because you have to determine what an animal is and then you have to determine um what is it about an animal that's similar or like a human that we we honor it the same way and so that's an invitation you got it and with that last housekeeping stuff like i said guess our link to the description if you haven't yet hit that subscribe button as you can see at the bottom right we're excited for this upcoming debate daniel gigi2 and mike jones from inspiring philosophy will collide you don't want to miss debates like those so do hit that subscribe button and with that one last thank you it's been a true pleasure andy nathan made by jim bob and posh thanks for being with us tonight i'll be back in a moment folks so stick around for that post credit scene and i'll let you know about other upcoming debates be back in just a second ladies and gentlemen want to say thanks so much for being with us tonight hope you enjoyed that that was an amazing debate for real that was so good i loved that it was deep it was very insightful like cover a range of interesting topics that was awesome so want to say huge thanks to our guests seriously they are the lifeblood of this show they make this awesome we love modern day debate but we've got to give credit where it's due i mean the debaters are the lifeblood of the channel there's no doubt about it and want to say thanks for all of your support out there as well as the omega word he says so nathan's position is i can't i don't want to read it without nathan here to defend himself but i appreciate your super chat theo as well as that last one i think i missed one also from uh thanks for your last super chat enslaved by truth playfully uh jabbing uh made by jim bob so we appreciate you folks i gotta tell you some of the reasons we appreciate you because they're for real like it really does mean a lot there's so many ways that you guys help this channel and we are excited uh it is a it's a really cool thing that we're we're thankful not because we're all about numbers like it's not like oh wow big numbers it's not like that that would be cringe instead we are nonetheless unabashedly proudly happy to say yes we do want to grow on youtube not because we care about numbers or something like but because we care about providing a neutral platform where everybody can make their case on a level playing field that's important to us we believe that youtube and don't get me wrong there are other debate channels out there and i will say i gotta give them credit where it's due if they do a great job moderating fairly wish there are some out there and i'm like hey great that's good there are at the same time some channels out there that the moderators you know clearly take sides and they jump into the debate and it's like how is this very meaningful if your side is more persuasive it's almost as if the refs in a football game if the refs were clearly favoring a team and let's say he was even found out like in rare cases it's really rare but in rare cases where like sometimes this may be found out that the refs actually were legitimately like biased in favor of a team is that if you found that out it's like uh this doesn't seem like an actual kind of win in terms of persuasiveness in terms of your side if the moderators jumping into the debate no no no no no youtube deserves a better class of debate channel and we're going to give it to him we are very thrilled and excited and thankful you guys you have helped us get to this point of 90 000 subscribers just a couple of days ago we hit that milestone and it's amazing because it's seriously i'm not i'm not blowing smoke up your butts hear me out we have on this channel each month 2300 shares on average in other words you see that share button below the screen here on youtube that button gets clicked 2300 times and presumably is shared you know maybe somebody clicks it and then forgets to actually share it or something like that but probably the vast majority of time like people actually share it so let's say 2000 or so times per month thousands per month that helps us grow immensely so i want to encourage you if you haven't and you let's say you know of a person or group or a facebook page or a group online whatever it is that likes this topic or debates on this topic or debates period hey consider it maybe you don't share this debate with them as that really does help us grow a ton seriously it really it's just the old-fashioned word of mouth just recommendations by people say hey this is a cool channel like this is like they try to give everybody a fair shot they want everybody to feel welcome which is true we hope you feel welcome whether you're vegan non-vegan you name it one of the many creatures that many strange creatures in between we're glad that you were here and i've got to tell you though it really makes a difference because you might be like james like come on like it's not you know it doesn't really make that much of a difference you're just saying that no no i'm not just saying that in fact if you take 2300 and you divide it up by 30 days that's about 79.6 shares per day per day that's three per hour which means we've been doing this debate for about three hours so in other words during this debate not counting this debate this or it might it might actually include but during this debate alone this channel modern day debate or one of its debates has been shared nine times at least in fact it's actually using standard rounding rules would be 10 times just during this debate that helps a ton because for me if i go out and share it places people say well like yeah james like you you're like spamming us with the the site that you created but if you're sharing with somebody and you're like hey like i i actually like legitimately enjoy this i just found it i'm not like a person that like started or anything that really means a lot where it's got a lot of credibility but like i said if i do it they're like james look of course you'd say it's great you're the one that started the channel so i want to say we do appreciate all of your support though and that really does like that's a really practical example of how for real you guys have gotten us where we are and we just appreciate all of your support snap trap says i just shared it right now to my discord channel thanks snap trap seriously that really does mean a lot so it really does is the old fashioned word of mouth it works it really does size one half says 90 000 rocks gonna hit that 100 000 soon thanks bob appreciate that support we're excited about that we have got big plans for the future we are always snap trap says i might want to jump into the debate ring snap trap i'm at modern day debate at gmail.com so that's no spaces no hyphens just modern day debate the name of the channel so if you ever forget you can just look at the channel at gmail.com and i've got to tell you my dear friends we are constantly refining and trying to see how we can improve this channel as we believe it has so much potential we are just getting started this is only the beginning of our story my dear friends we believe that there are going to be big things happening here we have strived to grow in terms of what we put out in terms of content namely finding topics that people find more engaging we have strived to grow in the sense that we've upped our audio quality so for example the blue yeti here we have strived to grow in terms of how well we you could say structure organize the debate so that it's like okay that format seems to work well and you know if things go off the rails then we usually say hey let's break it into two-minute segments that's kind of like our standard convention now we are going to continue to do that kind of adaptation that kind of refining or training or pursuit of excellence so that we continue to grow as a channel because we want to put out the best channel possible thanks for your membership support i appreciate that mina welcome to extra juicy thanks mina seriously your your support means more than you know seriously we're excited about the future there are a lot of big things happening in fact at the bottom right of your screen that debate between daniel haki kachu are one of the stronger muslim debaters i think that there are today in the english-speaking world that i'm aware of and mike jones one of the strongest debaters from the christian side that i'm aware of they will be colliding not just on modern day debate but at our main flagship conference debate con it's going to be huge folks that's coming up this april we're virtually certain that it's going to be april probably the 22nd so we're excited about that we've got a lot of big stuff coming up jesus is king thanks for coming by hope you're doing well all over davis i see you there in the old live chat and ova niece might am i pronouncing it right let me know hope you're doing well we're glad you're here crashes crashes thanks for coming by glad that you were with us troll good to see you in the live chat thanks for being with us as well truth is criminal glad that you made it nick garn arrow am i saying it right let me know glad you're with us mo bash good to see you as well as the 40 year old vegan glad to have you back carinthians 322 things are coming by says great show stay healthy thanks for that we appreciate that and bows nose glad you came by appreciate that as well as living room speaker is good to see you again a regular here leon henderson good to see you as well as k truther glad that you're with us as well my dear friends we're excited we want to say thanks for all your support i'm going to go in just a minute because i got to get to bed at an earlier time from now on because last night i got to sleep pretty late i've got to i've got to get into a better routine snap trap says amy consideration for a transhumanism debate that's a possibility that may work i got to see if amy would be interested but i can certainly ask and we can go from there so shoot me an email and then toto lino good to see you thanks for coming by says you've got a lucky tattoo james may bring you millions of subs thanks for that i appreciate that support thanks for your kind words timid vp southwick glad to have you here says we are glad to have you here my dear friend tsunami good to see you there in the old live chat thanks for being with us dj batman thanks for coming by glad that you were with us but yeah you guys i'm excited we're thankful for you guys you make this fun i love you guys i love doing this like this channel is so fun i wish i had more time to do this more often in terms of like putting more time toward it right now you could basically say i am extra burdened just because i have this doctorate once i'm done with this doctorate program which is less than a year lord willing that's the plan i'm going to have way more time to put in a modern day of eight which is really exciting so we are pumped about that let's see timid vp southwick says coward i don't know i think that's for me is it because i didn't read uh your your chat the reason the only reason is just because we're a non-partisan channel and so for me i try to if if it's somebody taking a position i try to not read it that's why i didn't even for example i didn't even read the super chat that was criticizing nathan because i was like well if nathan's not here to defend himself we try to have it where like the speakers are able to kind of defend their themselves or make their case or whatever it is so gross patate says don't forget me thanks for coming by gross patate we hope you're doing well shameless crawford christ lives and reigns in heaven glad that you came by we hope that you're doing well we'll want to say thanks you guys seriously thanks for your support we're excited about the future it means a lot appreciate it like you guys have been a flexible flexible crew as oftentimes we start late things like that we appreciate that you guys are kind of like you know not a big deal like i'm chill we appreciate you guys are a flexible fun crowd and you guys have supported us even though you've seen us you know a lot of you guys have been with us for a long time and you've been like oh man i think you know like clearly you know modern day debate made a mistake there or whatever it is but so many of you guys have been so gracious and merciful and you're just like hey you know what i'm sticking with them and thanks for sticking with us this whole time you remember like in our second year because now we're in like our fifth year i think isn't that crazy yeah i think this is our fifth year of doing it it's we've started our fifth year is in our second year i think it was it may be like our yeah it was actually mostly our first year but i think it even bled into the second year a little bit oh timothy p southwick says no i was talking to living room speakers okay gotcha i don't know what's going on between you guys but i gotta say in our second year we had the word we had audio problems that were so bad and like oh i feel so bad for the guests because like sometimes the guests would get through like half their opening statement and then it'd be like oh gosh i can't believe it i have to ask you can you do that again because we the audio wasn't working it was so embarrassing but we've made it past that we've learned a lot and so i want to say thank you guys for your support i love you guys seriously you guys make this fun thanks for sticking with us thanks for being loyal we appreciate you guys love you guys we'll see you at the next debate we've got it i told you i'd give you the upcoming baits so let me tell you what's coming up so if you haven't seen it on the home page for modern day debate on our youtube channel we have live debates coming up this week we in particular have on tuesday creation versus evolution that's just the classic topic we haven't had that in kind of a while it's been maybe a month but that's a fun topic and then then on thursday the topic of our men not appreciated or you could say our men ignored slash unappreciated that'll be on thursday so that'll be another juicy topic that'll be a good one and then on friday we have is christianity rational that's going to be a big one we're excited about that and then saturday so we have like a lot this week this is a four debate week we have flat we have flatter earth with i think if i're no no that's it's heliocentrism whether or not the sun or the earth is the center of the solar system so pretty juicy and piebald good to have you there we are glad that you were here it says did anyone mention acts 10 in this debate surprisingly no they didn't because i actually almost brought it up myself because i just thought i was like oh this would be interesting to hear people's thoughts on and uh but yeah so be the change says much love james thanks for that appreciate that nathan and living room speaker says thanks for another great debate always fun thanks so much for your your support your encouragement means more than you know and thanks for your kind words mina appreciate that says james is a good egg niki gives me the creeps to be honest who's niki like in live chat well you'll you'll learn to love you'll niki will grow on you if that's the niki you mean i'm trying to think are any of our moderators kaz kaz he's not a niki but posh or no no josh says amazing thanks for your support appreciate that josh it means a lot but yeah thanks for all of your guys's support all over davis glad to have you here thanks all my dear friends we love you guys you guys make this awesome i love you guys seriously it's fun we'll see you at those next debates as we like i said we have four coming up in the next week it's gonna be a lively one thanks everybody love you guys and we'll see you at those next debates amazing