DEBATE: Should Christians Support Zionism? | Andrew Wilson Vs Apostate Prophet
01:42:50 Share

Welcome to It Takes Energy, presented by Energy Transfer, where we talk all things oil and natural gas. Oil and gas drive our economy, ensure our country's security, and open pathways to brighter futures. The U.S. produces 13 million barrels of crude oil every day, enough to fill 800 Olympic swimming pools.

But what is that oil used for? The gas we put in our cars is just the beginning. Nearly 50% of each barrel is refined into gasoline. Another 34% is refined into fuels like diesel and jet fuel. And the rest is used to make more than 96% of our everyday essentials, like the tennis shoes you wear, the cell phone you rely on, and medicines that help save lives.

Look around and you'll see the essential role oil and gas plays in our modern lives. Our world needs oil and gas and people rely on us to deliver it. To learn more, visit ittakesenergy.com. Hello, everyone. Thank you so much for making it out tonight. My name is Olivia D'Angelo. I'm president of UNCA's chapter of Uncensored America.

We are so excited to be hosting this debate here tonight. It has been a long work in progress and it is so great to see so many people turning out to be here to support us. If you are a student, staff, or faculty, or anyone in the area who wants to keep up with us, you can go to Rocky Connect through the school that has all the orgs information and events that we hold to keep up to date with what we're doing. And we also have an Instagram page. It's uncensoredamerica.unca.

So again, thank you so much for coming out and I'm going to hand the mic over to Shawn Semenko. All right, how are we doing North Carolina? All right. Recognizing a few familiar faces from our last event down south in South Carolina at the Myron Gates event. Was anybody at that?

Yeah, there we go. Yep, I knew I recognized some of you. That was a lot of fun. You guys have been seeing the clips go around. Myron Gaines was debating a bunch of feminists and lefties on his campus down there at University of North or South Carolina. And it was a lot of fun. It's really been popping off. So we're really, really happy with all the support we've gotten from that. But if you want to start a chapter on your campus, go to uncensoredamerica.us and you can start one and do events like this or do tables like the Myron event as well.

But we're gonna kick off this debate by first handing this over to our moderator, Dr. James Coombs.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Sean. Thanks for being here, folks. We're thrilled to have you here. This is going to be a great debate. Got a couple of quick housekeeping things. Folks, if you happen to be watching online, so Sean had mentioned I'm from Modern Day Debate and Uncensored America is exploding right now with popularity. We're thrilled for them as we're kind of like sister organizations. We're working together closely. If you're watching online at Uncensored America or Modern Day Debate,

check out the link in the description box below. We are currently doing a fundraiser for the lenses that we use at these in-person events. Join the movement in helping us make these events happen by helping us get these lenses for these events. With that, I want to move into introducing our speakers. As I said, folks, we are absolutely thrilled as this is going to be a rigorous debate.

as our experienced opponents are going to collide tonight, starting with, for the Christian pro-Zionism position, Ridvan Ademir, a.k.a. Apostate Prophet, is the best debater known to mankind. Thank you.

especially when it comes to matters of Israel, the Middle East, Islam, and all other things. Please welcome AP Apostate Prophet Ridvan Ademir. Thank you for being with us. Also, for the Christian anti-Zionist position, Andrew Wilson is the destroyer of Ridvans and slayer of e-skanks. Welcome, Andrew Wilson. Thank you.

a true pair of debate champions i'm going to read the official proposition and then the format and then we'll get started so for the official debate proposition it is should christians in particular support zionism we'll have 12 minute opening statements with apostate prophet going first this will be followed by five minute rebuttals and then 15 minutes of crossfire between the speakers

Following this, we'll have 35 minutes of audience Q&A and then three-minute closings from each speaker. With that, we're going to jump right into it. Thanks very much. AP, the floor is all yours for your opening speech. Pen, James. No pens, James. Not a single pen. We were going to get you. There's a pen right behind the tablet. AP. Terrible, terrible beginning. I remember my first debate.

We'll kick it over to AP. The floor is all yours. We've got the timer set. Thank you so much, James. Thanks to Uncensored America and thanks to Andrew for organizing this. Andrew is a newcomer to debates. Many people don't know him.

He might be a little bit nervous today. Before I start, I want to point out that there is a QR code over there. It might also appear on the screen. So I'm not going to go with a presentation, but I have a one-page landing site there where everyone can follow the evidence and everything that I'm going to talk about today.

So I'm going to argue for the position that Christians should absolutely support Zionism. In order to have a proper debate about this topic, we need to establish first what Zionism is. Over the last years, lots of people have began talking about Zionism, often in very wrong ways.

They have given wrong descriptions, especially when Christianity comes into the equation. Lots of people misunderstand what Zionism is about. They think that it is about some end time prophecy often influenced by certain Protestant teachings.

but it might come as a surprise to many people. But when I say Zionism, we are simply talking about the establishment and the protection of a land, a country, a state where Jews can live freely, a Jewish state in what is now known as Israel. At some point in history, this was known as Palestine or Palestina, named by the Romans in order to suppress Jewish identity.

Today, the Arabs living in the region have adopted or rather appropriated this name for themselves. But that's all it is. Zionism simply stands for establishing and protecting a land, a state for the Jewish people. I want to make one thing very clear, which is that I am not a Christian Zionist. I'm not a religious Zionist. I am a Christian today who also happens to support Zionism.

because I care about the continued existence of the Jewish people in the land. That's what I support. Being an anti-Zionist would by definition be to be against the existence of this state, to be against the existence of a state for Jews, and would also conclude in the annihilation, the extermination, the destruction of the Jewish people in the land. And this is not just a fallacy. This is not propaganda. This is the truth.

destroying such a state would immediately, very quickly lead to the destruction of the Jewish people living there. We don't have to speculate very much about this. Israel is currently at war with Hamas. Hamas stands for Islamic Resistance Movement, a very, very nice trick by the Islamists to describe themselves as a resistance. From the very beginning, Hamas made their mission very, very clear: to destroy Israel and to eradicate the Jewish people.

This is not just Israeli propaganda. It is in Hamas' own declaration rooted in Islamic prophecy. In the Hamas charter of 1988, you can read very clearly in Article 7 that it says, "The hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, and the rocks and trees will say, 'Oh, Muslim, there is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him,' except for the gargat tree, which is the tree of the Jews." You only get something this sick in Islam where you have a Jew tree that is...

evil because it refuses to snitch on the Jews. But the message here is very clear. It is the destruction of the Jewish people. That is literally what Hamas started out with. Hamas doesn't hide this at all. After October 7, their leadership declared that they would happily attack Israel over and over again until Israel is completely destroyed and eradicated.

The leadership of Hamas, Fatih Hamad, a leader among the Palestinian Arabs in Gaza, has in 2018 and on multiple occasions explicitly said word for word, I'm not exaggerating, that within a few years we will fulfill the promise of the eradication, the cleansing of the filth of the Jews from the land of Palestine.

He also said that the second goal after that is to establish or re-establish the Islamic caliphate in Jerusalem. And I will come to that in a minute, in less than a minute. Now, Hamas is not alone in this. While Gaza is led by Hamas, on the other side in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority is in charge.

The Palestinian Authority marks itself as a secular movement, but being secular in the Muslim world is not like being secular in the West. Being secular there simply means that you establish a political system which is not a theocracy, but which is also not free from Islamic influence. For example, the Palestinian Authority has a Ministry of Religious Affairs which only one week or two weeks after the October 7 terrorist attack

instructed mosques, and you can find this when you scan the code, instructed mosques on October 20th to tell Muslims in the mosques that the time will come when the Muslims will fight and eradicate the Jews. When they, however, speak in English to the world, they make it look like all their problem is just about existing and resisting. That's not the truth.

Let's not make any mistakes here. While Israel's ambition from the very beginning was to exist and to coexist with the other side, the other side from the very beginning always aimed to eradicate the Jews. It's no coincidence that one of the earliest leaders of those Palestinian Arabs was the grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, who was also a good friend of none other than Hitler, who to him directly promised, in word we have documents on this,

that if the Nazis win the war, they will come down and together annihilate the Jews, the leftover Jews in the region, and the Islamists will then be in charge of all the Arabs in the region. With all of this on our minds, I want to present three reasons why we should be supporting Zionism.

Reason number one is to prevent a caliphate. This should be a given. Eradicating Jews, as I just pointed out, is not the only, not the final goal. According to Hamas, after the Jews are destroyed, the Islamic caliphate would be established. In a fantasy world where Hamas wins and actually destroys Israel, it wouldn't simply end there. I know some people might not care about Jews, but at least care about the other people in the region or care about the history.

the euphoria would be huge among Muslims. I grew up in an environment where it was talked about again and again that the Muslims will rise up again one day. If Israel were defeated, an Islamic empire would be reestablished, and together they would establish brutal Sharia law and begin oppressing all the others in the region as well.

and they would probably align themselves with Britain, which also is very much Islamic today. In history, we can see that over the last 1,400 years, Islam did nothing except conquer and slaughter. Only last century, the Armenian Genocide happened.

At the same time, the Assyrians and the Greeks were slaughtered. These massacres inspired the Nazis to commit the Holocaust and to slaughter the Polish and Eastern European people. The Islamic conquests were only forcibly stopped by the Christian West.

If they awaken again, it would very, very quickly lead to the rising of an Islamic empire. It is in the best interest of Christians and even of Muslims that we prevent this and we wish for stability through Israel. Reason number two is to protect the Christians. Israel is significantly better for Christians and other minorities and even for Muslims than any other alternative that we have in the region. Let's take Christians as an example.

Israel is the only country in the Middle East where Christianity is not shrinking but growing. The only place in the Middle East where Christians are overwhelmingly satisfied and happy according to themselves. The only place where Christians have full freedoms according to Open Doors International, which is a Christian organization that tracks oppression of Christians in the world.

Meanwhile in Gaza, the Christian population is shrinking. In the West Bank, the Christian population is shrinking. In Gaza, over the last decades, the general population exploded by about 300%. At the same time, the Christians are about to be non-existent. They have shrunk under the number of 1,000. Some people actually comment ridiculously, suggest that this might be Israel's fault, but how could that be?

That doesn't make any sense. If Israel was at fault, then the entire population would be shrinking, not just the Christian population. Under Israel, Christianity thrives. Under Islamic persecution, Christianity dies.

In 2014, the Greek Orthodox Archbishop Alexios in Gaza said that Hamas uses the compound of the ancient church of St. Porphyrios to fire rockets from there at Israel, which would inevitably lead to Israel having to respond. During this current war, the compound of the St. Porphyrios church received damage and a building inside there collapsed. Guess who people blamed that for? Israel. Reason number three, and here I want to appeal to scripture.

In Romans 9 through 11, St. Paul writes that his heart is aching for his fellow Israelites, that he would give up his own salvation if he could to save them, his fellow Jews, the Israelites, by flesh, as he says.

He makes it very clear that the true Israel are those who believe in Christ, but he nonetheless acknowledges that those who reject Christ are still the natural branches. He writes, as regard to gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but as regard to election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. Only for the Jewish people is something like this ever uttered in the Bible.

He says, "For the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable." He warns Christians and says, "Do not boast against the natural branches," Israel by flesh. "If you do, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you." He prophesied, he said that there is a partial hardening upon Israel at this moment, but that God will, through a mystery,

Change things and in the future remove sin from the people of Israel and graft them back in and therefore all Israel will be saved and

St. Kirill of Alexandria also said, based on this, that Israel in the future will be reconciled to Christ through faith. St. Augustine said that the survival of the Jewish people is a huge sign from God and that they will eventually be reconciled. St. John Chrysostom, despite his harsh rhetoric about Jews, said that it is bound to happen in the future before the end that the Jewish people will be grafted back in by God.

I want to finally also quote a respected Orthodox hierarch, Metropolitan Callistos Ware, who recently died, who also very, very emotionally in the 90s wrote an article in which he said that the Jews are still God's chosen people until the end. Let us never show the slightest disrespect or hatred toward them. I went to Israel myself. I saw the people there when I was still an ice cold atheist.

I experienced the people there. I had interactions with religious Jews there. My time in Israel is something that led me to question everything. I realized one thing, which is that these people are amazing, despite what everyone says. And it didn't make sense to me that people around the world would vilify the Jewish people. It certainly cannot be because of the way they are.

When I open the Bible today, in which I firmly believe, I see that St. Paul loved the Jews who rejected Christ. God still loves them and still has a plan for them forever. I love them too, and I think everyone should support them in their fight for survival instead of letting them die. Thank you. Thank you very much for that 12-minute opening from Rydvan. We'll kick it over to Andrew for his 12-minute opening as well. The floor is all yours, Andrew.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Before we dive into the topic at hand, can we get a standing ovation for Ridman and his acceptance as an Orthodox catechumen? Welcome home brother! And now it's time for you to lose. The topic tonight is significantly narrower than I think many people are comfortable with. It's often in the ambiguity that people make emotional arguments instead of using logic and reason, and that's exactly what you will see tonight from my opponent, which he did.

which is why I wanted to narrow the topic to avoid this ambiguity. You'll see from him emotional rhetoric, but no actual arguments, which we didn't. The topic at hand is simple enough. The proposition is do Christians have some sort of ought to support the political ideology of Zionism? Apostate prophet says yes, I say no. For the purpose of this debate, I will be using the most charitable definition of Zionism, which is the one AP agreed to pre-debate so that everyone's clear.

A movement for originally the reestablishment and now the development and protection of a Jewish nation which is now Israel. Seems straightforward enough, so let's get into it. I will be presenting four logical arguments for why Christians have no such obligation, secular or otherwise, to support this Jewish political endeavor. I will order them with my weakest objection first and my strongest objection last. Note, I have many more arguments than the ones I'll lay out tonight, but for the sake of time, I'll just stick with four.

To preface these arguments, I'll explain that Ridvan cannot make the claim that the religion of Judaism isn't part of Zionism. The right of return applies to both religious and ethnic Jews. Israeli law defines Jewish as someone who is born to a Jewish mother or who has converted to Judaism. In other words, the very people group defined as both religious Jews and non-religious Jews, emphasizing all Jews, have the right of return.

According to legal expert Nancy C. Richmond in her analysis of Israel's law of return published in Penn State International Law Review, quote, while Israel is not a theocracy, the Jewish religion has a central role in Israeli politics because the main purpose of the country's establishment was to create an independent Jewish state, end quote.

This analysis is shared by virtually every scholar I can find, pro or anti-Zionist, and is logical due to the fact that if Zionism really had nothing to do with the Jewish religion, it wouldn't specify Jewish converts as being allowed this right of return. Very simple. This is an important preface as apostate prophets going to argue this as a secular state, and that's simply untrue as a matter of fact.

This leads me to argument one. There is no ought under Christian ethics to support other religions which specifically oppose doctrine and an establishment of a homeland for them.

The Jewish religion is acknowledged as being incorrect by every major Christian branch. This includes the Eastern Orthodox Church, which Apostate Prophet is converting to, as well as mainline Protestant and Roman Catholics. The specific problem here is particularly the denial of Jesus Christ being the Messiah as outlined in simple language in 1 John 2:23.

Now,

This is also found in John 14, 6. Jesus says, So my first argument concludes Christians ought not support this heretical for Christian political ideology argument.

and supporting heretical ideology is itself sinful as it violates Christian ethics. The argument itself, premise one, Christians who support heretical ideology denying the divinity of Christ are sinning. Premise two, religious Jews reject the divinity of Christ after he's revealed himself to them as the Savior. Premise three, if religious Jews reject Christ, they're incorrect and Christians who claim they aren't are spreading heresy.

Conclusion, religious Jews are by Christian standards wrong and should not be supported by Christians who would be spreading a heresy if they acknowledge Jewish theology is correct or give it support to reduce it to a much simpler view. If one of my daughters had an OnlyFans, I would still love her as we were commanded to love the Jews and the Muslims, but I'm not going to promote it. I'm not going to promote it.

Argument two, the pragmatic argument and its response. Ridvan focuses a lot on the pragmatic approach through geopolitics to make an ought for support for Christians toward Zionism, focusing on the anti-Muslim factor rather than the Christian ethics factor. The pragmatic argument from him is simple. If we have to choose to support the state of Israel, who are seemingly at least sympathetic to the West and Christian nations, then we should, or Muslims will dominate the region unopposed. There's no way.

and they are in no way sympathetic to the West. This is, in my opinion, his best argument, but it falls flat because it focuses on a false dialectic that relies on fallacious reasoning. In his view of pragmatism, he presents two choices where there are actually hundreds of choices.

or more. For instance, there isn't, from a purely pragmatic approach, any reason I can think of for the protectors of Israel, in this case the West, to demand Israel open itself up to tens of thousands of Christian missionaries yearly and give them all enfranchised status.

Many, many thousands of Christians would love to live there. This would effectively end the, quote, Jewish state apparatus, which would appease Muslims and also create a dynamic for which Christians could begin their work of converting Jews to Christianity, which is their mandate. Jews would not be persecuted under this arrangement and would still be able to freely practice Judaism as they saw fit and would be enfranchised to vote just like they are in all other nations.

They also would have more protections from other nations who have vested interest in their settlers. Would this plan work? I have no idea. No clue. But to pretend it couldn't be done creates a false dialectic that only two choices exist where many choices exist. Ridvan would have to effectively argue Israel would need to remain a Jewish state from a second review, which, to quote a thing he says often, that makes no sense.

Why? Why does the state actually need to be a Jewish ethno-state and Jewish religious state in order to protect Jews? That's actually rather stupid.

All Western nations afford Jewish people the same rights as all of the citizens get. Ridvan, from the pragmatic approach, would actually have to argue that Israel remain a Jewish state from a secular standpoint, which he can't do. As long as the state protected Jews and they were allowed to practice their religion, why would it be a problem if it wasn't dominated by Jews themselves? To formalize this argument to Ridvan, premise one, Jews deserve a homeland for both ethnic Jewish individuals and religious Jewish individuals.

This is his view. Premise two, the Jewish homeland is necessary because it protects Jews from persecution. Premise three, the Jewish homeland can't let in majorities of other groups for its own protection. Conclusion, Israel must remain an ethnic religious state with a supermajority of Jewish people. Now you can see here the conclusion doesn't actually follow from the premise. The key here seems to be that Jewish individuals deserve protection from atrocity, but the case isn't being made why they would specifically need a Jewish state to do so.

Early anti-Zionist Jews made similar counter arguments as well. Social dominance in culture doesn't assure prevention from atrocity for Jews any better than being a protected class under a different dominant culture. This seemingly can be viewed right now by the conflict going on with Hamas.

at least not logically and not pragmatically. Also we could use accelerated pragmatism here to point out the absurdity of this false dialectic by simply pointing out it could be pragmatic to nuke the entire Middle East, Israel included, and no longer worry about Middle Eastern conflicts and cultures ever. But my guess is most people would rightly state that would be against Christian ethics which rejects pragmatism for Christian ethics which Ridvan also should do.

Now, even in easily dismantling the pragmatic argument, I will simply now grant it and the false dialectic of a binary choice to simply point out that even if I do, it still doesn't provide an ought for why Christians must support Zionism, which is both hilarious and ironic, but does provide us for Christians to not support it because you're being presented with a false binary. My last argument is the most important. It combines two arguments together for the sake of time.

This argument focuses on the biggest ought, not for Christians, and requires a preface. The first preface is that Israel refuses to disclose if it has nuclear weapons and will neither confirm nor deny if they do, nor allow any inspection of them if they do. Our own CIA has confirmed they do, but they don't disclose it.

Second, the Israeli government works hand in hand with the Temple Institute and American Evangelicals. Also, there's an organization called CUFI or Christians Unified for Israel. CUFI has 10 million members and Israel doesn't even have 10 million citizens.

Goofy spreads the false heresy of dispensationalism and hosts charismatic doctrine heresy as well. By Ridvan's own faith, he knows these are heresies. Goofy is on over 300 college campuses and growing. Their stated goal is to educate millions of Americans on these heresies according to their own website. Quote, through our 16 social media accounts, websites, blogs, daily briefs. To bring in groups of pastors and next generation influencers and students to Israel every year. Guys like Charlie Kirk and dare I say, Ridvan Goofy.

and David Wood and others to quote those would be the types of influencers who would be their target not saying that that Kufi paid for any of that I'm just saying that would be the target to reach thousands through Kufi weekly and Israel collective videos on YouTube has brought in over a thousand major influencers including celebrities all of this is right from their site now what do these people want you ask well they

This is going to blow your mind, but this is what they want. They want to assist with the fulfillment of biblical prophecy to bring about a new false messiah and usher in an Armageddon. Not kidding.

Not kidding. Now the Temple Institute's goal in Israel, using both private and Israeli state money, is to rebuild the Third Temple and name a Messiah which Christians know is a false Messiah. Israel, the supposed secular state, gives large swaths of money to the Temple Institute and many government officials back this undertaking. So remember when I said Christians ought not support heresies?

Well, here's why. Right now, this second, major personalities on the right, such as Charlie Kirk, most of the Daily Wire, even perhaps David Wood and Ridvan themselves, who I like, know for sure that any Messiah named by Israel will be Antichrist. They know it. Now, perhaps not the Antichrist, but the spirit of Antichrist will be with whoever this person is, and they have to denounce Christians definitionally. Have to.

So to recap, the supposed secular Zionist government is giving money to the religious Zionists in Israel and get American support to do this with both American government money and direct aid with mega preachers like John Hagee leading the charge in America with Kufi to back this endeavor to usher in antichrists. So, Ridvan, I will see any argument you make for why Christians ought to support Zionism and I will raise you one antichrist as an ought not.

This is the most powerful ought, not, for Christians to support Zionism and it is really the one argument I want Rivann to address as it's my primary argument. So, the formal argument goes like this. Premise one, Christians should not support false messiah or antichrist, ever. Premise two, Zionists are attempting to name a false messiah. Premise three, secular and religious Zionists are working together to bring about biblical prophecy and name a false messiah. Conclusion,

Christians shouldn't support Zionism, especially not a Zionist nation with an Antichrist at its head and nukes, which it won't acknowledge. False Messiah, head of a state with nukes. Genius, Rydvin. Now, to end it very quickly with this, I'm going to enjoy this spirited debate, but I really want you to address this argument. With that, the floor is back. Go ahead.

Thank you very much, gentlemen, for those openings. We'll jump into the five-minute rebuttals. AP, the floor is all yours. Thank you. OK, now.

So when Andrew announced that he was going to have a very, very amazing opening speech here, I was expecting something incredible. What I heard is not very impressive, to be very honest. Is anybody actually impressed? Because here's the issue. He said that I'm going to rely on pragmatism. Wrong. False. He said that I'm going to argue from emotion. Maybe I mixed emotion into it, rightly so, but I argued on emotion based on Scripture.

Number three, he listed a bunch of things that I never even addressed, that I never even think about. And he even made the false assumption that I would call Israel a secular state. Israel is not a secular state.

Israel is in some way secular, but Israel is very, very explicitly from the very beginning of its foundation partly built on religious grounds. This is acknowledged from the very beginning. It is a compromise that was made in the history of Israel, in the founding of Israel, that it would be partially founded upon religious Jewish values and partially on secular values because the secular ones were the ones who...

advocated for the building of Israel, but the religious ones were also in on it and wanted also their rights to be protected, which only makes sense. There is one big issue that Andrew here has a problem with. In my opening statement, I never ever argued that it is an obligation for Christians to support Israel.

I did say Christians should. I did say it would be the right thing. I did say it would be morally right. I never ever made it look like it is an obligation for Christians or it is within their religion that they must support the state of Israel.

I argued that within certain things that we read within the Bible, which by the way, he never even came close to addressing, and I'm sure he will not come close to addressing because he can't really get out of that.

It would be the right thing to do for Christians not to stand by and let those people die whom God, if you open Romans 9-11, still loves despite their unbelief. I want everyone to read this again and again. Open your own Bibles. Open the Bible. Open Romans 9-11. Read it again.

St. Paul condemns their unbelief and still says that God loves them and still says that God has a plan for them. Even those who have rejected and who have fallen into disbelief and who were broken off, he says it is a mystery of God that he took the wild branches, the Gentiles,

and put them into the tree and he broke off the natural branches which are the Jews and just like that he will bring them back in and add them back to the tree. This is precisely what Romans 11 says. The narrative here is that these Jews, not just Jews who follow a certain type of Judaism, not just Jews who follow this Judaism or who do this or who do that,

He says, "Jews by flesh, my fellow Israelites." That's literally what he's saying. He's never talking about a distinction of religious belief among Jews. He says, "Jews by flesh." So when Andrew talks about how lots of these people are secular people, they don't even believe in Judaism, it doesn't matter.

St. Paul talks about Jews by flesh. Do you want to contest that? I would not contest it because that's what my Bible says. This is not Protestant reasoning. Sit down and look at the Scripture. This is literally what it says.

I never said that supporting Jews or supporting Israel requires that we somehow acknowledge their theology as correct. This is ridiculous. This is absurd. It is fallacious. Nobody is required to do that. What we would be in our right to do is to look at the Middle East. Another thing to address here, by the way, which I mentioned in my opening statement, Israel significantly treats Christians better than the other side does.

Would you rather support the other side or would you rather support the Jewish people? I would rather support those that my Bible describes as still beloved by God and those who have a track record of actually protecting the Christian people, whereas all the other Muslim nations together have a history of oppressing them.

And if they gain the power, and yes, if you don't support Israel, then you are supporting the other side. If they regain power, it will only lead to more oppression of your fellow Christians. This is not pragmatism. It is about caring for your fellow Christians and caring for those that God says he still loves. Not pragmatism. I'm not sure where you get pragmatism here. Andrew says that there's an alternative of Christians going and settling there. Please.

Let's not be ridiculous. So that would be the least likely option. Finally, rebuilding of the temple and the Antichrist. The best polls put the number of people who want to reestablish the temple at a maximum of 30%. Are you serious? Oh, is that all? Thank you very much for that five-minute rebuttal. We'll kick it over to Andrew for his five-minute rebuttal as well. Yeah, so I mean, this is a no-brainer. He didn't actually address my arguments.

Notice that I put my arguments even in simple premise forms that even you, even you could have addressed them. So it's very simple. He did not actually address why it is Christians have an ought to support a nation which he admits is attempting to create Antichrist. They're going to name a false messiah. Any messiah that the Jewish nation names by definition has to be false under Christianity.

By definition, that false messiah also has to condemn Christians, right? Because how could he not if he's the messiah? He'll have to say that Christ was not divine. Blast me against the Holy Spirit, Ridvan.

So the thing is, is he also brings up multiple false dialectics, right? Again, false dialectic after false dialectic. First, I was not saying that Redman takes the position that this is a secular state, but that even if he did, the argument wouldn't matter, right? So I'm doing an internal critique. I'm arguing both sides to still show how I'm correct and you're not. When he dives into some of these other arguments, let's go through them real quick.

He says, God still loves the Jews. God loves everybody. He wants Muslims back in the fold as well. It's not just about bringing Jewish people back in the fold. It's about bringing everybody back into the fold. It's another false dialectic. The church...

The church is Israel. We're not talking about a specific bloodline people group. Okay, that's not what we're discussing. And that's when you're talking about St. Paul. And we can bring this up, especially when you're talking about the cutting off the limbs of the tree. Paul is specifically saying that he himself would give up everything if it meant that his people who rejected Christ would come back to Christ.

Would love that but rid van they haven't and The Temple Institute which is there and I need you to acknowledge this Redmond is trying to name Antichrist you said only 30% want to name is that all 30%

This is just an insignificant number 30% and it's it by the way. He's also not telling you this it's increasing It's not decreasing. It's increasing and they're getting more positions in government and he knows they're getting more positions in government how can we have a nuclear armed nation that the United States and Christians in the United States is supporting who wants to name an Antichrist and

Please answer that question, Ritvan. Please, pretty please, with sugar on top. Why ought I send my big American dollars, which I want to give to my kids for college and other things,

to a nation that wants to name the antithesis, the antithetical, the entire opposite of Christianity, Antichrist. Need that answered, my primary argument for an ought not needs something better than, well, because geopolitically, if,

Israel is not there bad things bad things could happen. It's like yeah, they could maybe they maybe they don't though. That's a false dialectic It's called a false binary. You keep presenting false choices and

If A happens, then B assuredly will happen. You don't know that. You have no idea if that's the case. You're just making that kind of assertion without even admitting either that it's fallacious argumentation. You can look up the fallacy. It's a false binary fallacy. And with that, please, I'll yield the time right back over. I need an answer to this.

We'll actually be jumping into the crossfire section. It's about 15 minutes. Sean from Uncensored, I should say, Sean, the leader of Uncensored America, asked me to give you guys a long leash. So, Ed Ripp, for 15 minutes, the floor is yours. Do you acknowledge, Andrew, that the Jews are actually in an extermination war for their survival right now?

Yeah, I would say that they're in a war for survival, sure. Okay, so do you also acknowledge that if they don't have the support that they need, the other side wants to exterminate them, which you just acknowledged, basically, and that they could be exterminated as a result? Even if I were, let's just say, I'll just grant the whole thing. So I'll just grant for the sake of argument that if the United States were to pull out support from Israel tomorrow, that the nation would be exterminated. Let's just grant it, right? As horrible as this is, nobody wants to see anything like this.

That's still not an ought for white Christians have to support him, Riven. It's still not an ought claim. You're still not making the moral ought claim for white Christians have some moral duty to step in on behalf of a secular Zionist state that has religious components that wants to name Antichrist. Can we please get to that? Do you acknowledge that if

that if Israel is destroyed and the Jews are eradicated in the region, this will lead to the reestablishment of the historical enemy of Christianity, which also led to the demise and destruction of Orthodox Christians in the East. It could, but also it could. Listen, I'll give you the logical acknowledgement. It could. Can you give me the logical acknowledgement that Western nations can also prevent this from happening even if Israel is not there?

logically they can't logically they can't actually no no no ridvan listen not saying that it would be the case it would be only that logically it could be an extremely low likelihood okay great but so why are we talking about then it's a false binary is is there is there is there a fantasy what like do you think that christians would actually go there and take over if you if you grant that there's other possibilities just with lower likelihood then you're admitting

You're engaging in the fallacy of a false binary. - So then let's do this. - That's it, done. - Let's do this. If the Jews in the region are destroyed, do you think it is much more likely that the Muslims will take over, or do you think it's much more likely that the West will step in and somehow stop this? - Again, even if I grant the argument for likelihood,

It's still a false binary because you have admitted that there's other options which also could be utilized to prevent this. So you have just admitted that it is extremely likely in such a case that the Muslims will take over and reestablish a caliphate which is hell-bent on fighting and oppressing. When the Jews are done, then the Christians are next. There was a saying in the Middle East which goes, first the Saturday people, then the Sunday people. Don't filibuster, Ridvan. Do you think I support Muslims?

You are supporting them. Yeah, how? You are supporting them by not supporting Israel. That's basically what you're doing. Okay, so by not supporting Israel, I'm supporting Muslims, right? Yes, yes. Then by not supporting Muslims, you're supporting Antichrist. Does that make sense? No, it doesn't make sense. Does that make sense, Ridvan? No, it doesn't make sense, Ridvan.

- Because it's a fallacious argument for a day. - It doesn't make any sense. - Makes no sense. - Because what you are suggesting, you think that the existence of Israel itself would lead, because of certain plans, certain conspiracy theories, to the rise of the Antichrist. - What's the conspiracy theory? Let's go through them. - A planning of the Antichrist to come.

Because of this, you want to risk the people that God loves. By the way, very, very big issue here. I specifically said that the Jews are the only people, according to Paul himself, who are especially beloved by God. So you're saying that they have magic Jew blood? Yes. Yes? Yes. And do you think that the Orthodox Church supports that? For the sake of their ancestors. Do you think that the Orthodox Church believes that...

that uh jews have magic jew blood which puts them above orthodox christians no then your point is moved what does what does he what does paul say does he say that they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers uh well yeah but you're awesome what does that mean what does that mean what does that mean yeah yeah for the sake of it what does that mean i'll grant it you are also beloved for the sake of your forefathers the jews are also beloved for the sake of your forefathers

Because there's no magic to your blood, Ridvan. All right, let me read this. It's not magic. It's not made out of magic. It's made out of the same thing as my blood and your blood. Now, let's read this. So, Paul says that they are especially beloved. Hang on, hang on. Before you divert, we only have a few minutes. What do you mean, Doug? You never addressed this topic. I'll dive into this. You never addressed this topic. My main argument...

It's about Antichrist. He equates this to my forefathers. Look at this. St. Paul says, He says magic blood. He's making fun of Paul here, actually.

I'm not making fun of anybody. They are Israelites by flesh. This is what he's making fun of. This is not what I'm saying. And to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, the promises, the patriarchs, the race according to the flesh is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. Does anybody else fall into this category, Andrew, except for the Jews? Yes, yes. We are Israel. We are beloved Jews.

Of God. We are the fulfillment of the promise, Redmond. We are the fulfillment of the promise. By your own faith. Paul talks about two Israels. If you have an understanding of what he talks about here, you would see this in the Orthodox Study Bible, which says that he's talking about two Israels. One is the natural Israel. One is the spiritual Israel. Are Jews above Orthodox Christians? It doesn't matter. Are they? It doesn't matter. Answer the question. It doesn't matter. What does it mean?

do you acknowledge are jews above orthodox christians do you acknowledge that christians look i need you to answer the question are jews above orthodox christians no okay no thank you thank you do you acknowledge thank you that's the end of the argument that's done it's done okay can you answer this question since i answered your question do we acknowledge that according to paul jews are especially beloved because of their ancestry yes above all people but paul's also making a demonstration that

Thank you. Yes. Thank you. So Jews are especially beloved among all the other nations. But so are you, Riffin. You're especially, also especially beloved due to your ancestors. Were my ancestors given the covenants? Were they given the law? Were they given the adoption of glory? So they're above Orthodox Christians? No. So what makes Orthodox Christians then equal with the most beloved of God? You're strawmanning it. You're strawmanning it. You don't understand the logic here. I say that Paul clearly says that they are especially beloved.

aside from those who are especially who are the spiritual israel the jews because of their ancestry are especially beloved what does this you then you want to basically deny what paul is saying especially beloved mean they are especially beloved what does that mean does that mean that they're loved more by god than you ribbon actually if you want to think about it

in comparison to somebody who is not a Christian and who is not a Jewish, yes, they are beloved more by God. Okay, so then what you're saying is that just by the fact that they have magic Jew blood, God loves them more than you. Now you are making fun of the Bible. No, that's not, listen, that's not biblical. That's not what's actually being said here. Now I'll step through all of this with you if you want, right, but...

That's not what's being said. I cited to you St. John Chrysostom. And what you just admitted is that you put Jewish people above Orthodox Christians because you think God loves them more. No, I explicitly said... Total insanity. I explicitly said they are not above. And I explicitly just compared them to non-Christians. You heard that, right? Everybody has heard that. Jews in comparison to other non-Christians are especially beloved to God. This is literally what Paul says. You might scoff about it as much as you want. And I will...

I cited St. John Chrysostom, I cited St. Augustine, I cited St. Kirill, I cited a recent Orthodox hierarch, Metropolitan Callistus Ware, who says the very same thing again. Metropolitan Callistus is never going to say that God loves a Jewish person because he's Jewish more than you. Yes. No, he won't. Yes, that's literally what he says. No, he won't. Nobody's ever going to say that, ever.

Here's the thing, Andrew. Can I go through this with you? If you can't accept what the Bible says and what the hierarchs say, what am I supposed to do here? What am I supposed to do here? You never answered my questions. You never answered my arguments. I answered all your questions. I answered all your questions. You never answered my questions.

What is it you're talking about? Okay, can I ask you to contend with my argument? Here's the argument. I literally put it in premise form for you. Let's do it again. Okay, so... Yes, let's do it again. Yeah, yeah, it's very important that this actually gets answered. And I'm happy to go through the Scripture with you. You didn't understand it the first time. Let's do it again. Yeah, but you never actually answered to it. I answered it. No, you didn't. Okay, so you agree that Zionists...

Are attempting to name a false messiah that that is a critical function? Zionists, no. I would say religious Jews. Can I even ask the question? You just asked it. I have to qualify so that you understand what's being asked. Okay, sure. So premise one, Christians should not support a false messiah or an antichrist. Do you agree with that? Yeah. You do? Yeah. Okay. Premise two, Zionists are attempting to name a messiah.

No. Okay. So then can you explain why the Zionist government gives money to the Temple Institute who has a stated goal of naming a Messiah? You are talking about Zionists as a general term. Zionists are all those who support the existence of Israel. That would be the secular and the religious? That would be the majority of the Israeli population. No, that's not what Zionism means. That is literally what Zionism means. No, what you said Zionism meant, and I'll give you your exact definition, it meant an establishment of a Jewish state, and you agreed it couldn't be secular.

It had to be religious and it had to be secular. So if the religious and the secular are both working towards a goal, then what is it? I never said that. You're not paying attention to the detail. Establishing a Jewish state, a state for Jews in the land of Israel, the same thing is wanted by conservative Jews, by Orthodox Jews, by atheist Jews. All Jews want this. It does not require it to be completely in alignment with

with certain aspects of Orthodox Jewish theology. - Got it, totally agree. So we've established that-- - So when you say Zionists want this, then you are overgeneralizing, which doesn't make sense. - Because when you say all, that necessarily includes who has a right to return, religious Jews as well. And if the secular Jews are funding with money the religious Jews towards X goal, that would be all Jews doing this. - Andrew, the logic here, the logic in question is

That you are saying that basically you could make the same argument that all Christians want to establish an apocalyptic Israel in the Middle East. How? Tell me the argument. Why? Because Protestants are Christians and they believe in an eschatology that includes the reestablishment of Israel. You're not making a nuanced...

And is the federal government funding these Protestants and bringing about this Armageddon? You are failing to make a nuanced distinction between certain people. No, no, no. I'm making the nuanced distinction. Let me respond. Is the United States federal government funding these groups, these free groups who are moving towards dispensationalism? All right, let me ask you this question. Ritvan, can I ask it before you answer it? Sure. Okay, great. So is the United States government funding Protestants to usher in Armageddon?

I have no idea. You have no idea? Are they? Yeah, the answer is no. But is it the case that Zionists are indeed funding the Temple Institute, who does want to bring in Antichrist? Some Zionists, yes, not all Zionists. Would you like to go through what the state of Israel gives the Temple Institute, or are you denying that they give them money? No, of course they're giving them money. Okay, great. Here's my question to you. You say Zionists. Do secular Jews, who are also Zionists, generally agree with the rebuilding of the Third Temple?

Well, if it is the case that secular Jews are funding it, then yes. Do they agree with the building of the Third Temple? Maybe not. Not? Okay. So when you say Zionists, then you are overgeneralizing and making a mistake. I'm not, because Zionism includes all Jews. No?

It doesn't? We just established that secular Jews don't support the building of the third temple. So is there secular Zionism and other types of Zionism? Yes, there is Zionism in general. So then are we going to have to go... Zionism doesn't depend on religion. Can we maybe go with a definition like Zionism means that Jews want to reestablish a homeland and they're calling this homeland Israel and they want it protected? Can we go with that definition? Andrew, did you not listen to me? Are you not listening? Uh-huh.

Welcome to It Takes Energy, presented by Energy Transfer, where we talk all things oil and natural gas. Oil and gas drive our economy, ensure our country's security, and open pathways to brighter futures.

Did he know that the majority of progress the U.S. has made in reducing emissions over the past decade has come from the oil and gas industry? With more electrical power generation now coming from natural gas versus coal, the air we breathe today is cleaner than it has been since the '90s, according to a report from the EPA.

Clean burning natural gas is also a reliable source of power for more than just our electrical grids. It is also used to power data centers, hospitals, schools, and so much more. Look around and you'll see the essential role oil and gas plays in our lives. Our world needs oil and gas, and people rely on us to deliver it. To learn more, visit energytransfer.com.

Bye.

I said it right here, Andrea.

Do you want me to read this again, Andrew? Yes. Do you want me to read this again? Yeah, read it again. Zionism alone simply means the establishment and protection of a land, a country, a state where Jews can live freely. A Jewish state in what is now known as Israel. We're there. Does this mean that it has to be a Jewish religious state? Have you not listened to this? We've got it. So then, this would apply to secular Jews and religious Jews. Yes. So?

So then if it's secular Jews supporting religious Jews by giving them money, right, by giving them money so that they can establish Antichrist, then that would be Zionists doing it, right?

So, because some Zionists support a certain religious movement that most Zionists, by the way, do not support, we are therefore to conclude that all Zionists, by definition, support the rebuilding of the Third Temple. It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense. What I say is the main argument would be it doesn't make any sense. It makes total sense, and I'll explain it. I say it doesn't make any sense because you're not making any sense. Should I, as a Christian, send my support over to a country where 30% of them want to introduce Antichrist? Yes.

Okay. Why not? I don't know where else to go with that. I don't know where else to go with... I have a question to you, Andrew. Where else do I go with that? I have a question to you, Andrew. When St. Paul says that they are still beloved and that God still has a plan to reconcile them and to graft them back into a tree, do you think that he's talking about all the good Jews...

Or is he just talking about... He's talking about what happens when they finally bend their knee to Jesus Christ, their Lord and Savior. Wonderful, wonderful. And now it's my follow-up question, Andrew. Now it's my follow-up question. If you allow the enemies of both Christians and Jews to try and eradicate them, do you think that you will do God and Paul and the Bible a service here?

I'm sorry. If you think that Jews have magic Jew blood and are therefore the most beloved of God, isn't it the case that even if we didn't support Israel, God would love them so much that he would never let their enemies take it down? Andrew, if a robber comes into your home, you could just leave it up to God to handle it. You don't have to do anything. That doesn't make any sense. You are still supposed to fulfill your obligations. Does it sound like you're the most beloved? You are still supposed to fulfill your obligations. Why is my obligation... Great. Let's talk about what is morally right, an ought.

Why? Again, give me a moral paradigm from a moral paradigm. Andrew, Christians, even though you agreed with me on premise one, should not support any type of false messiah, should not support the naming of any type of false messiah. Andrew, you and your government need to send tons of money to a nation which 30% of it, by your own admission, I think it's higher and growing, by the way, but I'll just grant 30% wants to name false messiah.

Ritvan, can you please in a very concise way tell me why it is that I need to send my support and my money to a nation which is funding that endeavor? Yes, very simply. Yeah. Very, very simply.

Because the Jews were always expecting a Messiah. Even at the time of St. Paul, they were expecting a Messiah. And when St. Paul talked about how he still has love for them and how God still loves them and how God will naturally graft them in, and even when all the saints that I just mentioned talked about how Jews are expecting a Messiah and the Christ will come and reconcile them, they clearly did talk about all Jews who are still expecting a false Messiah. Therefore, you should support them. Okay, wait a second.

Wait a second. Who said that we shouldn't love Jews for being Jewish? It's fine. We can love Muslims and Jews and atheists and everybody. We're done. You're finished.

but this is that was a ridiculous answer though we're done oh man we give you a chance to respond ridiculous answer folks the way this is going to work for the q a is if you come up the middle and stand right in front of me we'll actually give you a chance to give a couple of follow-up responses if you'd like as long as they're short and pithy also hold the mic just in case things get weird okay ready

please come up with your questions. And then if you could put your toes right here in front of the tape. Sorry for your loss. I was just going to ask Andrew for his answer to that. The cope is painful, Ridvan. The cope is painful. I was just going to ask Andrew his response for what he just said.

It's super simple. Saying that we need to love everybody, regardless of the heinous things that they might have even engaged in. Nobody said that you, as a Christian, are not obligated to have love for people who are Jewish and Muslim and everything else. That doesn't provide an ought for why Christians have to support Zionism, though. It literally doesn't. He gave a descriptor instead. He said, "Descriptively, this is the case."

You can't get an ought from an is. Giving me a descriptor doesn't address the ought that Christians should do anything. It's never about loving them, Andrew. It's about supporting those people. It's about them being extra loved. And by the way, we'll allow you guys rebuttals throughout if you'd like. I just have a curious question on AP's position on the Jews of Israel. How do you know that the Jews in Israel today are the same contextual Jews in the Bible?

It doesn't really matter because... Yes, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at all. Why does it matter? And how do you want to prove that they are actually the same Jews? Do you want to prove that by blood? Do you want to prove that by tradition? We have...

In the Bible, when Paul deals with the people in his time who are Israelites, who are Israelites by his flesh, he talks about those who still hold on to the traditions. That's what he points out. He says that they have a very great zeal for God and for the law. That's what he says about those that he considers evil.

And he points out that because of their traditions, they take the tradition so far that they fail to see the truth in the true Messiah. Those Jews continued after the fall of the Second Temple to still hold on to their traditions and to develop a new tradition, which is called rabbinic Judaism, which started as soon as the temple fell.

Those same Jews held onto their traditions and continued to be the very same Jews that we have today. The Judaism that started when the Temple fell was Rabbinic Judaism. The Jews that we have today are Rabbinic Jews. They are the same Jews. - There's arguments to be made against this, including that they're not doing sacrifices in a tabernacle or in the Temple, so it may not be the true succession of Rabbinic Judaism, but even granting the fact that there's a possibility that it is,

It doesn't really matter because when we're talking about Paul here, he says, he says, bloodline itself is irrelevant. That's not, but what do you think Paul was talking about when he said my people? Do you think he was talking about some future people that wasn't a part of the people group he's addressing right then? No. No, he wasn't. That's nowhere in the scripture here. It actually is.

Well, then you've refuted your argument twice. Because now you're saying, what he's saying is there's a future group of people who could be considered Israel, right? Who are not the group of people he's talking about right this second. I would say, Ridvan, that we know who that people group is.

the church and Christians? No, because he's talking about those who have rejected Christ. How can that be the church? And how are they going to be reconciled? How can the church be those who rejected Christ? How can the church be those who are in sin and who are in their rejection and who are enemies because of you, because of the gospel, but still beloved to God because of their ancestors? How can that be the church? Again, Redmond, when we move... That doesn't make any sense. I do want to move forward a little quicker. Here's what doesn't make any sense. Redmond...

So, when you move into this, what I'm arguing to you is when you say a reconciliation for these people, I want them to come back into God. Okay? That's what I want. I want that more than anything else. I also want it, but for that they have to be alive.

Yeah, Ritvan, Ritvan, does that mean that I have some moral obligation? How much treasure should I give, Ritvan? I give you a chance to respond. How much? You should support them. How much is that? That's a trivial issue, which we can talk about at another time. A dollar? Do you agree that we should support them? 50 cents? No, you haven't provided me an ought yet for why I must. If you don't agree that we should support them, then what's the point of talking about the details of how we should support them, Andy?

Because we need to start with an ought. I hate to do this, but because we have so many questions, gentlemen, we're going to go to the next question. Hey, Ridvan, congrats first on joining the church. I just have a quick disambiguation question for you. Would you make the argument that your exegesis of Romans 9 through 11 would be supported by the majority of patristic sources or even the majority of modern biblical scholarship outside of dispensational circles? And if so, could you elucidate on that?

Well, as I said, when I talked about it, when I went through my script, I appealed to some very, very important figures in early church history. As Orthodox Christians, I'm sure Andrew also knows that St. John Chrysostom is an extremely respected figure in terms of his homilies. The one who wrote a homily against the Jews? Yes, exactly that one. Exactly that one. Do you know what he says in his homily on Romans 11? If you want to cherry pick it, I wouldn't advise it. What?

Well, it's not cherry picking because what he says is that what St. Paul says about the Jews being grafted back in

It will come true, and he says if it has not happened yet, then you must be sure that it is bound to happen. I want to point out here that St. John Chrysostom is talking in the fourth century, long after the fall of the Second Temple. So this also answers the other question here. Those are the Jews that exist here today, the rabbinic Jews by tradition.

Another point, St. Kirill of Alexandria, St. Augustine supports it very, very well. He says that their existence is basically a proof of God's work and that they will be eventually reconciled. And as said, late metropolitan Calistos were also very much, he even goes further. I don't even say this. He goes further and says they are still God's chosen people.

And also says that you shouldn't fall into heresy by spreading around any of the false gospel. That, inside of this, they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. By what? By denying the divinity of Christ. This is also stated, Redmond, you leave all of this out for the praying on. Let me finish, man. I didn't interrupt you once. Go ahead. So what you do here, right, is you create again these false dialectics by cherry picking.

The truth of the matter is that even if we were to grant everything you just said as being true, and that modern rabbis are the spiritual successor one way or the other, or the bloodline successors that Paul is talking about here, I'm still willing to grant it. It still doesn't give an ought for why we must support Zionism, a political ideology which includes secular and religious Jews. I just want to establish one thing here, which is very, very curious, because you seem to object to it but don't really address it. When I cite Metropolitan Callisto Square,

You just said he also said this or something like that. No, I was talking about St. John Chrysostom. Okay. Do you acknowledge that hierarchs like him in Greek orthodoxy, respected around the world, would naturally use words such as that we should have love and no disrespect toward the Jewish people, the people of Israel, because they are still beloved and they are still God's chosen people?

Do you agree that this is a normal thought? Well, it's normal enough for people in higher-up Orthodox positions to say that we should love basically every people. Chosen people, Andrew. Every people. Chosen people. Yes, but what does he mean by that? Does he mean chosen people? Do you think that he means, what he means by chosen people is they have extra love over Orthodox Christians and they have special Jew blood? Do you think that that's what he means? I hate to say this, but we have to go to the next question just because we've gotten...

A big part of your argument was saying something about the support of the State of Israel is because if they didn't have a state, they wouldn't be able to continue their existence. Did the Jews exist before the establishment of the State of Israel? Yeah, but I'm clearly talking about the Jews who are currently in the region. If they fell and if they no longer had the protection of their state, they would probably cease existing because that's what the other side promises.

We have Jews around the world still who are outside of Israel. How were the people there in order to establish a state in the first place?

Well, you have people who lived there, you have people who traveled there, who went from around the world there. Right, so how does it logically follow that they're unable to continue their people without a state if they already continue their people? I don't understand the question. He's saying if they lived in all these other countries, what is real? I understand that. I don't understand the issue here. They specifically went there. The Zionist movement was specifically about how living as a Jew in these different countries throughout history has been very difficult, as we can all understand.

No, in C. So when they went there, they wanted to establish a state where they can finally live in peace without being at the mercy of others. Now you have a large Jewish population in Israel. If Israel suddenly fell today, then the Jewish population that is there would be eradicated by the Islamists in the region. Now there would still be Jews left on the other side of the world, but that doesn't really take away from the fact...

Yeah, he's... Yeah, so I can respond to this as well very quickly because Ridvan's not going to. There's short circuit in him. So the question was actually a good question. The question was, wait a second, didn't Jews exist before there was an Israel? So how is it that even if Israel wasn't there, Jews would just stop existing? That makes no sense. Great question, right? Seems like it's a performative contradiction in his worldview, which is why he doesn't want to address it. Here's the truth.

And nobody's calling for there to not be a state of Israel, by the way. But if we were to hypothetically even say that Israel was destroyed and Jews again had to disperse or were scattered, that doesn't mean that they would be, Jews themselves would be destroyed. They would go back to other nations where they were before.

Now here's the issue. I was actually answering a question, but if you let me speak without trying to interject every second, I would actually answer your question properly. Because I understand the question that you asked. The question you asked is, weren't Jews around before? Weren't they around before? How were they able to establish this land? Did their existence really depend on the land? If the land is destroyed,

does that really mean they would all go extinct and so on. Here is the issue. You have a significant part of the Jewish population that currently lives in the land of Israel. If the land of Israel would be destroyed, a significant part of the Jewish population would be eradicated. That means a small amount of Jewish people who are outside of Israel would of course still be left.

as the amount of those who survived the massacre that would unfold, which Andrew Wilson here never actually acknowledges, would, of course, survive and run away. But do you really, how is it a reasonable or proper point to simply allow for that to happen instead of protecting those people

When it is so clear that the other side wants to eradicate them. The majority of Jews don't live in Israel, Ridvan. What does it matter? Because you just said that it would take out a substantial part of the population. It's not even the majority of the population.

That's the point. Nobody's calling for Israel to get wiped out at all. All I'm saying is that there's no ought for Christians to support a nation that wants to have Antichrist by at least 30% by your own admission. So it depends on their numbers. That's very, very funny.

What? What are you talking about? You made a false statement. You made a false statement. Neither Paul nor St. John Chrysostom places the Jewish people higher than any other non-Christians. I never said...

Yes, you did, Ridvan. No, no, no. Yes, you did. All right, hold on. We've got to give him a chance. I never said they're more special than Orthodox. Yes, you did. You said yes. Will you let me speak? Dude, no, but don't lie then. I never said they're more important than Orthodox Christians. That's what I was saying. You said God loved them more. Because he keeps insisting that I said that. You said God loved them more. I asked you point blank. You said yes.

Andrew, I'm clarifying it for you here right now. I never said, and I will never say, that God especially loves the Jewish people more than Orthodox Christians. I never said that. What I clearly said, and you can go back and listen to this again and again. Yes, we can. I can make a clip. I can make a compilation out of this for you. I said again and again that they are more beloved, especially beloved among the non-Christians. Did I or did I not say that?

Do you remember when I asked you what I said? Yes, I said it. Especially more beloved than the other non-Christians. I want to go to the next question. Okay, just real quick. I see that you have your references there. Both of you guys have made quite a few claims, both sides. Some of them have got to be fraudulent because, of course, they contradict each other.

So I see references from you. I don't see a single reference from you. All I hear are your claims.

And I have no sources to go on. Do you remember how I cited in the debate the references? So you can go back and hang on. I'll answer the question. I did cite the references just because I don't put them up in a PowerPoint presentation for the purposes of time. For the purposes of time doesn't mean I didn't verbally cite them. But most of my claims that I'm making, he agrees with.

He agrees that there's at least a large amount, at least by his admission, of Jews inside of Israel, up to 30%, who want to name Antichrist. I gave four logical arguments. What references should I give you for logical arguments except me?

Any beyond you because I do why what's a logical argument, dude? I remember maybe one reference Do I go to an expert of logic to ask them for a logical argument or can I make logical argument? You cited like one person the entire time. That's it. That's all you've given us. I cited my own logic. Yes What is logic? Are you saying that we should only believe you as the supreme authority? Believe me about what? Of course, man

- About what you're claiming. - What am I claiming? - Because you haven't given any sources. - Yeah, do you know what, tell me this. What's an argument, what's a logical argument? - Well, you still have not yet given-- - What's a logical argument, answer my question. - If you give a logical argument, which is steps,

from one to the next and next. Whose steps should be verified? Who's the source of the logical argument? At this point, it's you making it up. And isn't it always the source that somebody is making a logical argument, but because it's a mathematical expression, you can falsify arguments. That's why they're called arguments. They're falsifiable or they're provable. And that's why you give sources. Sources for a logical argument that I made? Yes, actually, yes.

You know what I find very funny here? In case you had a different question. Okay, I'll tell you what. Hold on one second. All right, folks, hold on. Hang on. Source. Premise one, me. Premise two, me. Premise three, me. Conclusion, also me. Now, the great thing about that, you can falsify them with logic.

You know what I find very funny here? Source. Do you have a source for that? Andrew claims on one hand that I agree with pretty much everything he said, yet during this entire night, during this entire debate, he claimed at least four times that I argued that Jews are more beloved than Orthodox Christians, which I never ever said. Actually, he did say that. No, I didn't. I didn't. I never ever said that Jews are more beloved than Orthodox Christians. Do you have a question for Apostle Prophet as well? Show me where.

We'll jump to the next question. Hello. So I have a question for Andrew. I'm not familiar with you personally. So it's been interesting hearing your trains of thoughts. However, I've heard a lot of straw man attacks tonight against magic Jew blood, feigned outrage about how much money for your kids you have to give up to Jews who reject Jesus, and claims about protecting an ethnic group of people's existence, meaning supporting a blasphemous antichrist, none of which were brought up by AP or logically or intrinsically follow.

Meanwhile, biblically, we see God himself set up and set apart Israel for his glory, and we see, open your mouth through the mute for the rights of those who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy, Proverbs 31, 8 through 9. So my question is, based on these things, if you believe in the sanctity of the lives God created, how can you attack the primary group who is speaking up for their preservation when the things that you claim, such as,

ushering in the Antichrist, other prophecy does not logically follow. - Yeah, so first of all, my job here tonight is to make logical arguments as to whether or not there's an ought or an ought not. If Christians must, they have some moral obligation to support a political ideology.

I granted AP's definition. I've been very charitable. I granted his definitions. I've granted his numbers. I've granted everything and showed that they still don't falsify the actual position. The reason I utilize the idea of magic Jew blood is so that he could say, yes, this is above Orthodox Christians. Do you, ma'am, do you believe that Israel is the church? Do you believe the church is Israel? I don't know how that's relevant to supporting an ethnic group. Can you answer my question? Thank you.

My question is about supporting the light of the ethnic group. So that is irrelevant to my question. Did I answer your question? I answered it. Yes, I did. Can you answer mine? Is Israel the church?

I believe that the church that is with Christ are the branches that have been grafted on to the natural-born olive tree. AP, though, in his religious belief and in mine, we believe that the church is the Israel which is being referenced. He believes that, too. Not exclusively. That's part of his faith. Hang on, hang on. That's part of his faith. So what I'm making...

So when I, hang on, can you let me finish my point? What does not exclusively mean? It means also, yes, I do, but...

It means, yes, I do, but a qualifier. Great. But he does. He has to. Andrew, all Christians believe that. All Christians believe that. Can I finish my point? Let me clarify one thing here for you. I'm not allowed to finish my point. Hold on one second. I do want to give a chance to finish. Stop filibustering me, AP. Okay, sure. Go ahead. Let me finish the damn point. Go ahead. So anyway, back to this. By his own faith, he believes that Israel is a new church. Me and you are talking past each other. Me and AP are not.

I'm falsifying his direct ideology, not trying to falsify whatever yours is. You're making a false point here. Okay, then who's the church? Here is the issue, Andrew. Do you acknowledge that according to Romans 9 through 11 and according to Orthodox teachings, there are two Israels here? One would be the natural Israel and one is the spiritual or also called the true Israel. Do you acknowledge this? Well, let's define our terms real quick.

Do you acknowledge that there are two Israel's? The natural Israel and the spiritual Israel? Yeah, yeah. So if they're saying, well, what is natural Israel? It's right in the scripture. Tell me what the Orthodox Church position is. This is the Orthodox Church position. What is it? What is natural Israel? You can find it in the Orthodox Study Bible. The natural Israel...

are those who are of the tradition of the Jews and the descendants of the Jews for their forefathers who may or may not have accepted Christ. Whereas the spiritual Israel are those who have accepted Christ and who are the church. There are two Israels. Now I understand your terms. Do you acknowledge that there are two Israels? Yeah, yeah, so...

Which one were we talking about? What question did I ask her? Who's the church? Do you acknowledge, Andrew, that there are two histories? Even if I grant it.

Who's the church? Can you answer my question? Who's the church, Red Van? Can you answer my question? I did, yes. Okay, there are two Israels. Who's the church? Fantastic. So when it talks about them being enemies for the gospel's sake, but still beloved by their forefathers, which Israel is this, Andrew? Okay, I answered your question. Answer that question. To be fair, Andrew did answer one. You promised?

Sure. Go ahead. When Paul talks about how they are enemies for the gospel's sake, but they are beloved for their forefathers' sake, which Israel is he talking about? Well, in this case, I'd say the natural. Thank you. And that's the one that this promise is about. So hang on. So who's the church? Hang on. So who's the church? Israel. The church is Israel? Yes. And so when I told her that you believe that the church is Israel, I was accurate, right? This is what Christians believe in general. Riven, just answer the question.

Yeah, but that's not relevant. Okay, thank you. Holy shit. Had to do all of this to get the answer from you. That's not relevant to the issue because we're talking about the natural Israel. It is relevant. She was not referencing natural Israel. No, she clearly mentioned the natural Israel. That's what we're talking about. No, I told her that we're referencing who is the church. Until just now, you didn't even acknowledge that there's a natural Israel. Getting answers out of you is like,

pulling teeth. Didn't he just grant that there was a natural Israel? We have a question for you, AP. Sure, go ahead. So Andrew mentioned earlier that he believes the religious Jews are the ones who reject Jesus, but I wanted to get your viewpoint on this since you guys clearly differ on some things. Would you agree with him that the religious Jews are those that reject Jesus or instead those that actually accept him?

Sorry, I didn't understand the whole distinction. So Andrew put forward the idea that religious Jews reject Jesus. I'm asking you if you would agree with that position or if you would instead believe that the religious Jews are those that do follow Jesus. Thank you. So all those who are Jews, all those who are Jews by flesh, all those who are Jews by tradition who reject Christ would be considered...

the Jews and of the natural branches of Israel. That is literally what Paul says. And then there are also those who he says, not all are Israel. The true Israel are then those who accept Christ. So this is where the diversion comes in. And by the way, he is trying to make it look like this is just Orthodox theology. It's not. It's literally in the Bible.

Protestants teach the same thing. Catholics teach the same thing. Orthodox teach the same thing because it is in the Bible. He didn't even just, he only just acknowledged, he only just acknowledged that it might be true that Israel is also the natural Israel, you know, the people of Israel, the Jews. Because I'm looking at it from the view of you, Ritvan. I do want to jump to the next question. It doesn't depend on me, Andrew. Your view depends on you, Ritvan. It doesn't depend on me. Your view depends on you, specifically, Ritvan. I hate to do this, folks, but...

So I have a brief statement and then a question. So I'm a seminarian in the Reformed tradition. The Reformed tradition universally rejects dispensationalism. And many of the other sort of main Protestant groups, it's mostly Restorationists that hold that position. But

That's true, it's small, it's like 20% of, yeah, it's like 20% who accepts dispensationalism. Yeah, I was just saying that you characterized Protestants when it is not universal to Protestantism. That's true, but look, I wasn't being... Real quick, so in the 70s, the United States sent money and weapons to the Taliban in the effort to fight the Soviet Union. Yeah.

Today, the Israeli government sends money to support dispensationalists in the U.S. Yes. Does the U.S. support the political aims of a caliphate of the Taliban just because they send them money? They have. So, I mean, they actually have supported dispensationalists.

What you would consider, you know, like if we're talking about, if we're talking about Al Qaeda, things like this, the U.S. has actually supported groups like this. I would say, though, from a Christian perspective, we would say they ought not do that, right? They ought not do that. That's the whole point, right? I think you misunderstand my question. Okay, what's the question? The support of...

a group or organization by a government is almost never because of some philosophical or theological alignment. I totally agree. It is pragmatic. I think that your assertion that Israel is there to bring about the Antichrist because they support ridiculous dispensationalist nonsense

in the United States is a bridge too far in that they're supporting them because they bring, you know, because they support and bring people to support and positively, you know, toe the line for the Israeli state. Then why do they say, why do they make the claim that they're essentially biblical accelerationists? Because they're

trying to get biblical accelerationists to support them. Right. But that doesn't mean that they're making selfish. And biblical accelerationism ends in? Stupidity, but... And antichrist, right? Antichrist, yeah, the end of the world. If you believe that that eschatology is true, but if it's not, it just means ridiculous nonsense. Yes, but we do believe that that eschatology is true, that there will be an antichrist, right?

Well, there is anti-Christ's, but... Yeah, yeah, but I'm talking, yeah, I understand what you're saying. But by the same definition of anti-Christ, the Jewish state itself is anti-Christ because it's not openly supporting Christ. The enemies of Israel are anti-Christ because they are openly against Christ. It's almost like we should not support either of them. Yes. Wow, great. Yes.

Let the Christians in the Middle East die. We can support Christians in the Middle East. We can even get Christians in the Middle East out. Not like this. You're letting them die. And we don't have to support Muslims or Jews to do it. You're letting them die.

You're not letting them die. You are literally letting the Christians in the Middle East die by refusing to support the only state in the Middle East where Christianity is thriving, according to the Christian organization Open Doors International, which tracks Christians and their oppression across the world. Andrew, I want to show you one thing. 1.8%.

I want to show you this. I have a list here of world watch lists published by Open Doors International. Open Doors International tracks the oppression of Christians around the world. The entire Middle East is marked here. Where do you think Israel ranks on this list of 70 countries? Oh, I'm sure it's way higher than a lot of the Muslim nations.

Where do you think it ranks in terms of oppression? I don't know. Where? Where do you think? I don't know. Let's just say it's like number eight zillion. Who cares? Yeah, it's nowhere on the list. Okay, great. Because among all the countries in the Middle East where Christians are brutally oppressed and which have a history of oppressing Christians, destroying Christian sites, diminishing Christianity, Lebanon was taken over as a Christian country, has been turned into a Muslim country where Christians are losing their rights day by day.

You're not arguing with a Muslim, dude. Israel is the only nation that defends the rights of Christians, and you don't give a shit about them. You're letting them die. Okay, so first of all, let me just respond. I've got to respond to that one.

First of all, inside of Israel, right? What is it? 1% or under 2% who are actually Christians? You think that we can't remove them from that? We can. We definitely can. By the way, hang on. By the way, by the way, hang on. Can I finish, bro? You don't want them to live there. Why am I not allowed to finish ever? Stop filibustering me, dummy. So real quick, we can assist Christians around the world and have peace.

We have, and so have tons of organizations which have assisted Christians around the world by not supporting Muslims or Israel. You can do both. It's a bifurcation to claim we must do one. Why? Because we have great reasons, biblical reasons, to not support a state which wants to usher in Antichrist. Which protects Christians. And

Which protects Christians. We can protect Christians too, Ridvan. Are we doing it? Yeah, we protect Christians here. No, we are not. What do you mean? We are not protecting the Christians in the Middle East. They are dying. Your fellow Orthodox Christians are dying. And do you think that the United States is hindering programs from people inside the United States to assist in the removal of Orthodox Christians from those areas? No. The truth is that right now Christians in Palestine aren't even allowed to leave Palestine, are they? They actually are.

- Oh, they are? - Yes, they actually are. - Okay, so-- - They're literally working in Israel right now. The population of Gaza, the Christian population of Gaza is below 1,000 because of the Palestinians. - Who lets them go?

Israel. Israel. Okay, great. So you're saying, what you're saying to me then, is that we can take Christians out of Israel? Why would you want to remove the Christians out of Israel? And we can take Christians out of Muslim nations? The Christians are happy in Israel. According to the latest poll, 84% of Christians say they are satisfied with life in Israel. What about the Christians in Palestine? Are they happy?

Are they satisfied? They would be happier as well if Israel was in charge. Are they satisfied right now? No, they're not because Muslims are in charge. No, they're not. Because terrorists are in charge. Why would they be happy on the terrorism? Here's the thing. Can you tell me why it is that I have an obligation, some obligation to protect Jewish interests for the Jewish state instead of the Christian interests?

Let's give E.P. a chance, and then we really do. If you as a Christian do not care about the well-being of Christians in the Middle East or the well-being of the Jews on the brink of extermination, I guess that's your problem. Deal with it when you are in favor of God. I guess if all you care about is placing Jews above everybody else, then I guess if we're going to strawman each other. Strawman once again. We have to move to the next question.

Okay, first of all, thank you so much for doing this in humble little Asheville, and thank you for taking my question. Somebody ahead of me actually made the point that I wanted to make about, well, Jews existed prior to Israel, but I didn't want to look like I punked out and step out of line, so I reformulated my question to address Andrew's argument that I think Josh's thought went too far.

but then the person right in front of me, so I'm gonna try to formulate it through, because I agree Christians shouldn't support an ideology that may conflict with Christianity wholeheartedly. And is growing, right? But the pragmatic thing that, of course I'll lose because I'm trying to be pragmatic, but 30 to 36% of people in the United States

are socialist, support socialism, xyz. The United States government has given tens upon tens of millions of dollars to socialist causes, therefore should we support America 'cause America wants to start a socialist revolution by that token? - Well, here's the thing. I would never make an ought claim that Christians would have to support United States endeavors because it's the United States.

I would never make that odd claim. He's making the odd claim. We must support Israel because they're Jews. That's literally his odd claim. Two completely different paradigms. Here is the issue, Andrew. This is all I can do in terms of response. I'm just like on my third reformulation, but I appreciate it, gentlemen. Thank you so much. We have to go to the next question because we're going to do rapid fire with these last guys. I wanted to come back to a question that this young man, you brought it up.

a couple minutes ago, but you were saying how it's safer for Christians to live in Israel. Israel has been killing 3% of the Christian population in Gaza recently. You mentioned earlier in your opening argument that the idea of Zionism is to coexist with one another, and maybe Theodor Herzl didn't understand the idea of coexistence, but there's been plenty of paramilitary groups that have been attacking during this region, during the original agalettes. Faster.

You said you weren't going to reiterate propaganda, but Haji Amin was just one man. You know who I'm referring to? Once again, in

influenced by the propaganda which I see, which is why I brought this up to Andrew Wilson and said that if we have a list tracked by a Christian organization, do you trust your fellow Christians? Open Doors International is a Christian organization which tracks oppression of Christians around the world. According to their data, despite the fact that they report on every single instance of Christian oppression, even in Israel, if it happens, Israel is not listed among the countries where there is Christian oppression.

So if people are dying in the middle of a war, then does that really mean that it is Israel that is oppressing them? No, they are in the middle of a war. Do you know how many Christians died in this war so far? Why did Israel support Hamas? What? Why did Israel support Hamas? Why did Israel support Hamas? What are you talking about? Is this new to you?

- No, it's not new to me. Israel did support the forerunners of Hamas before Hamas came into existence because they thought that this was a charity organization which they marked themselves as. It then turned into a terrorist organization. The only thing that happened afterward is that Netanyahu came up with this brilliant policy for which he has been heavily criticized where he said if Qatar wants to send funds to Hamas,

I will just allow the funds to reach Hamas because this could prevent them from violently attacking us. That's the only capacity, that's the only capacity to which Israel has supported Hamas. If you want to rely on lies and don't want to listen to the truth here, I'm not sure what to tell you. - Good evening, thank you guys for coming. Quickly to the other two gentlemen about, quickly about the other two gentlemen that talked about like if,

If a government supports a foreign organization, that means that they believe in what the organization is saying. Not that we should support it, but I don't think it's fair to claim that Israel supports the whole messianic ideology of the temple organization, but America didn't support, or doesn't believe in, they just recently admitted that they were supporting Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, all these. I don't think they believe that they should establish

like America should establish caliphates in these little areas, based off of these organizations. That's my question. Which is not a big disagreement. What's the question, though? Do you think it's fair to assume

that Israel supports the Messianic movement if other governments like America supported it, like Al-Shabaab and these other Islamic governments? - The government's becoming the Messianic movement in Israel. It's becoming that, so it's growing by leaps and bounds. Benjamin Netanyahu had to get in good. They had to get in good with these people politically. So the truth of the matter is, if you look at it, that organization is growing to become the government.

That's literally growing to become it. He can cope about it, but he'll have to admit it's been growing, not shrinking. I don't want to thank you for the response. And then just a quick question to you.

Okay, so yeah, you say that Israel is important in supporting Christians in Israel, but how about like abroad? Israel supported many dictators that have persecuted Christians, like in Nicaragua, for example, funded 90% of their military to kill 50,000 Nicaraguans, which there could be Christians in that group. And Angola did the same thing by supporting three of the rebel groups fighting in the country by switching sides each time.

and increasing the violence against Christians. This is apparent everywhere, even in my home country of Eritrea. Sorry, even in my home country of Eritrea, Israel trained a bunch of the commandos. Not only that, do you think, with this information, do you think...

that you think that Christians should still support Israel despite what you're basically asking me is because Israel makes certain mistakes in the past, does this mean we should support Israel? I would just ask the same question to make a very similar point about America. America did a lot of pretty bad things

in the past, in pretty messed up things. Does that mean that America is altogether a bad nation? Does that mean America is undeserving of our support and solidarity? No. Israel, just as well, may have done in the past certain things that are unacceptable. Does that mean Israel is undeserving of our support and our help? No. We've already gone over time for the Q&A, so I do want to jump into the actual closing. You have three minutes for each speaker, starting with Apostate Prophet. The floor is all yours.

Yes, so this did go a little bit as I thought it would go, which is that much of what I brought up in my opening speech, much of the argument has been left unaddressed by my opponent Andrew Wilson, whereas I answered to very much every single thing that he brought up in one way or another. He didn't like my responses, but that's just his issue. He doesn't like it when he gets responses that don't make sense to him.

He didn't answer my issues about the threats that face the world with Israel going extinct. I'm an ex-Muslim. I grew up in an environment and in a system where people preach day and night.

that if the Jews, who are the enemies, are defeated, then the Christians are next. There is a saying in the Middle East that goes, first the Saturday people, then the Sunday people. I'm not joking. Don't trust me. Go online and Google the phrase.

Okay, use Google. Google the phrase first the Saturday people then the Sunday people. You will be shocked by what you will find out because what you will find out is that this is a common sentiment in the Middle East that once the Muslims are done with the Jews they would go to the Christians and oppress them as well because Islam is not a religion that is about coexistence. It is a religion about dominating and massacring populations. I am an ex-Muslim. I have the death penalty on me for leaving Islam and

I know exactly how Muslims think, how they feel. If Israel were to fall, the euphoric rise of Muslims to once again reestablish this Sikh order, which was only, by the way, stopped by Christian Western people by force,

it will arise again and it will threaten the entire region. It will threaten Christians as well. Not supporting Israel here in this case, because some people are paranoid about Jews and about Zionism and all that, is supporting the Islamists who want to take over.

the very people who are fighting against Israel say very openly, "I gave you the sources." That once they're done with the Jews, then the next goal will be to re-establish the caliphate and start from there. You think this is just some, you know, a possibility.

This is what they are aiming for. Why in the world would anybody support that by refusing to help those who are fighting against that? Israel, if you don't care about Jews, if you don't care about the Bible, if you don't care about God, if you don't care about Paul, care about a little bit of

logic here about the Christians there, don't allow the dam that is preventing the flood from coming in to break. Support those people that are holding back the masses of barbarians that not only want the extermination of Jews that people are obsessed with, but also the extermination of all the other people in the region.

You are allowing them into your countries. You are allowing them to rape your people. And now you're also allowing them to defeat the only ones who actually have the balls to stand against them. Good job.

Thank you very much for that closing. We'll kick it over to Andrew for his three-minute closing as well. Yes, I think that that's a really effective closing argument against a Muslim. But the thing is, is that I'm not a Muslim. And I am not a supporter of Islam in any capacity. And he ends it with a false binary again. If you, Andrew, don't support Israel, that means you support Islam.

Boy, that's genius. I haven't heard that from every political party since I was a kid. If you don't support us, you support the death of the elderly. If you don't support us, you support abortion. If you don't support us, you support A, B, and C. Totally false dialectics, false binaries, and lies. Here's the truth, right? The truth is...

is that the West is the ones who already enable the fact that Islam can't spread. The West is the fact that's already doing this by his own admission. We must support Israel. Why? Because they're the ones who are stopping this. That means the West is necessary in a component to stopping this. So let's assume for a second that every single Jewish person tomorrow left Israel, has packed their bags and they left,

All the Christians moved in instead because they have a lot of attachment to the Holy Land. Are you saying that their interests wouldn't be preserved there by them also against Islam? Of course it would. That's what makes this a false binary choice. You don't have to support either. I don't need to support Islam and I don't need to support a Jewish ethnostate either, Ridvan, that has prophecies for antichrists it's trying to fulfill. I don't need to support either. Totally unnecessary for me to support either with my tax dollars

Totally unnecessary for me to support either in order to stop Islam. By the way, I just am going to point out the historic standard. Israel hasn't been around for very long. They reestablished the nation of Israel and the West has been kicking the shit out of Muslims.

for about a thousand years. Just want to point that out. About a thousand years of kicking the total shit out of Islamics all over the place when it comes to them spreading their ideology. This includes when they were enroaching in Europe, which they did. They got thrown out of there. I would say the destabilizing agent inside the Middle East, you could make the argument, could be Israel for why there's so many of them.

of these displaced Muslim refugees moving into Western nations to begin with. You can easily make that argument. Now would I? I don't even think that's necessary. Maybe that is a step too far, but the point is is that it still is a false binary choice, and that's all he gives you. Never ever trust the argument of a person who says if you don't support this,

That means you support that. That's pure rhetoric, it's illogical, it's fallacious. Every argument from Ridvan was fallacious. He said he addressed my arguments, I wrote them premise form, never addressed a single argument, ever.

When I asked him, and I want you to take this last thing away with my closing, I asked Ridvan point blank, do you think that we should support the nation of Israel even knowing that 30% of the population there and growing, right, wants Antichrist? And his answer point blank, and I'll clip it and put it out for those who don't believe me, was yes, unequivocally yes. Well, I have a different point of view.

No, I'm not going in any capacity to support Antichrist or Islam. I can have my cake and eat it too. So that's it. We'll conclude. We appreciate you gentlemen. Thank you very much. Give them a round of applause, folks. Certainly one of the more

One of the more competitive and intense and tense as well debates that I've seen in a long time. And also, thank you very much, folks, for coming out. Thanks for your questions. We're not going to wrap up quite yet. Sean Simanko from Uncensored America is going to come on stage in just a moment. But I do want to say thanks so much for coming out. Thanks for all of your questions. I appreciate your passion. It's been an amazing debate. So welcome, Sean, the leader. You bet. Yeah. Okay.

He, stand up for a second. See this giant right here? He has all the details of where that's going to be. So go ahead and talk to him and he'll get you all those details. Okay, guys? And with that, I want to welcome the leader of Uncensored America, the man responsible for this organization as well, ultimately for this debate, but also want to say thank you to Olivia for doing all the hard work. But Sean, thank you very much. Come back up. This is an amazing debate, Sean. Amazing. Thank you, James. Amazing moderation. Thank you.

I just want to give a bunch of thank yous because we reached a big milestone here at Uncensored America. We just crossed 100,000 subscribers, which is pretty amazing.

And it's not possible without a lot of people, so I'm going to go through them as quickly as possible, but I have to thank them because I'm really grateful for everybody, and I feel very blessed just over the past few weeks, all the support we've gotten. But first, I want to thank Andrew and Apostate Prophet. This debate was so hard to put together. As you know, I was trying so many people that want to see if they would debate you, and nobody would debate this guy. He's one of the few that would. So I give him a lot of credit for coming here and doing that. I really do. Thank you.

but they're good sports so i really really appreciate them for doing this and i love to thank james we met minds fest a couple years ago now we you're a default mire you've done an amazing job um i want to thank our execs here at this chapter and all of our other chapters who help us bring these events to campuses people don't understand that you can't just roll up and do an event you got to start a chapter with students to actually make these things possible everybody's volunteered paid for tickets you guys have really

Really, Paul, especially the Crucible crew guys. You did a really amazing job. And Myron Gaines with the Castle Club, too, really pulled out hard for our last one. So thank you guys so much. And if you guys haven't already, subscribe to the Crucible. Subscribe to Posse Profit. They have great content. You guys will love it.

And if you guys, like I said, are here for the meet and greet, please stay afterwards. What we're going to do is we're going to have people leave. Everybody leave. And if you're here for the meet and greet, we'll let you guys come back in. And if you're here for dinner as well, we'll discuss that. And lastly, I want to thank everybody who's helped out.

our organization, Luca, Ash, Kyle, Alex, Emily, Brendan, Drew, Jacob, Zeb, who's in the back there, I'm manning the camera, John Ward, James, Jeff, Ken, and our lawyer, John Gross, amazing guy, and his wife, Mimi, have also been very, very helpful behind the scenes when we have to sew the pants off these universities that try to shut this stuff down.

And lastly, I'm going to thank all of our talent because our talent really drives all this. We can put these events together and all that, and we do all the behind-the-scenes stuff. But without the talent, it really doesn't resonate online. We don't hit that 100,000-mile zone without that.

I want to thank Alex Stein, Gavin McGinnis, Laura Loomer, John Doyle, Destiny, Owen Shorter, Hunter Avalon, Brianna Wu, Anthony Cumia, Martin Shkreli, Nuance Bro, Don Terry. That's Alex Stein's boyfriend. Or it's Weiss' boyfriend, sorry. Key difference. Elijah, Positive Prophet, Andrew, and of course, Myron Gaines last week. He really helped push us up to 100,000 subs. So please, show him some love. He's been amazing to work with. Great guy. And last but not least, Milo Yiannopoulos. That guy...

Man, he's been amazing behind the scenes. Like, it's a lot of stuff that you guys don't know, but he's helped us out for a lot of events. He was there from the beginning. He was the first guy we hosted, and he didn't have to do it. He didn't have to do it at all. Like, he took a risk with us, and we really appreciate it. So, big thank you to Milo. And have a good night, guys. And like I said, if you're here for the meet and greet or royalty tickets, please exit, but stay hanging out in the lobby, and we'll bring you guys back in. Thank you so much, and have a great night.

Welcome to It Takes Energy, presented by Energy Transfer, where we talk all things oil and natural gas. Oil and gas drive our economy, ensure our country's security, and open pathways to brighter futures.

Did he know that the majority of progress the U.S. has made in reducing emissions over the past decade has come from the oil and gas industry? With more electrical power generation now coming from natural gas versus coal, the air we breathe today is cleaner than it has been since the '90s, according to a report from the EPA.

Clean burning natural gas is also a reliable source of power for more than just our electrical grids. It is also used to power data centers, hospitals, schools, and so much more. Look around and you'll see the essential role oil and gas plays in our lives. Our world needs oil and gas, and people rely on us to deliver it. To learn more, visit energytransfer.com.