Episode 138

What do slippery slopes, the military, Andrew Tate, and guns have in common? They are all indicative of a world gone bonkers! In this second episode of the series This World has Gone Bonkers, we point to news articles and videos from the past and present that highlight incredible foolishness, incompetence, or malice, from American soldiers defecting to North Korea to children buying guns online. Let the series remind us of the spiritual needs of this lost and dying world, and of the good news that our Lord has already overcome the world.

[Jay]

Thank you for tuning in to the Removing Barriers podcast. I’m Jay and I’m MCG. And we’re attempting to remove barriers so we can all have a clear view of the cross.

[MCG]

This is episode 138 of the Removing Barriers Podcast. And this is the second in the series. Of this world has gone bonkers. In this episode we have lined up a number of articles that we think shows that this world is bonkers.

I will start with an article from the New York Post of a kid buying a gun. Off of the dark web. An 8 year old had no trouble buying an AK47 online and mailing it home. A woman in the Netherlands revealed recently that her young son once managed to purchase an AK47 off of the dark web without her knowledge, calling it something out of a movie. My son started hacking at the age of 8. And that’s when he ordered a gun, said Barber German to Euronews. He started to spend a lot of time behind a computer and he started ordering things on the Internet without paying him. Now this is the 8 year old kid. And just to add some context, she’s talking about it now that her son is 20, so she just revealing it this year that when he was eight, he was able to do these things. Which I think is bonkers ideal going in the dark web and buying a gun and stuff like that, mailing it home, it shows that. Well, how easily these things can be obtained, but I think it shows some lack of parenting as well. The concerned parents said the dark Web purchase started off with something small, such as free pizza, but progressively the deliveries became more horrifying, according to the parent, her son would use in comprehensive code phrases such as pit. Pitt is coming to our place whenever she would enter a room. Masking his dealings by communicating with illicit actors via online games. German claims that the hackers use her son to also launder money for others. It wasn’t until the automatic gun, along with ammunition, showed up at her doorstep. The German realized what was happening was much bigger than she and her son. What do you think about this? It seems to me that first that the actual kid had access to a computer in his room or someplace private, so whenever she entered the room, they have these codes that they were used to indicate that, hey, someone is in the room. My mom is in the room or whatever. We need to change the topic, but to me seems like a lack of parenting. Because I’m thinking take away the device. He’s ordering free pizza off the Internet. He’s stealing. Take it with the device. Put it away. He’s 8.

[Jay]

None of this makes sense to me, and maybe it’s because I am a technological boomer and I don’t know how these. Things work. How do? You order something online without paying for it. Does that also mean that he’s? Stealing money from people like a fake account where he has. Maybe is he using Bitcoin or how?

[MCG]

He’s hacking.

[Jay]

What does that mean? I know what hacking means, but how do you? How do you? I’m gonna sound so ignorant. How do you use hacking to pay for something? So what? He was stealing money from people’s accounts, like hacking their account, information, stealing that money to pay for these things like this free pizza and this gun.

[MCG]

Well, I’m a software engineer, another hacker, but most likely he was tapping into, let’s say, Papa John’s computer and basically placing the order on. Docket without going through the proper channel for order to show up there. So they will deliver pizza to him thinking based upon the computer that he has paid, but he hasn’t paid anything because he had came. To the computer.

[Jay]

But they also said that he was able to purchase this weapon without paying. For it I you know.

[MCG]

Remember this also say on the dark web you can get anything on the dark.

[Jay]

Web I understand without paying for it.

[MCG]

Well, some of them you might have to pay for, but. If you’re hacking I.

[Jay]

Find it very hard to believe that people would be selling weapons on the dark web. For free and of course. That’s the, you know, selling implies that you have to pay for money, but I don’t think there’s anyone on the dark web just giving guns away. Yeah, imagine you would have to pay for it without having to go through the legal restrictions.

[MCG]

If they’re using it.

[Jay]

There are for legally buying weapons.

[MCG]

Yeah, we could be bitcoins as well, but at the same time, if they’re using him for a front man, they could just be sending him an AK47 for free.

[Jay]

Using him as a frontman to do. What if he’s purchasing?

[MCG]

To seal money, to hack whatever their username.

[Jay]

So he will hack the say credit card information and in exchange for the credit card information, they will send him, in this case a gun.

[MCG]

Could be, but it could also simply be that he is hacking into these computers and creating fake orders.

[Jay]

I don’t know this this this. Story there’s so many questions with this story. It makes no sense to me. It happened 12 years ago and. Nothing is very clear in terms of how it was done and what he was doing it for. I wonder if this is just one of those stories where it’s like President Trump would call it fake news so that you could drum up support for some type of Internet restriction or maybe gun control. So many questions that aren’t being answered.

[MCG]

Or remember this. Remember this happened in the Netherlands. I don’t know.

[Jay]

So from what I understand, the Netherlands. You know, I’m not even gonna say because I don’t entirely know what the restrictions are.

[MCG]

I don’t know anything about it, but.

[Jay]

The Netherlands, in terms of guns and in terms of freedom. If the Netherlands are net positive net negative, I’m not sure, but if your eight-year old son is able to get on the so-called dark web. And then it also says. That he routed the weapon. It didn’t come straight to the Netherlands. It went through Bulgaria and some other country before it came to him so that he could avoid customs and any other type of regulatory body. None of that makes sense either. How do you get a gun to pass through three different countries? Including the country, it ends up in. I don’t think she’s telling the full story. None of this makes sense even to a layperson like me, at least on the surface it. Would make sense. None of this makes sense.

[MCG]

Well, I can’t explain it away, but as I said, he was on the dark web. He was.

[Jay]

Acting so well, OK, the dark web does exist, obviously, and you can purchase things. You could purchase reprehensible things on the dark web. You could purchase hitmen, you could purchase all manner of *********** and other dark things.

[MCG]

He didn’t purchase illegal weapons due.

[Jay]

Illegal weapons? Sure, it’s crazy that an 8 year old could figure out how to do that. This is a very precocious kid then.

[MCG]

So I’m not Even so much worried about the kid. The kid has to get access to a computer. He has to get access to devices and to me this seems more like an absent mother.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

Since the article is talking about the mother than ever mentioned his father. Absent mother rather than a. Quote UN quote bad kid. Even though you can say he’s a bad kid, but at the same time.

[Jay]

So she just kind of gave him full unrestricted access to the Internet. Back in the twenty 10s.

[MCG]

That’s what I will draw from the article. Of course, I don’t know about.

[Jay]

This would have been 2011, right? Because he’s 20 now, 2011.

[MCG]

Somewhere around there. Coming around there. Alright, so the article continues the mum speaking here. I think he spent a month figuring out how to order the gun and have it shipped to our house. We called German stating that her son had the gun routed from Poland to Bulgaria in an effort to avoid custom. He opened it and he was really, really excited that he managed to get the gun delivered to our home, she continued. I was completely shocked. I immediately decided to do things differently at home. She was she was the one a penny late a day late and a dollar short. Something like that, but I don’t know. I’m thinking if my son is doing stuff on devices that I don’t want him to do those devices going to be gone, you know. I grew up. My mum never gave US devices and of course I’m old, so bite and devices come around. I was already well in my teens but I have an aunt that I don’t have to guess what she would do because. She has put hammers to devices. And I’m talking about phones or even compute. Hers if she figured that her kid was spending more time on those devices than other stuff. I’m not saying maybe putting a hammer to a phone might be too extreme, but come on, parents.

[Jay]

OK, so this story is disjointed. It doesn’t make sense to me. Like for example it says after he ordered the gun. And the gun arrive to their home. She said I was completely shocked. I immediately decided to do things differently at home, right. And then the next. The next paragraph says she turned the gun over to the Police Department. No legal action was taken against her kid, the next paragraph. Says and then she began noticing a change in her son’s personality. He started to wake up at night to sit behind a computer, and he was really stressed. And that’s when we found out that he was working with a group of international hackers. And I’m like, whoa, wait a minute. This story doesn’t make sense. So an automatic weapon is.

[MCG]

That’s about it.

[Jay]

Semi automatic weapon? The article says it was fully automatic, so maybe they don’t know what they’re talking about.

[MCG]

The article. What you talking about? Further, I know AK47.

[Jay]

OK, so. OK, so a semi automatic weapon shows up at your front door. Huge scary looking AK47 shows up at your. Outdoor you find that your kid is the one who used hacking knowledge to and then routed it through two or three different countries to bring it to your front door. And you’re shocked? And immediately everything in your house is going to change within the very next paragraph. You say that he wakes up at night and he’s sitting behind the computer. Nothing in your house. He still has access to the computer, and now he’s doing worse things. So either she’s lying or she’s a really bad mom. I’m not sure what to make of.

[MCG]

Yeah, he said in an effort to curb her son Budden. Life of Crime, German said that she contact law enforcement as well as her son’s. Tool for advice, but allege her concern was dismissed as exaggeration.

[Jay]

I think this whole story is an exaggeration. I’m sorry. Make sense what she’s saying?

[MCG]

It could be it could have been a toy. It could have been a toy AK47. And again, let me correct what I said last, I guess some AK47 could be fully automatic so.

[Jay]

OK, so she said. That she decided that everything in her house was going to change right at that moment. But in the very next paragraph, nothing really changed, and I think that if an AK47 showed up at your House and you found out your kid found some way to do that. Not only would you take away his access to computers, there would be no Internet in the house as far as I’m concerned. If he’s able to weasel his way and do hacker stuff to do this type of activity online, he shouldn’t have access to any type of tech. So I’m just thinking about what would I do if one of my sons did that I. Would probably not allow there to be any Internet in the House because his ability. These on the Internet, they completely outpace my ability to monitor what’s happening. This isn’t some ohh he shouldn’t go to that website type of thing. This is him able to hack and order things for free dangerous things and bring them into the house. And she said that she immediately. Decided that she was gonna take. Action. She didn’t do anything. So I don’t know. This story doesn’t make sense. It’s either not real or she’s a really bad parent and she’s maybe calling attention. Perhaps that’s one good thing that comes out of this calling parts attention to what their children are doing on these devices, because all of us are guilty of having the TV or the tablet or the computer babysit our children. For an hour or two while we get something done, you know, you throw on a video and you think it’s safe and it turns out that YouTube has, you know, some videos or. Some ads that are inappropriate even for children, and you as the parent you’re thinking, oh, they’re watching Tom and Jerry or whatever, and and they might have seen something. So all of. Us can be prodded to realize that it’s probably not a good idea to leave our children unattended with videos and technology and tablets and things, but this right here. It’s a completely different ball of wax, I think.

[MCG]

Here, he continues, taking matters in her own hands. German decide to start looking at her son’s browsing history and informing herself about cyber security.

[Jay]

Man, this story real.

[MCG]

Things hit a breaking point when German son revealed that his hacker buddies had asked him to help them hack companies and send them stolen information. According to German, her son immediate told her what was going on and she helped him break off contact. With them, it is so easy these days because of lots of kids have laptops and cellphones and you can basically do a hack with a few clicks, said German, who now works as a cyber special volunteer with Dutch police. It’s a pretty big problem to stop young people from hacking. They often don’t know what is legal and what is illegal. I’m just simply saying, man. Talking about kids having access to laptop and cell phone, take them away.

[Jay]

Yeah, it’s really simple. If the story is real and I have really strong doubts that it is real, but just take the tech away, you’re the parent, you have that power. Take it away.

[MCG]

Alongside her dark web sleuthing, son, who is now 20, German is currently working with a newly launched Dutch task force called the Cyber Offender Prevention squad, or COPS. She told the Wall Street Journal in July to educate parents and just how easy their kids can slip in to the dark corners of the Internet. They don’t know it can be their own son or daughter, she told them. Well, I’m just simply saying don’t give them devices in their bedroom, monitor their activities. Like a hawk. I guess you can say problem solved. Maybe that’s not easily and I don’t want to be flipping.

[Jay]

Not that easily.

[MCG]

I want to be flipping about it because if a kid is determined to do what they want to do, I guess they will do what they want to do. I had an old lady. She’s with the Lord now, but when I was growing up, she always said that you can give your kids everything except her mine. Meaning that. You know you can raise them, right? You can do all the right stuff and they can still go the wrong way.

[Jay]

Yeah, that’s true.

[MCG]

But but at the end of the day, I’m just simply saying he can’t use his. Train and if he hands to hack, he would have to go out of his way to get devices because I’m going to take them away from him. I’m going to do my best for him not to get those devices. Of course, the other things, of course, we have to also educate the kid on right and wrong and deception and stealing and all this stuff. But again, raising your kid in the fear of. The Lord but. Not having these devices would not make the temptation as easy. I think that story is bonkers. I don’t know if it’s real, but it’s at least.

[Jay]

Yeah, it’s definitely bonkers, and I have. I don’t know. I have strong doubts that it’s even real though, just the way that it’s written. It just seems there’s something else going on with this story. I don’t know. So that’s my take on it. I have one. Well I have 3, but here’s the first one. I found an article on the national geographics about four years old now. And here’s the title. In a first fossil dinosaur feathers found near the South Pole. And then the subtitle says the ancient plumage hints at how small carnivorous dinosaurs weathered long, cold winters inside the Antarctic circle. 118 million years ago. So if you read this article, the first thing you would think is ohh they found a dinosaur with feathers. Right. Because paleontologists and evolution. Biologists and evolutionary paleontologists have been telling us for years now that birds are living dinosaurs. Birds evolved from dinosaurs. Dinosaurs became birds, and our sons and I were watching a presentation from answers in Genesis about dinosaurs and how the world and the scientific community has used. Evolutionary theory. Millions of years dinosaurs to hoodwink the entire world into thinking that evolution is true and that dinosaurs became birds through the evolutionary process, and the presenter said something that was. Very simple, and yet it flipped a switch on in my head, he said. Isn’t it interesting that we have no real fossils of feathered dinosaurs? Every single depiction of a feathered dinosaur we have has been an artist’s rendering based on what they think the scientists have said, and I said. Are you sure? Is that true? Because the way that the scientists talk, you would think that they have fossils of dinosaurs with feathers. And so I did just a simple Google search, just a simple Google search, and I’m no paleontologist. No scientist or nothing, but I did a simple Google search and. I’d looked specifically for feathered dinosaur fossils or dinosaur feather fossils or fossils of dinosaurs with feathers. Any one of those combinations, just to make sure I find what I’m looking for. And I have. Nothing comes up. There are creatures with feathers, but they’re birds, not dinosaurs. And so I thought to myself, how is it that the whole entire world? World and the entire scientific community, particularly in paleontology and evolutionary biology, all these things, how could we all be hoodwinked into believing this without any proof whatsoever? In this article, the title makes it sound like that they found a fossil a dinosaur fossil like dinosaur bones. With feathers that belonged to that particular dinosaur, and when you read the entire article. Only when you get about 2/3 of the way through do they say ohh the feathers are not associated with any other bones or structures because the feathers were just found by themselves and I just dropped the phone and I couldn’t believe it. This is bonkers. You’re telling me. That you literally found fossils of feathers? Random feathers by themselves, and you’re automatically attributing it to Dinos. What proof have you? What scientific proof have you that those didn’t belong to some bird that had flown over at that particular time? Why is it that it’s automatically? Ohh it must have been dinosaurs and I thought it’s absolutely bonkers because I thought science was you see something happening and you have a question about it. And so you observe it and you ask questions. You form a hypothesis, you test your hypothesis, test it again, test it again. Write down what you discovered and then come to a conclusion, right? I thought that was the scientific process. Has something changed between? And when I graduated from high school and today that these articles and these scientists are telling us this is what we found, this is what is true. This is what happened and they have absolutely no proof for it. I find that to be absolutely bonkers.

[MCG]

Yeah, but it’s not new. They do that. For a lot of. Quote UN quote discoveries. They have no evidence for what they’re putting out. Even I don’t even remember. I think it was The Jungle Book, or maybe one of those Disney movies where they kind of showed the transition when they found like Tarzan. I think maybe might be Tarzan. I’m thinking about when they show his progression and say maybe we might have found him. The link.

[Jay]

Oh, OK.

[MCG]

So they have never found. A partially man partially ape, fearful there are many stuff out there that they’re artist rendition of what they believe it might be even climate change. I remembered reading an article when I was in College of several scientists confessing that they have fudged the numbers to let it seem like climate change is happening when it’s not so. Again, we might, we might be accused of not accepting their science.

[Jay]

My goodness.

[MCG]

But that’s what it is. You have to research these things and I think the reason why they do that is because they want to prove that that in itself evolve into birds. So if that is so, evolve into birds when the dinosaurs roam the earth. They were no birds. So right, they’ve now the dinosaurs have feathers. Now we can prove, hey, the feathers belongs to the dinosaurs that were. Evolving into birds are not birds themselves.

[Jay]

That’s entirely problematic because remember, in our first bonkers episode, we talked about how the Harvard professor wanted to pass a presumptive ban on home. Schooling, because homeschoolers, many of them, deny science. And so because I’m raising questions about how this article was written and how scientists have tried to have us believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs without any proof in the fossil record. If I stand up and say, hey, that’s not quite right, I’m questioning. And so my children should be taken from me in an institutionalized in the public school system because I because I’m pointing out the fact that there’s no proof for their theories. That’s absolutely bonkers. So I find it very disingenuous that the way that the article was written, you would have to read the entire article and get more than halfway through in order to see that the fossil was really just feathers. There were no bones, there was no animal there. It’s clearly an animal. It’s clearly a bird that had shed feathers because there were absolutely no bones there, just feathers. And so the automatic. Assumption that it came from dinosaurs is bone. It’s bonkers. In light of how we do science, it’s bonkers because they tend to make us believe that birds came from dinosaurs. That’s completely bonkers to me now. There are dinosaurs that have these filaments, these keratin filaments that have been found in certain microraptors and certain like smaller Raptor type dinosaurs. Compies maybe? That have these, like the filaments that you would see on an iguana like the little, the sharp things on the back or neck, but they are nothing but keratin filaments. They’re not structured like feathers, not even the beginning stages look like feathers. Feathers have a very distinct anatomy, for lack of a better word. Structure, but because they have to make it fit within the narrative that birds came from dinosaurs or evolved from dinosaurs, they’re calling them proto feathers. Or like a very early form of a feather, when in reality it’s just carrots and filaments that many reptiles have. And I just find it crazy. Why do they need us to believe this so much that they’re willing to lie? To us.

[MCG]

Yeah, and feathers grow out of follicles and.

[Jay]

I’m blown away.

[MCG]

Not the way these keratin stuff that you mentioned grow. So those are comparing apples and oranges. They’re not the same thing because as I said, feathers grow from particle just like over here grow over follicle. Yeah, alright. Well crazy I have another one and this one was shared with me from a listener from our first bunkers.

[Jay]

OK.

[MCG]

This one is New York. Parent seeks OK to marry their own adult child.

[Jay]

Oh my.

[MCG]

Word. This is couple of years back. This is back in 2021, but I think it’s bunkers and since we didn’t do it back then we got to do it now. The article reads. I take my child to be my lawful wedded spouse, a New Yorker who wants to marry their own adult offspring is suing to overturn laws firing the insults, practice calling it a matter of individual autonomy. The pioneer parents seek to remain anonymous because their request is an action that the last segment of society views as morally, socially and biologically repugnant, according to court papers. Through the enduring born of marriage, two persons, whatever relationship they might otherwise have with one another, can find a greater level of expression, intimacy, and spirituality, the parent argues in the Manhattan Federal court claim filed April one. Remember, this is back in 2021.

[Jay]

21, OK.

[MCG]

Legal papers give only the barest picture of the would be newlyweds failing to identify their gender, ages, hometowns, order, nature of their relationship. The proposed spouses are adults. The fallacy the proposed spouses are biological, parent and child. The proposed spouses are unable to procreate. Together, incest is a third degree felony on the New York law, punishable by up to four years behind bars. And incestuous marriages are considered void, with their spouses facing a fine and after six months in jail, marriage licensing in the five boroughs required potential spouses to list their birth parents and attest that there are no legal impediments to the marriage. According to the city clerk’s office, in 2014, a state appeals court unanimously approved a case involving a woman married to her mothers. Half brother, noting the genetic relationship was the equivalent of first cousins, but even that ruling cited the almost universal horror with which a parent child marriage is viewed. The parent in the new case, who he is married bells one look at their own kids said they want to propose but would sustain. Emotional harm. If they did so while the current laws are in effect. Alright, I’m going to stay for a little bit, you know, as repugnant as this may seem. I would ask. I guess lack of a better terminology. The political left. Those who believe in the LGBTQIA movement. Why is this morally wrong? Because in 2015, when the Supreme Court opened. Pandora’s box and allow marriage to be between a man and a man and a woman and a. There’s no way no one can tell me that this is morally wrong. Based upon that ruling. So you can say it’s morally wrong. I agree you can say that it is unnatural. I would agree. But I would say the same thing. For gay marriage, lesbian marriage and all these other nonsense that we have going on in the world today so. Why is this morally wrong? Pandora’s box has been opened and they say they can’t procreate. So what’s the hiccup here? What’s the hiccup here? They’re going to produce a child that is potentially handicap or whatever. Malfunction or deformities. A child may have because their genes are too close to each other, so they’re errors in both genes is going to cause issues. So what’s the issue here? Of course, the article didn’t mention and they didn’t reveal in quote papers their gender. What is a father and a son or a mother and a daughter or a father and a daughter? Or a mother and a son. They didn’t say that, but I will go out on a limb and say it’s probably a safe sex relations.

[Jay]

Why do you think it’s? Well, I mean, why not since this our.

What it is?

[MCG]

I could be wrong, I doubt it would be a modernist son. I guess the mother could be past the age of a woman as the Bible put it. So she can’t have anymore kids. But I can’t imagine that I can’t imagine would be a father and a daughter unless the daughter has done stuff to prevent herself from having kids or she knows she can’t have kids, you know? What would prevent her from being impregnated by her father so? I’m going to go to a limb and believe it’s probably a father and a son. Of course I have no evidence of that. The article didn’t mention, but I’m simply saying hey, Pandora’s box was opened in 2015. Why is this morally wrong? Because. If we use the same logic, there’s no way you can prove this is morally wrong unless you go back to Scripture and say based upon it, and if you go back to Scripture, then you’re going to have to acknowledge from Scripture as well that gay marriage is wrong. Let’s be in marriage is.

[Jay]

OK, so I’ve got two points here, right first point. You’re absolutely right about what moral framework or people working from. I just watched the debate between Destiny and Milo Yiannopoulos. I’m surprised that it happened three months ago and I didn’t know about it. For those I don’t know. Milo Yiannopoulos is a former right wing political pundit, but at the time he was also a homosexual but conservative and so. You know, conservatives were glad to have him on our side, our side as they were, put that in air quotes. That’s how they would describe it, but he recently, after having been canceled for something he said, he lost everything. And he’s recently tried to return to his faith. He’s given up the homosexual lifestyle, and he’s no longer practicing that lifestyle. He’s returned to his childhood faith of, I believe, his Catholicism. And now he advocates that America become a Christian nation in the sense of Christian nationalism. And so his debate with Destiny, who’s a left wing personality, was why America should be governed by the. Legal system of Christian nationalist or Christian nationalism and so obviously destiny was against it. But Destiny said something and he said. You know, we’ve already opened Pandora’s box. Birth control is not going anywhere. Same sex marriages isn’t going anywhere. You know, women aren’t going to go back home and leave the work field and go back home. None of these things are going to happen. Pandora’s box is open, so now we need to find a way for all of these different views. All of these different beliefs, all of these different moral frameworks, to live together peaceably and harmoniously. And I just remember thinking that’s not possible because sin is like cancer in the sense that it never stops growing. And ravaging it keeps destroying. So when you start with, you know, like you said, MCG, marriage can be between two people of the same sex. Where does it end? Because now we’re talking about a parent wanting to marry their adult child. So that’s my first point. Second point is. There has to be some level of child abuse that had been going on for quite some time and now that child is an adult, they still can’t seem to extract themselves from its grip because in what other world does that even make sense? Like why? The fact that this petition even went to the courts would mean that both parties are willing or wanting for this to happen. I’m guessing of course. And if I were a betting woman, I would put my house on it, that there was some type of abuse going on in the home long before they had ever had the bright idea of marrying each other.

[MCG]

Well, I don’t know, but let me continue that and then I’ll comment on what you just said. OK, there are known cases of parents who are separated from their children in infancy only to reunite. Decades later and become romantic, said New York law professor Sylvia. I don’t think there’s a big popular movement, but I think as long as we have kept records, there have been cases, she told the post, adding. It’s an area where I think most people would say the government has a right to make the rules, even if they don’t apply to every situation. So I’m going to end there, but I did some research into incestuous relationship. And it seems to be more common than. We actually have heard about or know about and it seems to be, that situation where siblings were separated as kids and they never really know each other. They knew each other then they met as adults. And based on one article that I read, it seems like when it happened like that, there’s some kind of spot between both of them that happened and all of a sudden it turned romantic. I read of a story of two siblings. They were half brothers and sisters, separated at an early age, never knew of each other, have the same father when they met. Their father introduced them in their early 20s. At this point they have two kids. I’m not saying it’s right. It seems to that as the article just said, it’s in my cap between parents and child as well. You are separated for we don’t know each other. Then all of a sudden you. Meet each other. I don’t. Know if there’s a science behind of this or something. Of course, we can always point to the depravity of man. We know that sin rule and reigns in the heart of men that have not brought that on the submission. But yeah, it seems like, at least from the articles I’ve read, that there is something about being separated from someone that you’re biologically related to and then meeting them in adulthood kind of create some kind of spark. So could it be abuse? There’s a possibility. Could it be a situation where? This father and son that like I’m assuming.

[Jay]

Like you’re assuming, yeah.

[MCG]

Were separated, you know, early in life and all of a sudden they come together. Later in life, and both of them are gay, and they decide well. I love you. You love me. Love is love. Kind of the false stuff and fell for each other. And that’s one of the dangerous thing about this phrase. Love is love again. If love is love, why is it that this parent and child should not have the right to be married, just like the gays and the lesbian?

[Jay]

Right, right.

[MCG]

And in my worldview and the way I look to Scripture, I will say that’s wrong and it’s always wrong. But there’s a slippery slope when you start saying love is love, you know you can say the same thing, even if this kid was a minor. Because people are pushing in for that. Too, right. So well remember one of the.

[Jay]

Former podcasts that we had Pastor Todd on. And he said that there’s this common phrase or common saying that love is love and love wins. And he says that’s not true. Love does not win. Truth wins because. As you said, MCG, anything short of truth is going to end up being this nonsense. These bunkers, things that we’re discussing here in this podcast today. Hi, this is. Gay, MCG and I would like for you to help us remove barriers by going to removingbarriers.net and subscribing to receive all things, removing barriers. If you’d like to take your efforts a bit further and help us keep the mics on, consider donating at removing barriers.net/donate, removing barriers, a clear view of the cross. Thank you so much for listening to the Removing Barriers podcast. Make sure to rate US everywhere you listen to podcasts, including Spotify, Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, or Stitcher. Removing barriers, a clearview of the cross. OK, I have another one here. This one is a video put up on YouTube by cross politic and the title of the video is Tucker and Tate are dangerous. The good and the bad, and I won’t replay any of the video here in the podcast today, but the gist of the video, among other things that they discussed was. Addressing the interview that Tucker calls. Some did with Andrew Tate. He has many, many, many allegations regarding some pretty horrific things. And so in this video, which is a video of Christian men that are discussing cultural topics of the day, I believe they’re coming at it from a presbyterian’s point of view. But they brought up an excellent point. And something that should probably be said because Andrew Tate is very influential among men, particularly young men and working age men that are seeking to marry, settle down or get started in their lives, etcetera. And in his interview with Andrew Tate, Tucker asked what exactly are you being charged with? What are the allegations? What are you being charged with? And Andrew Tate said. You know, that’s a very good question because I’m not really being charged with anything. They say that I’m, you know, ****** or I’m charged. With ******, I have never raped anyone and. They say that I’m running like a sort of like a pimp, sort of sexual exploitation type of business from my home. And that’s not happening. And none of these things are true. And so Tucker just kinda. Of he doesn’t challenge it, he just goes on with the interview and there are certain other instances in the interview where he asks Tate certain questions, and Tate either diminishes them or lies about them, and Tucker doesn’t provide any pushback. He just moves on. It wasn’t until a Twitter user created a mashup of video that has cuts of the interview and then cuts of the truth. Whether it is proof of things that Tate has said in the past or done in the past. Videos of tape doing certain things or. Video proof of the allegations against him altogether, and it seems that Andrew Tate is lying about the allegations that are facing him. The allegations are quite serious and when he said that he never did any of these things, some of the videos and some of the. Things that he has said in the past are clear indication that he actually did do some of those things. And what’s bonkers about this is that he got absolutely. No pushback from Tucker Carlson like the Tucker Carlson that was fired from Fox News because his reporting was a little bit too real. The Tucker Carlson that got Mike Pence to reveal some pretty questionable things, the Tucker Carlson that brought January 6th to light in terms of. What was actually happening? And not what the narratives, what the mainstream narrative was. And so I thought, you know, Tucker Carlson is considered by many to be one of the last true journalists out there that are willing to ask hard questions and really get to the bottom of things. And yet he’s talking to Andrew Tate, and there’s just no pushback whatsoever. And I thought, well, that’s quite odd. Bonkers, if you will. Why is that, I wonder if you’re in a situation where you’re being beat up by the machine, as it were. Air quotes or what tape calls the matrix, or what we know to be the accept. Bourgeois, if you would, the people that are running everything, if you’re beat up by them, haunted by them, persecuted by them. In Tucker’s case, fired by them, you know, I wonder if that does things to you where you’re a little bit more cautious, maybe you compromise in some way or another to where you’re not willing to ask questions because you’re in a position now where you realize you need. You need help. You need friends. I’m not sure why he didn’t pin Andrew tape to the wall. Someone that has such significant influence with young men pin them to the wall and get to the bottom of what was really happening in Romania. Under his watch. Yeah, also.

[MCG]

This firstly, remember that the charges against and to date are just that, their charges. He has not been convicted of any crime of any wrongdoing. I want to be careful because I don’t want to defend and dictate. Agitate is not someone I would have my boys look up to and I’m sure he probably said the same thing. Let them look up to you or not me. And you recently did an interview with Candace Owens with like, a three hour interview, and I found that she went into details. I think we need to be careful here because. This Twitter mashup that you said that were done. Took a lot of agitates, videos and words well out of context. Now I’m not saying that agitate is again some role model for me, right? It’s not the person that I necessarily listen to clearly. He has grown and matured in the last 10 years from when he was in his early 20s, fighting and creating videos and have a basically a pornographic webcam business to know that he’s in his mid 30s where he has unfortunately converted to Islam. I said fortunately because of course, whereby we believe in Christ. And so if he was going through a, quote UN quote, I guess if you want to put it out really just converge and I would prefer that he had converted to biblical Christianity and not Islam. Sure, but that’s not needed here and there. So again, I’m not defending agitate. I find that a lot of what folks are accusing agitated of, they see a clip grossly out of context. I didn’t accuse him and that’s what happened on Twitter. And maybe that’s why Tucker didn’t push back on him. Because maybe Tucker know the truth. So some of the stuff that he was accused of, there’s a video going around of. And and again we didn’t set this episode, which should be parental guidance, but at least this portion of it, parents maybe you want to get rid of your kids from here.

[Jay]

Not get rid of your.

[MCG]

Kids, but just right. Don’t, don’t. Don’t let them listen to this portion of it, I guess. But there’s videos of him, basically. Beating a woman with a belt and she is scantily jazzed in a bed. And they’re going to some kind of a seen or whatever case may be the woman is a former girlfriend of his. She actually has a video out there that’s saying that that was dating, so I’m sure there’s like, what’s the term for that, **** or whatever the case may be, that was their thing. So she said she had no problem with it and you had never hurt her. That’s what they do. So if that’s the case and we only serve small portion of the clip, who do I believe? You could argue maybe because he’s a multi millionaire. He paid off the woman, his former girlfriend to say that. But I have no evidence of that, so I’m going to say, OK, she’s, you know, she said that that’s what they do, if that’s what they do. And she has filed no charges against them, no abuse, nothing. And she’s willing to go on the Internet and say this wasn’t anything. I guess I’m going to take it out. The fact that this wasn’t anything. And another thing that of course he did mention on this interview with Candida, when that he had an A webcam business. That’s not news to anybody. Everybody kind of knew that basically was ***********. Woman just scantily on webcam, having men give them money to do whatever. He admit that they’re the video, the way he said. How we recruited these women to do it. By first being intimate with them and whatever the case may be, then introducing them to his webcam business. And when they say, hey, I have to work, he said. Well, why don’t you come and work for me? They give up their job and they come work for him. Now, again, as morally repugnant as that is. All of it seems to be consensual. Again, I’m not defending agitate, but it seems to me based upon what I’ve researched and what I’ve seen is that firstly, the Romanian Government seems to have nothing against them because they changed the charges from a woman accusing him of kidnap. In her. To now, he’s doing what is called it their I remember the term, but basically sex trafficking. But it’s not sex trafficking as we would think about it in the US it’s more that he kind of seduced ladies to come to his home to be with him and whatever case may be.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

Without their knowledge, they go to his home to do stuff, but they didn’t know they were going to do that. There are two ladies that the Romanian Government said that this happened to. Those two ladies have come forth and say, hey, that wasn’t the case. We did this willingly and you didn’t do anything to us. Basically, we wanted to do whatever we did with him and his brother and wanted the kids. So at this point, it seems like the Roman government is having a victim, except they’re charging him for a crime where there’s no victim and all the parties involved basically say, hey, this was. Consensual between two or three or four adults, whatever nasty stuff they were doing, right? So again, I want to be careful. I don’t want to be sound like I’m defending agitate, but I think there is a lot of evidence. Out there to show concierge. That you know you can’t take something out of context well and you take the this is the small clips here because we missed. Context between that and then, when those ladies coming out again, you could argue, hey, maybe he’s paying them off. Yeah, I don’t know until that is proven, I’m just gonna say, OK, the ladies come out and say that he didn’t do anything to them. They actually think he’s a nice guy, blah, blah, blah. Blah blah, I’m going to say OK, well, I have no evidence of this thing. I’m going to move. On from it. So I see what you’re saying. If that was true, I will say definitely, this is definitely bonkers that Tucker, as a journalist, would not push back. But when I listen to both sides of the argument. I’m coming to the conclusion that I don’t know and it seems more likely. Of course, once this child goes through and everything, we will find out more. But I’m kind of leaning on the side that they’re just simply punishing Andrade. And when I say punishing in him, it’s simply meaning. Dragging him through their justice system, his punishment enough they may not be able to convict him on anything, but the fact that he’s have to go through all this and all his business is now including private stuff that he would probably would not want to put on Internet.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

Is on the Internet for everybody to see this public punishment enough.

[Jay]

But the hypocrisy here, too, is that perhaps the reason why they’re going after him so hard is because he speaks up against their narrative because there are politicians and actors and actresses that are doing. Terrible things like Jeffrey Epstein level things. And no one really cared until just recently, and when Jeffrey Epstein was finally apprehended, everyone in Hollywood was like, Oh yeah, we knew that. We knew that was going on. Same thing with Bill Cosby, everyone. Was like, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. We knew we suspected we knew. So I guess if you’re on the side of the current narrative, if you’re on the side of the people who are currently running things well, then yeah, you can get away with stuff with the hood and a wink. But if you are someone that stands up or punches up against it, well, they’re going to come after you with all they’ve got. Look at what’s happening with President Trump right now. Look what’s happening with many others. Justice Kavanaugh, for example, they really come at you with everything because going through the system, as you said, MCG is punishment enough.

[MCG]

And I just, I just.

[Jay]

And of course, we don’t. No, but it looks like that’s what’s happening.

[MCG]

Right. And I’ll just add this that I guess I’m should say I’m not in full agreement with anybody. I can think of.

[Jay]

Right, right.

[MCG]

I’m definitely not in full agreement. We can’t. If I went or agitate or match watch or.

[Jay]

Trump or anyone?

[MCG]

Ben casino. What have all these against conservative pundits? If you want to call them? I say all that to say this because a question someone posed to me once was. Do you think that they’re necessary though? And I.

[Jay]

Do you think that what? Is necessary the the pundit.

[MCG]

These these conservative stuff agitate from what I listened to him and kind of you think he leaned more libertarian.

[Jay]

OK.

[MCG]

That’s fine. I think I’m probably more libertarian as well, but he say he leans more libertarian. But of course he also said because. He’s not bonkers in the way he thinks that he appears to be conservative. At least, well, what is converging to Islam? Because that as well. But we see that today. People like Elon Musk and other folks who would consider themselves at least the left or cent.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

Sir, or even people like Tim Kass, who will not. That’s their right wing because they’re not bunkers or far left or whatever you want to call it. They appear to be in line with conservatism and that’s one of the reason why, of course, we had that episode, Christians and conservatism, we have that article as well, where we expound on that. Tribal Christianity and conservatism are not the. Same thing that’s. Right, that’s important, but. Do these people create an environment that maybe make their easier to share the gospel? I would say yes. Maybe they helped create what I will refer to as the. Two culture more so than act 17 culture that we are moving to and many can argue that we are already in at Act 17 culture. So maybe people like Andrew Tate and Candace Owens and Ben. Shapiro and these guys maybe help create an environment where it’s more like extracted true, where at least people have some sort of fear of God. And then when we go there, share the gospel, we don’t have to remove. The barrier of evolution and barrier of LGBTQIA and all these things that the world is going to work. So I guess in a sense, you can say they’re necessary in that sense. But at the end of the day, what they preach and what they push. Quite answer is not going to solve the problem. And that’s where. I draw online when it comes to these folks, of course. Again, don’t agree with everything. They have the same. Sure, they don’t agree. Everything I. Have to say and. That’s fine, but where I get. Is the solution? Yes, I think all of us, including them, identify to see the problem. I think at times they will say the problem is cultural. I think the problem is spiritual. You can argue that and you can discuss, but at the end of the day, we identify that there’s a problem. I think the big difference between me and others that think the way I think is that it’s what is the solution because they will put politics, they will push, you know, agitate will push men be men again and women showing respect for men. Which is true. In a sense, but how do we get that to happen? Is it true politics? I don’t believe so. I think it’s true. The Gospel of Jesus Christ change in health and change his mind. So I think that’s the issue here as well. But yeah. All right, I have another one. This one is from Fox News. It says naked man terrorized Los Angeles area apartment complex. A naked man has been terrorizing a Los Angeles area apartment complex, and police say there’s little they can do. According to the residents who called the intruder. On security cameras on multiple occasions, that known man has been seen at least five times walking through the outside areas of an apartment complex on North Sereno Ave. in east. Hollywood neighbors who wish to remain anonymous toll for 11 N Angeles. He’s running around naked, the resident said, adding that families are concerned because there are children in the building. Neighbors have since banded together using surveillance cameras to catch the intruder in the act. One resident said that the man was seen touching himself sexually while walking naked in hallways.

[Jay]

Ohh my word.

[MCG]

Surveillance video shared with the outlet shows the man wandering without clothes on outside. The dwelling one clip appeared to show the man breaking through the window of 1. Residents say they do not know why the naked man breaks into the locked apartment complex and have made multiple complaints to Los Angeles Police Department. What are the LAPD waiting for? Said a resident. For someone to get attacked for someone to get sexually assaulted. Police, however, told the station. That while the department is aware of the complaints, officers cannot arrest the man since no crime has been committed. If that is not the most bonker stuff you ever heard in your.

[Jay]

That is bonkers, my goodness.

[MCG]

Life. What about? Indecent exposure? That is not illegal in Los Angeles, CA anymore.

[Jay]

He tried to get into the apartment through a window. Isn’t that like breaking and entering or something like?

[MCG]

At breaking. That attempted what? What about sexualizing the minor? Because there there’s so many stuff here. I can of course I’m no lawyer, I’m not a police. This is not legal advice. But Oh my world, I didn’t look it up because I don’t even want to know. I guess I. Want to know? But is there not indecent exposure in California? Can you just decide to take your? Clothes off or? Walk around the streets of California or.

[Jay]

I think LAPD just gave up. That’s what it sounds like to me. They’re like, ohh, naked man walking around. OK, cool. Sorry bro, we’ve got bigger problems. I think they just gave up. I don’t think what he’s doing has no legal grounds for them to. To not arrest him like there are plenty of reasons to arrest him. They just won’t. Maybe they don’t have the manpower. Maybe they don’t want to have to deal with the backlash because perhaps they’re hesitating because he’s black and they don’t want the assumption that they’re harassing a black homeless. Obviously mentally ill person, I think they just give up. I think they don’t care anymore because they probably have been fleeing from these areas and they’ve been fleeing to places like. Nevada and Texas and Tennessee because things have gotten so terribly bad there. We have a naked man walking around, touching himself in inappropriate ways. Going in through people’s windows, looking for someone who had been arrested several months prior like this person is obviously mentally unwell. The least you can. Do the least you can do. They show up in the neighborhood and take them away or something? They won’t do anything. That’s that’s bonkers.

[MCG]

Mental evaluation? Probably.

[Jay]

That is bonkers. So now what? You pay your rent every month and you do all you’re supposed to do. You’re a law abiding citizen and you have to deal with this and the taxes that you pay for the LAPD to do their thing. They’re not doing it. Ohh my word. That’s bonkers.

[MCG]

Yeah, I don’t know. Residents said that the man appears to be looking for a tenant who was taken for psychiatric evaluation after she allegedly threatened to blow up a building, K ABC TV reported. Again, as I said, I’m no lawyer, but I can’t imagine that that is not indecent exposure.

[Jay]

Of course.

[MCG]

I can’t imagine that’s not sexualizing. Minor I can’t imagine that it’s not a temper. Me again. Maybe those things are not illegally in California anymore. But again, hey, if your police officer listening to this and you happen to be in California or you know kind of follow laws, maybe you can contact us and tell us why the police can’t arrest this man. But yeah.

[Jay]

That is crazy. That is absolutely crazy. That ohh my word that is. And he’s shameless too, because they have his face on camera. Sound like they don’t know who this person is. Wow, OK. Oh. Well, I have one may not be as bonkers as that one. This is my last one. I think everyone has probably heard of this. Already a U.S. soldier that was facing disciplinary action flees into North Korea. This is an article with Reuters. Let’s see here. An American soldier facing disciplinary action fled across the Inter Korean border into North Korea on Tuesday and was believed to be in North Korean custody, US official said. Creating a fresh crisis for Washington in its dealings with the nuclear armed state. Defense Secretary Austin expressed concern for the soldier, who the US military in Korea said joined an orientation tour of the joint security area between the two Koreas, and willfully and without authorization crossed the Military Demarcation line into the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. So. I think that the story is bonkers for two reasons. Maybe more like 3 reasons. First, what universe do you exist in where it would be OK for you to leave voluntarily? South Korea and US custody to go to North Korea. What do you possibly think would be better for you over there than what you had going for you here, even if you were facing military disciplinary action, anything that you’re facing in terms of disciplinary action in the US would be better. Than anything you would be facing in North Korea, what goes through a person’s mind? To make him think that. I don’t even have words for it. I don’t even know how to say it. How to express it? In what universe do you think that you’re better off in North Korea? I guess is what I’m trying to say.

[MCG]

Well, two things I think. Well, you can say, well, you find out he has. He has he.

[Jay]

Mess around and find.

[MCG]

Found out. Hmm, that’s assuming that he might get there after one beer. Treatment he may not because Atom one bill was actually charged with a crime with a faulty, so he was actually charged with a crime and went to court and, quote UN quote, was convicted of his crime. But I’m actually leaning toward the fact that his military, of course, I know he didn’t really have any rank. Was he a? Private or something?

[Jay]

Private, yeah.

[MCG]

He really, really never had to rank or anything, but he had to train in. So how much does he? No, that he can use and help the Korean media, Korean government and not Korean government. He might actually be given a wife and say, hey, train our soldiers be an interpreter, give us some information about the basin, sub career and all this stuff. Exchange for a wife and a family and freedom.

[Jay]

Freedom in North Korea, OK.

[MCG]

Yeah, I guess I can sections of freedom, but who knows? Who knows what they’re going to do that gets the best assumption would be that they’re gonna throw him in jail and give him the at the one be a treatment. But I guess the best solution he can think about that he might have a life and not career that he might not even have here, so to speak, because they might just say. How much can we get from this guy? He’s in the military. I’m sure he knows something that America wouldn’t want. The North Korean government to know that he can share with them, who knows? But definitely I’m not willfully going into that career, but.

[Jay]

Ohh, I just find it to be bonkers because so him crossing over the DMZ. And going into North Korea can be viewed by North Korea as an act of this might be a stretch, but I wonder if it could be viewed as an act of war because he’s an active duty service member. This isn’t some.

[MCG]

Well, he was in civilian clothing and stuff like that. And I guess if the American government. Well, I don’t know this maybe the American government didn’t reveal that he was a member of the army.

[Jay]

They would have never known, perhaps.

[MCG]

I think the armed force, he probably never know. Or he might have divulged it again. I can see that they used this to their advantage.

[Jay]

One of the people that saw him crossover said that he was laughing the whole way, like sprinting and laughing. The whole way. Another thing that’s bonkers to me is like young people and their impulsivity and their lack of being able to see two steps ahead. Like, Oh yeah, this probably isn’t going to work out well for me this. That I don’t know if it’s social media doing this to us, where we think pranks and impulsive things are funny and desirable. I’m thinking of a YouTuber who handed his girlfriend in 1911 done pistol and decided to hold a book that was maybe an inch maybe an inch and a half thick in front of his chest and challenged her to shoot him point. Blank because he thought the book would stop the bullet and she shot him dead. This was supposed to be for some YouTube video that they were doing. He wanted to do wild and crazy impulsive. Things for the shock value, and he ended up dying as a result. Like these young people don’t seem to put two and two together that, yeah, you might get a few laughs from people, but it might also end in your death. There was a YouTuber who was doing the same thing, pranked someone at a shopping mall and was shot for his trouble. It seems to be that young people, their brains aren’t. Developing at the rate they’re supposed to, because even in their 20s and 30s, they’re doing some pretty crazy stuff. It’s bonkers to me. You ever even think that’s?

[MCG]

OK, maybe they don’t have enough responsibilities. I don’t know. But thinking about this military. Young men who run across the border into North Korea. Well, how many countries could he go to to avoid US prosecution? Again, what he did was pretty minor. If anything, you probably get a year or two in jail or whatever the case may be. Got his life back after being dishonorably discharged, but guess he figured whatever outcome you’re going to get from the US going to North Korea would prevent the US from getting him. I can only think about three countries that you can go to to avoid. The US and that would be. Russia, North Korea and what is it, Ecuador? And if you want to say full probably China but but I think China probably would still send the prisoner back if the US accurate in some respect. So I wouldn’t say China so much guess China could be India as well. And I guess maybe countries in the Middle East you can say, but? Those first three that I mentioned are definitely the US I know for sure can’t just decide we are we going to go in. To get them. Of course they can do that with China, but I think they have a better relationship with China than Russia or North Korea or whatever the case may be. So I don’t know. I guess he figured, hey, I go there. I can learn Korean. I already know English. They can use me for so many stuff I don’t know. Clearly, he didn’t think it’s true because it’s a gamble, you know.

[Jay]

Right.

[MCG]

It could become. What’s their president name over there in North Korea, Kim Jong Un, it could become one of Kim Jong Un, right? And man, where he can help them military wise so he could go and work in the field for the rest. Of his life and.

[Jay]

When camp, somewhere.

[MCG]

Some labor.

[Jay]

What did he say?

[MCG]

You know, I don’t know which one is going to be, but anyways.

[Jay]

That’s bonkers.

[MCG]

Yeah, I want to read this article. This article is not bonkers, but I want to read it because I think it’s encapsulate what we’re trying to do here on the removing Barris podcast. The title of article is politics won’t save. Nation and it’s by David Cloud on the way of life website, he said. America’s root problems are spiritual. And the only real solution is spiritual. The only thing that will help America in her terrible plight is a true revival. And there could be revival at some level, particularly in individual churches. Revivals always begin at God’s house with God’s people. Second chronicles 714. My people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and shall seek my faith and turn from their wicked ways. Then will I hear from her. And will forgive their sin and will heal their land. This is a promise for Israel, but he has application to the church age and he says, see Romans 15, verse four and 1st Corinthians 10 and 11. Nothing like a revival and lasting change will happen through moral majority programs or tea parties. Or Chick-fil-A days. Or Trump rallies, as these have been tried repeatedly and enthusiastically over the past few decades, that the privity has only increased and the power of the forces for the right. And Liberty has only decreased because these are carnal weapons that deal with symptoms and cannot adjust. The foundational spiritual issues. These are band aids on cancer. They can win political skirmishes, but not spiritual wars. The heart of the tree is being eaten away. Even as the watchers are pleased at keeping a few leaves. Live some type of revival could happen if individual Christians and individual Christian homes and individual churches will repent of an adulterous love for this God hating world. Repent of setting the affections. More on things below than things above. Repent of lukewarmness and earnestly. Teach God’s help. Who knows how far the forces of evil could be driven back? God has never needed a majority Gideons. Valiant few are enough, but so many churches are like Sardis. They have a name that they live, but they are. They’re comfortable in the world, not programs, but dwellers mighty for potluck but weak for spiritual warfare, zealous for video games and sports, and consuming flitting hours of social media vanity but not zealous students of God’s word passionate for parties, but not for prayer. Why prayer? According to 1st 22 verse one to two that we may lead a quiet and peaceful life is all godliness. When God knows that we will not live such lives, it’s past time for pastors to rise up and lead their churches in true revival. Better to have 50 people if need be with God’s blessing and power. That 200 without it. Are we afraid of losing members and finances if we take God’s word seriously? If so, we are mere hirelings, my brethren. We not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. Then what good is it to have pews filled and bills paid when we ain’t pleasing the head of the church and we are spiritually powerless with God, blessing and power, we can have real eternal fruit. Without it, there’s nothing but wood, hay and stubble. So I like that article because as I said, I think it comes to late, very succinctly what we try to do on the remove embarrassed podcast in the sense that we have been saying over and over and over that what we are seeing in America, what we’re seeing happen in the West. Is not a cultural issue, it’s a spiritual issue and it can only be solved spiritually and again, go back to what I said earlier about, you know, the Candice Owens of the world, the bench periods of the world and all the other, the agitates, the right wingers that trying to. Bring back some sort of moral. Status in the country? Yeah, they might have some fruits here or there or whatever the case may be, but it’s not going to happen until Christians rise up and share the gospel. As we say, this world has gone bonkers. We have a naked man walking around apartment complex and police say they can’t do anything. We have parents want to marry their kids. We have children buying guns on the dark web. I think this is a call for Christians because they start with us as David close to revolve with us for us. And then once the revolver happen with us, we will definitely spread out where we go and present the gospel. So that’s my plea. That’s my urge to see Christian rise up and see. This world is bonker. Then we need to share the gospel, of course, to a lost and dying world.

[Jay]

Hey, thanks so much for listening to the Removing Barriers podcast. Did you know that you could find us on Twitter, Gab Parlor, Facebook and Reddit? Go to removingbarriers.net/contact and like and follow us on social media, removing barriers? A clearview of the cross?

[MCG]

Thank you for listening. To get a hold of us to support this podcast or to learn more about removing barriers. Go to removingbarriers.net. This has been the removing barriers podcast. We attempted to remove barriers so that we all can have a clear view of the cross.